Rumsfeld bans camera phones

[front]

Rumsfeld bans camera phones
From correspondents in London
May 23, 2004

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9643950%255E401,00.html

MOBILE phones fitted with digital cameras have been banned in US army installations in Iraq on orders from Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, The Business newspaper reported today.

Quoting a Pentagon source, the paper said the US Defence Department believes that some of the damning photos of US soldiers abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad were taken with camera phones.

"Digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq," it said, adding that a "total ban throughout the US military" is in the works.

Disturbing new photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse, which the US government had reportedly tried to keep hidden, were published on Friday in the Washington Post newspaper.

The photos emerged along with details of testimony from inmates at Abu Ghraib who said they were ******ly molested by female soldiers, beaten, sodomised and forced to eat food from toilets.

---

"Out of sight... out of mind" eh Rumsfeld?

[Herrmannek]

THat doesn't sound good decission at all puting head into sand doesn't solve problems...also its bad for militaryphotos.net

[Marmot1]

so no more photos from green zone, no more photos provided by G.I.....

Seems someone try to punish soldiers for revealing truth...

[Upfrontreporting]

Uhm curing an infected thump by cutting of the arm. Good idea rummy :cantbeli:

regards

[Piotrek]

Uhm curing an infected thump by cutting of the arm. Good idea rummy :cantbeli:

regards

i would rather say by takeing painkillers...

[Salty Dog]

my uncle told me a while ago, when he was working in the pentagon, that they were going to ban them there, and probably other places.

[Herrmannek]

my uncle told me a while ago, when he was working in the pentagon, that they were going to ban them there, and probably other places.

You know banning cameras in Pentagon is completly different story :)

[fdt]

Not a word about analogue ones.... unless they were banned previously :lol: .

[Trident-za]

This seems to be a pretty damn odd way of dealing with the problem - basically, ignore the problem, but make sure no incriminating evidence can get out.... interesting.

Edit: upon reading what I wrote, its a bit cynical. I'm sure somebody somewhere in the military leadership is trying to prevent any other ... bad behaviour. But, just in case - no cameras. Oops, more cynical .. :(

[Argyll]

Like that plan will work!........................not.

Who is going to enforce it?

[usa320]

good idea. i hate camera phones, there are too many perverts out there snapping pictures of every unsuspecting 13 year old they see.

[kinghk]

good idea. i hate camera phones, there are too many perverts out there snapping pictures of every unsuspecting 13 year old they see.

As if they didn't snap photos of 13 years olds before camera mobiles was invented?

[Yard Ape]

If this is being done to raise security then good.

If the goal is allow problems to be hidden & not solved, then this is a sad statment on some of the leadership at the top of the US military.

I hope my first assumption is the correct one.

[usa320]

i think another issue is people could use these phones to take pictures of equipment or documents considered sensitive without anyone really noticing.

[Jack Mehoff]

You all talking crazy. I work for a government agency and they ban all kind of camera, personal zip/USB drive/laptop etc. in there for the obvious reason.

[obd]

Rumsfeld is an idiot.....First they try to deny it, then they say they are sorry and will correct hte problem, then they try to make sure they will never be held accountable again...

Doesnt Bush say he is always about "accountability"?

In this case it appears the Rumsfeld ismaking sure nobody is held accountable for thier actions again......

It seems the only reason anybody was sacked was BECAUSE the media released these images......Now Rumsfeld wants to make sure that abuse and war crimes are now hidden from the American people.......

Just one more reason to hate GWB and his administration....the most corrupt in American history......

[usa320]

yeah, except the clinton administration- that was some corruption... They handed out pardons like Pablo Escobar handed out nose candy.

This is nothing new, as Mr. Mehoff said, Cameras, computers and data storage systems have always been limited, its only logical that camera phones be banned as well.

I never liked the idea of camera phones. Too many people taking pictures of people without them knowing it.

[Trigger]

Just one more reason to hate GWB and his administration....the most corrupt in American history......

The Forum Rules

6. Don't hijack a good conversation thread with an off-topic political or flame war. Posts of this nature will be deleted from now on.

Your rants are getting old obd. Please knock it off.

