Story: National Archives to ban photography in exhibit

[bmattock]

You know the answer to this question. People don't understand "no flash". Or their camera "tells" them it needs flash, it's a piece of impressive equipment so they believe that, rather than the notice. SImply telling them "no cameras" makes it easier for them to understand.

You've seen tourists, haven't you? And I figure I might have seen you make an argument along the lines of, "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile."

I agree with you that most people are booger-eatin' morons (BEMs). However, I do not care to have my liberties restricted because they cannot follow rules, especially when the rules are not being enforced. Punish the guilty, leave the innocent to enjoy their freedoms.

 

[bmattock]

Most point-and-shoots have the flash built it. The flash is ready as soon as the camera is visible.

Then if the guards can stop the cameras, they can stop the flash. It's in the same box, isn't it? So stop the flash, and leave the cameras without flash alone. Simple. Enforce the rules that exist, instead of creating new rules because you choose not to enforce the current ones.

 

[bmattock]

As I implied earlier, I'd ban photography, but not go to great lengths to enforce that against people surreptitiously using non-flash cells and point and shoots. The point is to curtail the exposure of the documents to camera flashes. In any case, if you ban flash, you've effectively banned the cameras of all those people who don't know how to turn the flash off.

Much can be done with exhibit design to curtail unwanted visitor behavior. For example, when I visited the Chinese terra cotta warrior exhibit in London a few years ago, groups of a set number were allowed in at set times. As we were queued waiting, museum staff had ample time to lecture us about the rules. Once inside the exhibit, we found ourselves in a large dark room, directed by design and by narrow walkway to pass through in a snaking single-file line. Any use of flash would have produced a hostile reaction from other visitors, due both to the interruption of traffic flow and to the annoyance of being exposed to a flash in a dark room.

I am not in favor of rules that are not meant to be enforced, or laws that are intended to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis and left to the discretion of authority figures. That leaves things wide open for abuse - one guy he likes, one guy he doesn't. How about the guard lets all the white guys take non-flash photos, a little wink and a nod; and stops all the non-whites from taking photos? I mean, the law is in his hands to interpret as he sees fit, right? No A, therefore B, but maybe this and maybe that.

I'll stick to preferring rules that apply to all or none. Our nation is not made up of rules or laws intended not to be enforced except if the officer feels like it that day.

 

[antiquark]

So stop the flash, and leave the cameras without flash alone. Simple. Enforce the rules that exist, instead of creating new rules because you choose not to enforce the current ones.

Sure, sounds good: ban any camera with an on-board flash. However, the guards would need an archival knowledge of which cameras have a hidden flash and which don't. It's possible, but not probable.

 

[bmattock]

Sure, sounds good: ban any camera with an on-board flash. However, the guards would need an archival knowledge of which cameras have a hidden flash and which don't. It's possible, but not probable.

The fact that it may be difficult does not impress me. Enforce the rules, before restricting innocent people from exercising what would otherwise be their freedom to take a photo of a national treasure.

For those who may have noted my line of argument, it is analogous to the US national debate on gun control. There are those who argue that some people are irresponsible with guns, those who will not follow the existing laws. Their solution is to urge the banning of all guns, based on the same logic - bad people won't follow laws, so take the guns away from good people. It's bad logic for firearms, and it's bad logic here. Enforce the rules that exist before restricting the rights of those who follow the rules.

 

[antiquark]

The fact that it may be difficult does not impress me. Enforce the rules, before restricting innocent people from exercising what would otherwise be their freedom to take a photo of a national treasure.

Here's an idea: ban cameras, but give tourists the option to rent a flashless camera on site (Nikon D3, Leica M8, etc). The rental cameras could be brightly colored to make them easily identified. Renters could take pictures at leisure, without any hassle. They could bring their own memory card or buy one on site.

Also, a rule that's extremely difficult to enforce would cost a lot of money in the form of manpower. That means more money to run the National Archive, which means more tax dollars... would it be worth it?