Latest update to these stories (1; 2; 3; 4; 5), all covering the topic and media coverage "Did Rumsfeld ban digicams, camera phones and videocams in Iraq for US soldiers YES OR NOT? What about the behaviour of the news services?"
Xeni Jardin, who published "Camera phones in Iraq; digicams and truth in wartime (BoingBoing)", now in "Wartime Wireless Worries Pentagon (Wired News)":
The Defense Department said it hasn't banned the devices [digital cameras, phonecams and wireless gadgets] and doesn't plan to -- as the Business Times of London and two wire services have reported. But the Pentagon is telling commanders in the field to strictly monitor the use of consumer wireless technology through Directive 8100.2 -- Use of Commercial Wireless Devices, Services and Technologies in the Department of Defense Global Information Grid -- issued last month.
[...]
In a nutshell, the directive tells all soldiers, contractors and visitors to Defense Department facilities that they can only carry wireless devices that conform to the military's security standards. These specify that the devices use strong authentication and encryption technologies whenever possible.
[...]
McClellan [Department of Defense spokesman Lt. Col. Ken McClellan] said commanders in the field haven't been told to use the directive to stamp out the use of the gadgets in Iraq. Instead, the directive is "general guidance" passed "along to the theater commanders, and they decide how to implement it in their own commands."
[...]
Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page chided the military's concern and called the devices "Weapons of Mass Photography" in a recent editorial , saying he believed every soldier should have a digital camera.
[...]
Mizuko Ito , a cultural anthropologist who researches phonecams, culture and law, said that while authorities can -- and probably will -- attempt to restrict the use of handheld digital-imaging devices in specific facilities, the technology is too ubiquitous for any broad attempts at prohibition to be effective."The cat's already out of the bag, but what's striking about what we're seeing now is that it's very unlike the top-down, Big Brother surveillance we normally associate with the idea of other people watching you," he said. "This is a bottom-up, 'little brother,' peer-to-peer type of surveillance [some link].
"My hope is that this will ultimately be a positive development, because powerful top-down institutions, like corporations or governments, won't be the only ones controlling the circulation of information."
Cameraphones... they can be "Weapons of Mass Disruption".