[obd]

Its not off topic at all.... The topic is that Rumsfeld issued a decree banning camera phones...What the hell else am I suppossed to say Trigger??

Maybe you want me to say something stupid like "good that will let our troops torture and murder more Iraqi's in the future but the difference will be that in the future they wont get caught...Stupid media always hurting the American war effort......I support Rumsfeld banning camera phones because those damn things are the reason we are in trouble right now.......not the actions of troops......the camera phones....destroy them all!!!!!

The war and plitics are inescapably mixed Trigger......hate to break it to you.....thats why politics keep coming up on this forum and you will never be able to stop it all no matter how many posts you delte....

As one famous German wrote (guess his name hehe) "war is politics by other means".

[Trigger]

Just re-read the quoted parts of my post obd, then put down the crack pipe and have a good think.

[786mine]

I think its wrong of Rummy to do this. In the Pentagon and HQ that is a different story, but in the field. Please!

[Airborneranger4israel]

if this is for security i am all for it.
camera phones are highly concealable but unlike other small camera's like minox's they have the ablitity to instantly transmit pictures of what could potentially be sensitive material.

[obd]

Yeah right Airborne4Israel, by covering up "sensitive material" do you mean crimes against humanity because that is clearly what Rumsfeld is intending to do..........After all, its not top secret war plans or anything like that which is being released by these camera phones but they are allowing the American people to witness American soldiers committing criminal acts......some of which lead to the deaths of inocent people......unless you dont believe in "innocent until proven guilty" anyway..

I find it highly ironic that the Bush administration takes the moral high road when dealing with terrorists but then tries to cover up the fact that we are as guilty as they are of killing innocent civilians.......

The destruction of Abu Ghraib prison is merely window dressing to cover up the fact that nothing is going to change....."

What Rumsfeld is doing is basically analogous to this: He gets caught raping a women. He apologizes and promisis change..... Then instead making laws to hold himself more accountable to make sure it never happens again he makes the DNA test that got him convicted in the first place illegal.......so much for the Bush administrations emphasis on "accountability"......Am I the only one who see's what is going on around here or what ??

[Zoomie]

Just re-read the quoted parts of my post obd, then put down the crack pipe and have a good think.
But that would be all too easy.


Yeah right Airborne4Israel, by covering up "sensitive material" do you mean crimes against humanity because that is clearly what Rumsfeld is intending to do..........

This is the kind of junk Trigger was talking about. :bash:

[rob]

Rumsfeld is an idiot.....First they try to deny it, then they say they are sorry and will correct hte problem, then they try to make sure they will never be held accountable again...

Doesnt Bush say he is always about "accountability"?

In this case it appears the Rumsfeld ismaking sure nobody is held accountable for thier actions again......

It seems the only reason anybody was sacked was BECAUSE the media released these images......Now Rumsfeld wants to make sure that abuse and war crimes are now hidden from the American people.......

Just one more reason to hate GWB and his administration....the most corrupt in American history......

honestly if you ask me its about damn time, i think all the journalists should be next to go. many soldiers are concerned about the journalists being there and are afraid to do their job.

and how is gwb accountable for what some people did out side of his knowledge?

and do you honestly think making the photos public helped anyone? the people should have been delt with behind closed doors this way it wont give the iraqis any more motive then they already have. personally i think that whoever made the photos public should be put on trial for treason. they should have giving those photos to people higher in comand and made sure that there was a courtmarchal, making the photos public is in no way shape or form necisary.

and besides do you think the iraqis in that prison where there for jay walking? what about the video of the american getting his head sawed off while he is still alive screaming the entire time? is that not a crime against humanity, i dont hear anyoen screaming for them to be but on trial.

[obd]

Yeah Rob, if you ask me I do think the photos helped......they helped catch a bunch of sadists who were dishonoring America by stooping to the terrorist' level.......

Oh and by the way, what you say is very similar to what others like Hitler and Milosevich said: "lets keep out the world media so we can do our job killing innocent people".....

Funny how oppressors always want to control knowledge.......knowledge can be a very dangerous thing Rob, especially if what your doing is immoral such as murdering and torturing people in prison camps.......

