Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kuwait Not Banning DSLR Cameras After All

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the false-alarm dept.

Censorship 63

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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

There's no official ban (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34362962)

However, it'd probably be unofficially enforced.

Re:There's no official ban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363130)

No there isn't ..

Re:There's no official ban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363288)

You obviously never been or lived in Kuwait. We have numerous laws here, the majority of which are not even enforced

Re:There's no official ban (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363592)

I guess it was a case of 'vorauseilender Gehorsam"

'speeding ahead obediance' would be a litteral translation, meaning giving in to pressure, before the pressure even occurs.

Who gets to profit? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363634)

If there's a rumor, it has started somewhere.

Who profits from such a rumor? My bet would be on some consumer products retailer who is worried that too many people in Kuwait are buying DSLR cameras instead of the cameras he has in stock.

Kuwaitis are rich enough to buy more sophisticated products than they really need and Kuwait is a small country where rumors spread fast, so this could be some kind of marketing effort.

Backup career (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34362988)

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.

See what I did there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363002)

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.

The Kuwait Times doesn't do fact-checking

Get the picture?

Re:See what I did there? (1, Offtopic)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363042)

Don't Explain The Joke

Re:See what I did there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363526)

Don't capitalize each word.

Re:See what I did there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363616)

OK

Re:See what I did there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34364270)

Don't Tell People What To Do.

Re:See what I did there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34364594)

Don't have conversation with yourself.

Re:Backup career (0, Troll)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363116)

They could work for almost any newspaper or broadcaster. Fact checking is something journalists used to do, these days its regarded as a waste of money that might spoil a good story.

Re:Backup career (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34364352)

Fact checking is something journalists used to do, these days its regarded as a waste of money that might spoil a good story.

Actually, that's pretty much the way it's always been. Yes, you can point out a few publications from various times that did fact checking. But at any given time, most of them didn't bother. Fact checking was a waste of time that could be better spent producing more stories for the customers to read. Ya gotta have lots of that sorta stuff to pad out the ads, after all.

Re:Backup career (2, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366194)

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.

yea whatever (0, Offtopic)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34362994)

bullshit bullshit

and a few days later whoops on the back page between used car ad's ...

you got your headline, you got your sale, your happy, so why even bother?

oh thats right so you can be responsible! even though you cant bother to even check 1 fact before printing money =(

they should print this crap on softer paper, then we could get some use out of it for wiping our ass on the already printed shit

Re:yea whatever (2, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363324)

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

Re:yea whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363412)

Best. Escalation. Procedure. Ever.

CAPTCHA: "untried"

All Lies (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363004)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363034)

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.

I just thought "Fox News" when reading that.

Re:All Lies (2, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363072)

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."

Re:All Lies (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34364444)

What an incredible racket to have a business that peddles lies every day, without consequences.

Yeah, the folks at The Onion [theonion.com] seem to be doing a pretty good job. Maybe the other "news" organizations are simply watching their success, and following in their footsteps.

And note that The Onion has a long-standing policy of never admitting that they publish parody and satire. They do so despite (or maybe because of) the fact that their stories frequently get quoted as fact.

For that matter, during the last couple of US elections, surveys repeatedly reported that the best-informed voters were those who watched Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) and Stephen Colbert (The Colbert Report).

This will probably trigger a lot of correlation-vs-causation replies ...

Well they were never banning them _NOW_ (1)

IBitOBear (410965) | more than 3 years ago | (#34371736)

My first thought was that the ban was real, but _NOW_ it was never real. Once the ban got out and people noticed the dumb, then mouthpiece-of-the-government newspaper of record "discovers" that they didn't do their research and no such ban was ever planned.

"I must find out where my people are going, so I can run out that way and lead them".

I would put $10 on the ban having been originally real, but once everything we discussed about it here was discussed about it _everywhere_ someone noticed that it would be a dumb move and counter to the overall interests of the state, at which point documents were shredded and retractions were printed to cover the original error (bad idea) up with the pretense of error (we got our story wrong at the paper).

You don't even need a tinfoil hat to see that one as obvious.

DSLRs suck anyway (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363032)

I hope this outdated concept will disappear from the market pretty soon.

Re:DSLRs suck anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363048)

I'm in the market for a new camera. Why are they outdated? Maybe I'm missing the joke.

You do realise... (1)

gweilo8888 (921799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363064)

...that nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use "this outdated concept", right? Your lack of desire to use a product doesn't mean it has to disappear from the market -- and I think you'll find that most pros -- who rely solely on SLRs of various flavors for their incomes -- would probably disagree with you on this desire.

Re:DSLRs suck anyway (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363084)

You have *no* idea what you are talking about.

Re:DSLRs suck anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363326)

You have *no* idea what you are talking about.

Welcome to slashdot.

