Kuwait bans DSLRs in public places

[dspindle]

<p>I just read about this on Ken Rockwell's site http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm, and I'm afraid that I don't get it. I don't understand why they did this, and also don't understand Rockwells endorsment of the move (ironic sarcasm aside). I also don't understand how this could possibly work. From a distance, a person can't tell if I'm shooting with my D90 or my F6.<br>

What's your take?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I've been bemused by this too, and have to assume it's from the same confused political attitude that got all photographers flagged as potential terrorists in the UK (although whatever KR says about the world not being the same as the US, the only place anyone's ever requested that I put a camera away is Los Angeles). Banning <i>cameras</i> I could vaguely understand, but just banning DSLRs (i.e. the cameras you're most likely to notice someone using) is pretty pointless from both a terrorism and personal privacy perspective. As far as I can tell, I could use my point-and-shoots, my camera phones, my Pentax 645, my F5, my Bessa or, if I got one, a GF-1, but for some reason not my D700. If anyone knows what's going on, I'd love to know the justification for it. Not that I'm planning to visit Kuwait any time soon...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>This injunction of course, is based on a very strict interpretation of the Commandment in the Ten Commandments that so many people want posted on public land in the USA.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since a camera in general does make likenesses, a real fundamentalist of any of the religions based on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions can object to representative art altogether, not just photography or dSLR photography.</p>

<p>Of course, those who want to weaken this have said <em>idol</em> instead of <em>image</em>, but if the King James version is directly inspired by God, then this is clearly unwarranted political correctness.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>and also don't understand Rockwells endorsment of the move (ironic sarcasm aside).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Surely it's all ironic sarcasm.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Warning: you are entering a politically incorrect area. May contain mild ironic sarcasm.</p>

</blockquote>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Re-reading the original Kuwait Times article, it sounds as though the issue is with peopls who "aren't used to art" objecting to anyone using something that looks like a camera. Without knowing the details of the (proposed?) ban, I have to assume it applies to anything that's obvious and camera-ish - although whether people would recognise a view camera I don't know. It sounds as though a compact camera is okay because it's not as obvious. This might be the first time I've seen someone legislate against looking like a photographer rather than actually being one. It still sounds mad to me (even with my best will to sympathise with a potential religious origin), bet then so did the "watch out for people photographing buildings in London, because they might be terrorists planning an attack" approach we have in the UK.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p><a href="http://thenextweb.com/me/2010/11/23/kuwait-dslr-camera-ban-now-in-effect/">More commentary.</a> Sounds like it's happening.</p>

[charles_hohenstein]

<p>I wish that we could ban them here.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I wish that we could ban them here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are banned in my house!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Luddites amongst us? Horrors.<br>

Get out your sabots, boys, there's machinery to wreck. Maybe start with your electronic connection to the internet, send in your posts by the US or other mail systems. Whee.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I imagine it was just a poor interpretation and they do not want people with big camera's taking snaps of things. Maybe they are hiding something or maybe it's to keep the girls safe from the photogs. I have a D200 so I guess I am safe from the Luddite thing. I even have an electronic gadget on my bicycle. It tells me how far it is to work and back every day. The distance never changes but if it does I will be the first to know because of my electronic gadget. In the old days we used to have a little milage thing that had a little rubber band type belt and it just rolled around as you rode your bicycle.. I was a Luddite back then because I rejected the device as no good. But now I am not a Luddite because I have a gadget on my bike and a DSLR.</p>

[thomas semesky]

<p>My nephew works in Kuwait. He sent me this link: <a href="http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/162386/reftab/73/t/Camera-banregressive-idea/Default.aspx">http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/162386/reftab/73/t/Camera-banregressive-idea/Default.aspx</a><br>

He also sent me a link to a Kuwait TV station talking about the ban, but it's in Arabic.<br>

They are getting pretty serious in that country about many things. GOD BLESS AMERICA!</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Frankly it was pretty unlikely that I'd ever visit Kuwait. </p>

<p>But there's no chance now. </p>

<p>Some countries seem quite unembarrassed about banning the most stupid things for reasons of "culture". Why doesn't the West do the same? </p>

[thomas semesky]

<p>RETRACTION: My nephew who is working in Kuwait just sent me this link: <a href="http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTEyNzcyNzcwOQ%3D%3D">http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTEyNzcyNzcwOQ%3D%3D</a></p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I can only assume that what happened was whatever ministry or ministries that issued the ban are full of old guys operating under the assumption that professionals shoot digital, and students and artsy folk shoot film. Under this assumption, it would make perfect sense to only ban 'professional' cameras in public areas.</p>

<p>The retraction probaby happened when someone explained to them that it wasn't that simple.</p>

[thomas semesky]

<p>Good point, Zack!</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>It seems to have taken the Kuwaiti authorities a whole week to decide that the ban was misinformation and have a retraction published in a daily newspaper. I think we can probably assume that the retraction was published the day after the newspaper were told that it was necessary. Probability that the ban was real , removed when Kuwait realised that it would make them a laughing stock, and decided that the newspaper would be the fall guy?</p>

[peter_phipp1]

<p>Its all a hoax says Kuwait</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>Probability that the ban was real , . . .</i><P>

That is not a safe assumption. Journalistic standards in the U.S. and England, as low as they may be at times, are actually quite high in regards to checking facts before publication and correcting errors. I know that, here in Korea, verifying facts and verifying the credibility of sources before publication is NOT standard operating procedure for journalists. I've seen articles in national newspapers here quoting made-up data from the leader of an anti-foreigner hate group as if it was factual. National papers also reported the death of Bill Gates several years ago based on email rumors.

[siamakjafari]

i assumed its a political trick as some high government importers have imported compact and semicompact digital cammeras and by this they try to sale them !

[paul_de_ley]

<blockquote>

<p>Journalistic standards in the U.S. and England, as low as they may be at times, are actually quite high in regards to checking facts before publication and correcting errors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But of course, especially these days when it is so easy and profitable for US media outlets to buy prepackaged "<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary">Video News Releases</a>" and engage in such a <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/532/media-manipulation">wide array of other strategies</a> to minimize their own expenditures on any actual journalism for their "news" reporting.</p>

<p>Or to provide an echo chamber for the witch hunting and reinventing of US laws to shut down agents of embrassment like WikiLeaks, rather than reporting on the actual contents and implications of the documents WikiLeaks has revealed. When is the last time corporate media in the US made a genuine effort to investigate the facts when it comes for example to <a href="http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-cable-corroborates-evidence-us-airstrikes-yemen-2010-12-01">US airstrikes in Yemen</a> or exchanges with <a href="http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/wikileaks-on-colombia-uribe-“views-military-success-in-terms-of-kills”-army-commander-ospina-tried-to-initimidate-witnesses-to-extrajudicial-executions/">Colombian military and US media darling Alvaro Uribe</a> on subjects such as civilian massacres, or the perceived threat of <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/can.politics/browse_thread/thread/ee7bff34e56fddc2">Hugo Chavez and failed White House attempts to orchestrate coups</a> in Venezuela.</p>