Its not the photos that give Iraqi's something to fight for.....its the fact that our soldiers did what they did..... Rob I want you to listen very carefully to this:

The pictures are merely the method of communicating what happened to the world..... It is not the fault of the pictures that our honor is tarnished.....you cant put picutres in jail....it is the fault of the American soldiers for doing what they did.......and thats final.........Funny, I dont hear you saying things like "those Americans who tortured those people to death are giving Iraqi's something to fight us for....so we need to make sure there is more accountability"........ Instead I see you saying things like "those damn pictures, lets make sure they never expose us again".....which of course implies your mindset on this matter..........

To blame "the pictures" is like a rapist blaming the security camera for catching him........instead of himself for committing the crime.......

And yes, Bush knew about the abuse becuase Rumsfeld knew and that is not something you keep from the president of the United States.....

What the Bush administration is doing is as if a rapist gets caught raping a women. He apologizes and promisis change..... Then instead of making laws to hold himself more accountable to make sure it never happens again he makes the DNA test that got him convicted in the first place illegal.......so much for the Bush administrations emphasis on "accountability"......Am I the only one who see's what is going on around here or what ??

I repeat: Making cameras illegal has nothing to do with security...It is so blatanly because the adminstration doesnt want any more embarrasing exposures of the truth that Im surprised you all cant see it...... In fact I believe you can see it but you just refuse to admit it because you are so blatantly pro-Bush he could murder his wife in cold blood and you would probably just assume she deserved it.............

[Yard Ape]

personally i think that whoever made the photos public should be put on trial for treason. they should have giving those photos to people higher in comand and made sure that there was a courtmarchal, making the photos public is in no way shape or form necisary.
Do you know that internal means had not already been exhausted? What protections exist for US soldiers to report violations of international law to thier superiors? What routes are open if the superiors refuse to act or are the violators? Does the US military have an Inspector General or Ombudsman staff to provide annonymous reporting means?

[Yard Ape]

I repeat: Making cameras illegal has nothing to do with securityI disagree. It is a security concern.

The current set of pictures are things that should not have been covered up, but what if the next set show US troop concentrations in view of identifiable landmarks?

[obd]

Oh yes and Rob, according to Coalition Provisional Authnority, over 75% of those detained at Abu Ghraib prison are released.......They gave this information out in an effort to show that innocent men and also children are eventually released.........so to answer your question Rob: Yeah man, some of those people at Abu Ghraib, in fact MOST OF THEM, were out for a "joy walk" when they were arrested............

And just in case you want to know, most of the actual reports of tortore, and Im sure there are more, ARE FROM INNOCENT MEN RELEASED FROM ABU GHRAIB!!!!!!!!!!!

GET IT THROUGH YOUR FAT HEAD!!!!!!!!!

And yes, of course I was angry as hell at those ****s cutting off that poor mans head....I hope they are hunted down and killed ASAP.....but you also dont see me being a damn hypocrite and saying that when US troops torture Iraqi's to death its not bad also??

No, I think those American soldiers who killed prisoners are just as bad as the Iraqi;s who killed thier prisoner......whether you cut off thier head on TV like the Iraqi's did or beat a man slowely until he dies like the Americans did, its all the same to me and all of them should face justice..........

In my mind, I hope the media does keep covering the war...so that injustices on all sides can be known..... I believe in peoples right to knowledge......

After all Rob, Americans have a right to know what they are paying, bleeding, sweating, and dying for dont they????? DONT THEY???? THEY HAVE A ****ING RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF WHATS GOING ON, GOOD OR BAD

[wyrm_142]

Things that the people that deal with security are concerned with:

Camera phones, thumb drives.

Face it, if you work in anything even remotely sensitive then you have some freedoms revoked.

Yes there are guidelines for responsibility when it comes to classified information, but I think we'll see a broader coverage to include things such as POW handling, and the like.

Heck, I face 10 years or 100,000$ (min) if I blab - why not do the same to a joker showing off things that we do to guys in OUR military during survial school (ok, no naked pyriamds) - but to insurgents?

[OzMan]

Another perspective on the security point:

About a month ago a student at my school was give out-of-school suspension for academic dishonesty. The student walked up to a teacher's desk (which happened to have a copy of an upcoming test laying on it) with the camera phone in hand, and asked the teacher permission to go to the bathroom. Simultaneously, the student snaped a crisp photo of the test copy, and proceeded to fold up the phone and walk away.