Re:DSLRs suck anyway (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363104)

Yes, a through-the-lens optical preview of the image as it exists momentarily before exposure is an entirely outdated concept now that we can capture that image on a digital sensor then electronically re-display it some number of seconds later.

There's a reason that the market for TLRs disappeared and the only viable rangefinder (Leica system) is based on a design from 1953. Viewfinder cameras are great if you can automatically know the distance to your subject or understand hyperfocal focusing, otherwise they're useless. Point and shoots are basically viewfinders with a non-reviewable AF rangefinder.

Strangely enough, the only currently viable non-SLR, non-RF design being produced is the view camera yes, the ones with the bags over the head, which predates all other forms of camera by at least 50 years.

I hope you enjoy your well-earned lulz, good sir troll. Next time pick something less obvious.

Re:DSLRs suck anyway (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34364526)

I hope you enjoy your well-earned lulz, good sir troll. Next time pick something less obvious.

Hmmm ... I'd sorta assumed that the anonymous "troll" was a professional photographer making an unsubtle joke.

Apparently it was too subtle for some of the readers here.

I just got a new Canon t2i. It's one of the best cameras I've ever used, and is far easier to use than any point-and-shoot that I've ever seen. Well, except for the usual problem with digitals, that the complex UI sometimes does things very different than what I expected or wanted, and I have to figure out how to back it out of whatever mysterious state it's gotten itself into. But I've seen that with a number of the latest P&S cameras which also try to do more than what their users want. This is really a problem with the "D" in "DSLR", not with the "SLR" part. Anything digital always comes with a complex "nerdview" UI for the first decade or so. Its main problem is that it doesn't fit in my pocket. But it does do a good job of telling people that I'm a serious photographer. ;-)

Re:DSLRs suck anyway (2, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363134)

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

Re:DSLRs suck anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363978)

You can buy mirrorless cameras right now (Olympus Pen E-PL, Sony NEX) or similar (Sony Alpha 33/55 which are using a translucent mirror).

DSLRs are still the high end for multiple reasons, screen are not good for high luminosity outdoors, and even inside (or Sony Alpha 33/55), screens have a bad dynamic range compared to what standard viewfinders provide, and screens usually display laggy image in low-light (more related to captor/electronic but still).
In addition, screens aren't always very good at displaying colors.

I think that maybe something like the Sony Alphas could replace high-end DSLRs because you still have the phase-detection system and you can add interesting information on the viewfinder (histograms, magnification, ...), but the technology has to improve to get there.

Journalists often are spies (4, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363068)

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 [wikipedia.org] ) 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 (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363176)

It's called "official cover".. those are the spies you send to tell the spies in the other country that you have spies there.

Re:Journalists often are spies (3, Funny)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363192)

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:Journalists often are spies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363330)

How is this only +1?

Is the DHS going to take the Kuwait Times domain? (1)

mlawrence (1094477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363148)

"'American business is under assault from counterfeiters and pirates every day, seven days a week," Seems to me "kuwaittimes.net" needs to be added to the list of 75 domains the US government seized earlier this week.

Re:Is the DHS going to take the Kuwait Times domai (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363202)

You're right. It's blatant counterfeiting of one of our biggest corporations. Faux Newz.

Department of redundancy department (-1, Redundant)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363256)

False rumors eh? Damn, and I thought they were publishing true rumors.

Department of Logic (2, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34364314)

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:Department of Logic (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34365142)

You’re both missing it. It’s a dictatorship.

Last month they had always been at war with eastasia and DSLR cameras were being banned.

Today they’ve always been at war with eurasia and they deny that they ever banned DSLR cameras.

Re:Department of Logic (1)

mraudigy (1193551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34365502)

You’re both missing it. It’s a dictatorship.

Actually, Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy. As an expatriate both living and working in Kuwait, I can assure you it is NOTHING like a dictatorship.

Re:Department of Logic (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34365890)

As an expatriate both living and working in Kuwait, I can assure you it is NOTHING like a dictatorship.

As an outside observer living elsewhere in the world, you could’ve fooled me. Did, actually.

Re:Department of Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34366000)

Which says a lot more about your (lack of) observational skills than it does about the situation in Kuwait.

Re:Department of Logic (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34366376)

My observation skills told me that a month ago, Kuwait was banning DSLR cameras, and now they claim they never did any such thing. Not my problem if Kuwait can’t get their story straight.

Re:Department of Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34371320)

So your observational skills amount to "reading stuff on the intarwebs". Not quite as authoritative as someone who with first-hand knowledge of what the fuck he's talking about. Someone with average-or-better intelligence would defer to such people, rather than claiming that having your head up your ass makes you better informed than they are.

