Rumsfeld Bans Camera Phones In Iraq... Or Not
from the oh-come-on... dept
Just as a number of news stories have come out over the past few weeks talking about how technologies like camera phones have changed the way war is perceived in ways that those running the war in Iraq simply didn't expect, comes the completely unsurprising news that Donald Rumsfeld has responded to the various photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse by banning camera phones at military bases in Iraq. Now, no matter what your politics are, or however you feel about the situation in Iraq, (and as unsurprising as this is) this seems like a particularly pointless move. First of all, I'm sure taking camera phone photos within a military prison environment was already very much against the rules before this happened. However, it still happened. All this does is ban a technology, not an action. Second, and more importantly, this doesn't seem like what you do when you're trying to put a stop to whatever caused the prisoner abuse to happen in the first place - it's an action to prevent more such "bad publicity" from getting out there. It's the typical reaction to technology when it's used against you: ban the technology that unveiled something embarrassing, rather than trying to stop whatever was the real cause of the embarrassment. That, alone, is an embarrassment. For someone so focused on using technology for military purposes, to then go and assume that technology is only okay when he controls it shows a particular lack of understanding about how technology works. Technology empowers everyone - and those who assume it only empowers their side show a particular lack of foresight. Update: Engadget points us to a story from a few weeks ago at TheDailyFarce, which looks somewhat similar - raising the question as to whether or not this is yet another case where media sources were taken in by farcical online stories.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
Like a lock, this is just trying to keep an honest person honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ban photos is good practice
Same goes for photographs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ban photos is good practice
Banning camera phones, is going one step further into banning the technology.
As I said, I'm sure it was already illegal to photograph things. However, to then come out and ban camera phones, rather than dealing with the core problems, would look very bad. It says "here's how we cover stuff up" not "here's how we fix things." That's my complaint. I'm not saying that photos should be allowed... but that banning camera phones is a stupid move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ban photos is good practice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ban photos is good practice
Normally it makes sense to ban cameras to protect military secrets, but in this case, with the ban being announced so soon after embarrassing activity was exposed, it leads one to believe that they are not sorry for the activity, but they are sorry that the activity was documented and distributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they really banned?
http://www.thedailyfarce.com/national.cfm?story=2004/05/national_mrlewinhasesppowers_05200400027
H ere is my story I wrote on it:
http://www.thedailyfarce.com/stories/2004/05/world_moreabusepictures_05200400006.cfm
Cheers,
Marcel o Lewin
The Daily Farce News
marcelo@thedailyfarce.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]