Granted, the teacher shouldn't have had the test copy right there, and the idiot shouldn't have gotten a 96% on the test, but the fact is that if some punk American teenager can think of it, what makes you think that some asshole overseas won't think of it?

I think it's a good idea for security reasons, but bad that soldiers have to tell their kids about their experiences the old fashioned way nowadays...

And those who think Rumsfeld is doing it to cover up additional abuse, f*** off...

[obd]

Eagle 1-1, Im not arguing that camera phones shouldnt be banned in certian areas like intelligence centers and such but that isnt what Rumsfeld is saying...Rumsfeld wants to ban camera phones in the entire green zone.....especially in the hands of US troops.....

I find that odd that Rumsfeld's ban is essentially aimed at troops so that they cant send back images of whats really going on over there......

You can argue military "security" until you are blue in the face, but what about the American peoples need to be secure in knowing what thier government is up to......After all, accountability of the federal government is one of the most vital aspects of national security I know of.........

I will put it this way: Prior to WW2 Hitler and the Nazi's hid several early attempts at Holocaust such as forced sterilization programs of Jews and the decendants of French Africans living in Germany at the time.......and Im sure he thought of it as a "security situation"..........yet Im sure all of you would agree that it was a good thing when the world found out the truth and Im sure you all agree that if we had only known sooner maybe we could have made a difference for the better........

So dont be a hypocrite and say things like "I'm glad Hitlers war crimes were exposed but only I wish we had known sooner" but then turn around and say "I wish the media hadnt exposed our war crimes because it hurt the war effort"........What you SHOULD BE SAYING IS THIS: "I wish American troops hadnt committed those acts because it hurt the war efforst and our honor"......trying to hide them doesnt help.....in fact it only makes it that much worse.........which is exactly what Rumsfeld intends by banning camera phones in the ENTIRE green zone....which "coincidently" includes most of the known American prison complexes.......hmmmm

[Yard Ape]

obd,
Camera phones are a security issue. They can send near real time images of friendly troop dispositions, weapons, and equipment. Uniforms, vehicle types, and tactical markings can identify Marines, Army, or SF. Visible landmarks can identify location of activities (street signs, recognizable buildings, key bridges, etc). It only takes one careless moment to photograph & send across the world through the air, something that is secret.

Once that photo has gotten to its destination, there is no callling it back.


. . . and, what of the possibility of cellphone transmitions being intercepted?


So dont be a hypocrite and say things like "I'm glad Hitlers war crimes were exposed but only I wish we had known sooner" but then turn around and say "I wish the media hadnt exposed our war crimes because it hurt the war effort"........What you SHOULD BE SAYING IS THIS: "I wish American troops hadnt committed those acts because it hurt the war efforst and our honor"......trying to hide them doesnt help.....in fact it only makes it that much worse.........which is exactly what Rumsfeld intends by banning camera phones in the ENTIRE green zone....which "coincidently" includes most of the known American prison complexes.......hmmmmYou are putting words into peoples' mouths.

[Trigger]

Once again obd is spinning and spinning and spewing and spewing about the relevance of the photos and the 'Bush cover-up'. He apparently missed the part about the internal investigation that was launched months before the photos saw the light of day. The abuse issue was being investigated and handled internally (as is should be), but the photos were published for the sole purpose of smearing Bush.

Do you know why they are still hanging on to this story? Because it's all the Dems have. They have no strategy, they have no candidate, they have no future, but God bless 'em, they're going down slinging mud. :lol:

[kinghk]

obd,
Camera phones are a security issue. They can send near real time images of [..]

That would require a working cell-phone net. Is there a working cell-phone net in Iraq?

[Argyll]

obd,
Camera phones are a security issue. They can send near real time images of [..]

That would require a working cell-phone net. Is there a working cell-phone net in Iraq?

So can a digital camera and a laptop with wireless ;)

No network available yet with complete coverage of Iraq.

They will never be able to enforce this,besides,there are a lot of signs to this effect in secure areas within Baghdad as it is.