Re:Department of Logic (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387640)

The Head of State (Emir) is the supreme commander of the State, controlling the executive branch though his ministers. ... The Emir of Kuwait is immune and inviolable: any criticism against him is not tolerated and punishable by law. He can dissolve the National Assembly and call a national election, or in cases of national emergency can dismiss the National Assembly outright and assume supreme authority over the country.

... There have been several conflicts between the Emir, the government and the National Assembly over various policies. The National Assembly was suspended from 1976 to 1981, from 1986 to 1991 and from May 1999 to July 1999... The Assembly was dissolved again in May 2009 by the Emir leading to the resignation of Prime Minister Sheik Nasser Mohammad al-Ahmad al-Sabah and the rest of the Cabinet.

That’s not a constitutional monarchy, it’s a dictatorship... and, when he’s feeling particularly benevolent, the Emir lets you pretend you’re a constitutional monarchy.

I’m glad you enjoy your make-believe constitutional monarchy.

Fun to watch on slashdot (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363292)

Cue thousands of people who stood screaming on a soapbox before to ... mumble something before scuttling off.

who cares (-1, Flamebait)

mgabrys (14614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363316)

Why the fuck should I give two-shits about Kuwait? Because we used them as an excuse to start a war there 20 years ago? Ya I'll pencil that info into my future travel plans which - at a glance would beeeee .... never. But I get the whole "tech-angle" argument. Perhaps you can post an article about their bans on battery-powered singing-dildo's and I might find it interesting enough to look at the headline.

Re:who cares (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34363346)

1/10

Try harder next time, but I'll give you 1 point for effort.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363350)

Why the fuck should I give two-shits about Kuwait? Because we used them as an excuse to start a war there 20 years ago? Ya I'll pencil that info into my future travel plans which - at a glance would beeeee .... never. But I get the whole "tech-angle" argument. Perhaps you can post an article about their bans on battery-powered singing-dildo's and I might find it interesting enough to look at the headline.

Not to mention writing your own comment.

Re:who cares (1)

mgabrys (14614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34453820)

I did write that comment fagballs. Do the planet a favor and set yourself on fire like a buddhist monk you retard fuck. Oh I'm sorry - I didn't mean retard-fuck. I meant typical-American.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363734)

Because I've found that the food and service at the Hard Rock Cafe - Kuwait is much better than the one in Orlando. YMMV. Why should we care about anyplace besides what is within walking distance from our living rooms? Ponder that and get back to me.

Good thing the rumor was not something important l (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34363918)

Good thing the rumor was not something important like the Mohammad being a racists pedophile or that some Slashdot user said Islam is truly a religion of hate.. Current news pieces in papers still should involves getting two confirmed living sources on the record or at least 1 and independent documentation.

Re:Good thing the rumor was not something importan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34364116)

I don't know where you get the racism part, as Islam clearly bans racism, but for the other misconception, it wouldn't kill you to read a bit: http://www.rasoulallah.net/v2/folder.aspx?lang=en&folder=852 [rasoulallah.net]

Re:Good thing the rumor was not something importan (1, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34365750)

I don't know where you get the racism part, as Islam clearly bans racism

This is true. You can beat your wife no matter what color she is; you can stone someone to death (or hurl them of a cliff) regardless of color; and of course, you can believe in the great sky fairy no matter what color you are. Definitely no racism in Islam, nor Sharia law, nuh-uh. Islam is completely color-blind, just like it is blind to the equality of women, blind to why one should not intentionally target innocents in service of one's political views, blind to why silence and support is the wrong answer when extremist Islamotards get loose with hijacked aircraft, exploding shoes, and so forth. Well, I gotta go now, I have a cartoon to draw.

Technically correct - it's not just DSLRs (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34364356)

Two things:
  1. All public photography is illegal in Kuwait, except for licensed journalists. This includes DSLRs, compacts, camera phones, video, everything.
  2. 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.

Clear now?

Re:Technically correct - it's not just DSLRs (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34364894)

Two things:

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

Really? [flickr.com] . 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 [infoprod.co.il] 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 (2, Insightful)

Voulnet (1630793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34365190)

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 >.>

True? Untrue? Can't Tell About This Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34364694)

In a country like Kuwait, you often can't verify whether something like this is true or not. The rules may not be published in any official source, and policies can change at any time. The officials in charge of enforcing the policies might not even know.

Re:True? Untrue? Can't Tell About This Government (1)

Voulnet (1630793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34365198)

Actually Kuwait has an official newspaper dedicated to just doing that. Publishing all laws, new or modified, and making it available for viewing everywhere.

The Death of Journalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34364754)

Just speaks to how journalism is dead around the world as an effect of the Internet and a race to be the first to break a story, true or not. Everyone with a blog or twitter account considers themselves journalists, and for some reason actual news sources feel a need to compete with this lot.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?