Slashdot Mirror
Kuwait Bans DSLR Cameras Use For Non-Journalists
DaveNJ1987 writes "Kuwait has banned the use of Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras in public places for anyone who is not a journalist. The ban, which was passed by the unanimous agreement of the country's Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Information and Ministry of Finance, prevents the public from using DSLR devices on the streets of the Middle Eastern State. Tourists are to be affected by the new laws and must be aware of this before travelling to Kuwait. Smaller digital cameras and camera phones are exempt from the ban."
An ironic twist I think... I know many people whose DSLR pictures totally suck because the camera is beyond their ability to master even simple photographs. Also, ironically, anyone who would want useful information from digital pictures can readily shoot quality pictures with non-DSLR digital cameras. Is this for real?
Are these cameras legal on the streets of USA? From this past decade of news, it seems like it is illegal in USA too.
If you can identify a journalist by his camera, it's easier to target journalists when you want to keep "bad news" from leaving the country.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Why? Is there any reason at all for this ban? Help me out here.
I guess they don't want HQ telephotography of abuse of power from safe locations etc, where they won't even know who's photographing them so they can't see who they should arrest. :-p
However... Smaller digital cameras OK? Uh, what about the Canon SX30 IS with 35x zoom? That's better than my Nikon D90 with my 200mm lens. While perhaps not the same optical quality, this doesn't matter at all unless they're trying to ban photographs with a nice bokeh, or low noise levels, haha. :p
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Oops, I guess it is.
http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
We've all seen or heard about such things. Primitive, uneducated, unsophisticated peoples often fear that cameras will steal their souls.
Maybe DSLRs are considered big enough to steal souls while camera phones and point-and-shoots just aren't big enough to hold a soul.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
They did it because they can, and because nobody will punish them for their temerity with a bullet in the head.
They can't be tyrants because we, the US of A, liberated the Kuwaiti Royal Family and this monarchy from the evils of Saddam Hussein; which we then invaded Iraq to free its people from the oppressive tyranny of that tyrant in order to install a democracy.
Don't you just love US foreign policy?
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Most point and shoots do not do 10x or better. Go check newegg.com if you doubt me.
I pretty much wrote off your entire post when you mentioned digital zoom, BTW. Mentioning digital zoom when the question is about quality and clarity of an image is a sign of utter ignorance.
Or what about interchangeable lens cameras with an LED-based "viewfinder" that do not actually use a reflex mirror? I think they're called by some "bridge cameras", and I'm not entirely sure I understand what the advantage of the reflex mechanism is for a digital camera. (for a film camera, yeah, I completely understand. But those reasons mostly don't translate to digial *at all*.)
In reality, I suspect that the term DSLR is being abused similarly to "assault weapons" is in the US. The law really means any camera that looks too scary to be permitted to civilians, and the real definition will be defined ex post facto.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
Do you want to explain the distinction between an optical and electronic viewfinder to the local police?
What?
Talking about 10x or 20x is irrelevant. Ten times what? A 200-400mm lens is technically only 2x, but it goes further than any point and shoot camera. Most point and shoot cameras start at around 20-30mm and go to about 100-200mm focal distance, since that's the range most people want.
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
USians simply don't grasp the fact that, bar war zones, they live in some of the places with the highest homicide rates in the world.
The mental blockage to link phallic enthusiasm for guns and homicide rates eludes other wise reasonable pople (oh wait, half of you would vote for Sarah Palin if given a chance. Forget what I said)....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's about keeping track of journalists by limiting an easily identified tool for journalists and a way of throwing "unregistered" journalists out of the country. They see that journalists carry DSLRs so that's what they limit for all of those situations where a journalist has to put a different profession on the visa to be allowed into the country. The technical details of the cameras are not important since it is a tool of social control, which we will find when a journalist with a point and shoot camera is charged.
Kuwait is a very corrupt country but depends on having a good reputation so they don't like journalists poking their cameras into unexpected places.