[front]

Looks like this story is a hoax. Mea culpa.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/iraq-camera_phone_ban/

Did Rumsfeld ban Iraq camera phones?
By Guy Kewney, Newswireless.net
Published Tuesday 25th May 2004 14:54 GMT

Did Donald Rumsfeld ban camera phones for soldiers in Iraq? The story has appeared on the wires, and says he did. But while there are doubts about whether the story is true, there should be bigger doubts about whether it is even possible. The abiding image of censorship of letters from the Great War of 1914-1918 is of petty bureaucrats cutting holes in innocent missives sent from the front line. One assumes that something similar happens to troops today. It seems, one might be wrong in that assumption.

As Peter Rojas points out in Engadget, it was not actually a mainstream news source which first reported Rumsfeld as saying: "To protect the Iraqi prisoners from any future abuses; any digital cameras, camcorders, or cell phones with cameras are strictly prohibited anywhere in any military compound in Iraq." That statement was actually a satirical story from The Daily Farce.

Now, a series of other reports and comments have followed, suggesting that reality may have imitated comedy. Over the weekend, several news items appeared, which seem to quote Rumsfeld, but actually use the phrase from The Daily Farce word for word. The report on iAfrica quoted Australian newspaper The Business - as did News.com in Australia, and The Washington Times.

Rojas, a more sceptical reporter than many, believes it's possible some reporters have been fooled into picking up the Farce story as news. But here's the thing: it seems pretty likely that Rumsfeld will be pushed into making the satire come true - or at least, into trying.

Unlikely as it may seem, in a world where businesses and gyms and other civil organisations are actively imposing blanket bans on all cameras, the armed forces of America haven't done this.

In a thoughtful piece for the Kansas City Star Carol Rosenberg quotes soldiers in Iraq as saying that they are taking digital images. Further - they're shooting digital video, too. And no, there's no censorship.

Rosenberg writes: "An American general's bodyguard carries his camera in his ammunition vest. An Army medic tucks his camera in his first-aid bag. Soldiers protecting convoys bring cameras along inside their Humvees. From prison camps to the front lines, pocket cameras, many capable of whizzing uncensored digital images home, are nearly as standard among soldiers' gear as rifles and dog tags."

The soldiers, she says, assume there's no security problem, and that the emails they are sending home are monitored, anyway. Wrong: "No official rules have been released during the invasion of Iraq governing the use of cameras or restricting what soldiers can photograph. No one reviews the photos before they are transmitted across the Internet."

If corporate banks can ban digital photography on their premises, logically, the army should have no problem dealing with the problem - by a simple blanket ban.

Not everybody thinks it will work, however. Rosenberg quote several sources: "No one anticipates any rules soon, beyond the admonition that mishandling classified information - even by accident in an otherwise innocent photo - is a crime," said a senior military officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "You can't make all the cell phones go away. You can't make all the digital cameras go away. The genie's out of the bottle," the officer said.

Official sources can deal with some picture leaks easily enough by denouncing them as forgery. But if Rosenberg is right, there are far too many genuine pictures to filter, and no way of knowing which of them are dangerous.

The "Business" story looks like a boozle. But good money could be spent betting that if Rumsfeld has not yet banned camera phones and cameras from kit bags, he probably will, even if this isn't announced as a measure "to protect Iraqi prisoners". Whether it will succeed in stopping soldiers from taking pictures, is another question entirely.

Always remember: most American corporations have very, very strict regulations about ****** dalliances between employees. And yet, despite these injunctions, the proportion of marriages in America where the couple first met as "colleagues at work" is actually higher than in other parts of the world where this would be seen as an unacceptable interference in personal behaviour.

Regulations are easy to write down. Enforcing them... ah, that's another matter...

[csqnsas]

easy fix mobile phone jammers. the military has them , you can even buy them off the shelf.

http://www.phonejammer.com/index.htm

[pinkeye]

Just one more reason to hate GWB and his administration....the most corrupt in American history......

The Forum Rules

6. Don't hijack a good conversation thread with an off-topic political or flame war. Posts of this nature will be deleted from now on.

Your rants are getting old obd. Please knock it off.

trigger, i'm hijacking this thread to inform you that your avatar is damn cool...

[Trigger]

Thanks pinkeye!
I kinda like it too :D