SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Freedom of the Press Foundation has called on professional camera makers to implement encryption in cameras to prevent governments from easily searching and seizing the contents:
An open letter written by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and signed by over 150 filmmakers and photojournalists calls on professional camera makers such as Nikon, Canon, Olympus, and Fuji to enable encryption to protect confidential videos from seizure by oppressive governments or criminals. The Freedom of the Press Foundation is a non-profit organization that has several noteworthy members, such as "Pentagon Papers" Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, and EFF's co-founder John Perry Barlow, on its board of directors.
[...] Filmmakers and photojournalists that film documentaries or shoot photos of abuses committed by governments or terrorists in dangerous parts of the world are constantly under threat of having their videos and photos seized and destroyed. The danger is even bigger when these bad actors can see what's on the cameras--it's not just the documentation of abuses that is exposed, but also the confidential sources that may have wanted to keep their identities hidden. Encryption would ensure those who seize their cameras couldn't see the contents of the cameras, nor the journalists' sources.
This won't necessarily ensure that the information collected by journalists is disseminated, since border agents and law enforcement officers can just destroy encrypted equipment. For that, cloud storage or live streaming features are needed, as well as reliable access to the Internet even during times of political crisis and network shutdowns.
Also at The Register, CNET, and TechCrunch (they also found a small cameramaker that is planning to ship on-camera encryption).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @05:45PM
At this point in time, there is no excuse whatsoever for having any data in an unencrypted form. Any data, whether at rest or in transit, should be encrypted.
There is no excuse for not doing this, CPU's are powerful enough to do this in all devices. My microwave has more computing power than a dumbphone from 5 years ago.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 16 2016, @09:34PM
Other than the usability excuse. Encryption means there is one more thing that can stand between you and functionality: namely the decryption key which must be properly managed. The more securely one manages their encryption keys, the more likely they are to lose them altogether.
On a philosophical basis, I agree: all digital systems should provide the _ability_ to securely encrypt (whatever that means) the data they produce and store.
On a practical basis, I imagine that 99%+ of digital cameras sold would best be served by leaving said encryption capabilities OFF. Furthering that line of thought: adding encryption capability, even if it is switched off by default, will likely harm more customers than it helps, while simultaneously drawing extra regulatory scrutiny. Why would a business do that?
From the practical consumer side: if an encrypting camera did exist and you owned one, guess what's first on the list for physical destruction at all security checkpoints that care about images? I'm not talking about what's right, or logical, I'm talking about what will actually happen at real-world security checkpoints. How can they know that the "erase all" button does what it says?
🌻🌻 [google.com]