Kuwait Not Banning DSLR Cameras After All

Voulnet writes "The Kuwait Times, the newspaper that started the false rumor of Kuwait banning DSLR cameras, has posted an update saying that after investigation, it turned out they didn't verify their information. They have now issued a retraction. Quoting: 'The newspaper regrets failing to verify the information. The article wrongly stated that a ban on DSLR cameras was implemented by the Ministries of Information, Social Affairs and Finance. This information is false. In a follow up investigation, it was proved that no such ban has been issued. We regret this error and deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused.'"

Comments

Backup career

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this should be encouraging to the slashdot editors, if their career doesn't work out at slashdot they can always go to work for The Kuwait Times.

Re:Backup career

[AK Marc]

Fact checking was always done better than this. This was "the government says" and the government never says. In the US, we get "Bob on the street says the government says" which is a fact, even if Bob is wrong. America has perfected the art of being 100% wrong without accountability. Anything that drives up paper sales while not opening them up to lawsuits is greatly encouraged, regardless of the truth. Facts and the truth are unrelated in the US.

All Lies

[Doc Ruby]

And how much of the rest of the Kuwait Times' stories are also total bullshit that they just printed without spending a dime to see if it was true, or even plausible?

How much of the rest of the "news"? What an incredible racket to have a business that peddles lies every day, without consequences.

Re:All Lies

[PolygamousRanchKid]

How much of the rest of the "news"? What an incredible racket to have a business that peddles lies every day, without consequences.

Didn't some newspaper editor once say, "If a dog bites a man, that is not news. If a man bites a dog, that is news. If a man doesn't bite a dog . . . invent a story which says he did."

Journalists often are spies

[PolygamousRanchKid]

It was interesting that journalists were exempted from the now retracted "ban". Traditionally spooks have used journalism as a cover for their real job. Who else can go snooping around, asking politicians difficult questions? The infamous British spy, Kim Philby ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby ) worked for The Economist while stationed in the Middle East. Oh, but he was actually working for the Soviet Union. There must be a "in Soviet Russia, The Economist reporter works for you!" joke in there somewhere.

Other good covers for "legal" spooks are in embassies. With some silly title like "Under Secretary for Cultural Exchange." A retired spook once commented, "If you want to find a spy, look for someone in the embassy who is much too clever for his job." The office for issuing visas is another good place. Before 9/11, a colleague of mine needed to travel on business to the US. Even though there were no restrictions for his nationality, he went to the US embassy, and applied for a visa anyway. He told me that he was surprised how tough the officer grilled him: "You do not need a visa any more, so why are you applying for one?"

I laughed my ass off, and then told him that the "embassy official" probably reported to Langley.

Re:Journalists often are spies

[MrQuacker]

Yo dawg, I heard you like spying. So we put spies inside your spies, so they can spy you spying the spying spies.

Oh, and 34" rims.

Re:DSLRs suck anyway

[Lehk228]

so how exactly would you take photos aligned properly to the viewfinder without running the sensor hot all the time, which lowers SNR?

Re:yea whatever

[Ihmhi]

Anger-laden post aside, he's right. Unless it's a huge fuck-up (and Todd doesn't pick up his phone), you'll never see a retraction on the front page or anywhere easily noticeable.

Department of Logic

[tverbeek]

Rumors can be false or true. The term "rumors" itself does not specify (or even imply) one or the other, so "false rumors" is not redundant.

Re:Technically correct - it's not just DSLRs

[ColdWetDog]

Two things:

1. All public photography is illegal in Kuwait, except for licensed journalists. This includes DSLRs, compacts, camera phones, video, everything.

Really?. Kuwait doesn't seem do too well on the enforcement end of things.

Kuwait does not publish its laws, has no freedom of information - legally or culturally - and sees no problem at all with lying about what the law is. Like all police states, Kuwait would rather that everyone be guilty of something. Enforcement is completely arbitrary - visiting businessmen (better believe I mean 'men') taking snaps are unlikely to be hassled, unless you do something rash like film the slave labour conditions in their foreign-staffed construction sites.

You might just type a bit before you rant on... Yes, I am sure that Kuwait does all manner of nasty, underhanded things (rather like some other countries we mention from time to time) but your comments are uselessly hyperbolic.

Re:Technically correct - it's not just DSLRs

[Voulnet]

Where the hell do you bring this bullcrap from? Photography is one of the most spread hobbies in Kuwait, and many competitions and exhibitions are routinely held around Kuwait.
Don't you feel really sick inside when you deliberately twist all sorts of information just to show your hate to people who didn't do anything to you? What a low life.
Also, Kuwait publishes its laws, and every additions or modifications to it. In fact it has an official newspaper dedicated to doing just that. Kuwait a police state? LOL, you have absolutely no knowledge about things you write. If anything, Kuwait is on the opposite polar side of being a police state. Unless, you know, a country with a three letter acronym >.>