> I accept that your argument is more reasonable if you're talking about stills, but the article is about video, and presumably that's what everybody else here is talking about.

The article is not "about video". The article mentions both, and if you read the original letter[0], you'll find it does too.

> My point was that the measures you suggest for worst case scenarios do not even make sense in best case scenarios (London being a highly developed first world capital city).

Making sense for London is irrelevant. Read the actual letter[0] - it talks about, and only about "...the most dangerous parts of the world", and protecting against "authoritarian governments or criminals". Obviously, if that's not what you're doing, then different solutions might be better.

0: https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojour...

You're right, it does mention photojournalism, I should have read it more carefully. Apparently we've been at least somewhat at cross-purposes.

My point about was that video journalism is likely to generate huge quantities of data, which is inconvenient to transfer even in relatively favourable circumstances, let alone adverse ones. Perhaps we can agree that comms infrastructure is going to be no better in most war zones than in London.