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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @06:57PM
As a pro cinematographer/photographer, I want as much bit-depth and resolution as possible -- i.e. more bandwidth. Right now, the technology for uncompressed, 4k, raw/12-bit/10-bit video is expensive and bulky, but we are approaching such capability in smaller, less expensive cameras that use increasingly faster SD card writers.
Also, pros don't want anything to get in the way of the quality/purity of the image, so any encryption/compression is something to be avoided.
If camera manufacturers start putting encryption into cameras, then the expense goes up and the image quality bandwidth goes down. This would be a huge setback for pros who have been waiting for high-end cameras that are smaller and less expensive.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday December 16 2016, @07:01PM
Encryption isn't lossy though, or I misunderstand.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @07:21PM
The encryption would have to occur after the photo is taken and reviewed, anything else would be difficult for the user. It would also be an optional feature you could turn on/off (though if you have a chunk of photos encrypted and a bunch not encrypted, well that would look suspicious!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @09:49PM
The encryption would have to occur after the photo is taken and reviewed
"Footage." Please note my emphasis in my OP on raw/12-bit/10-bit, 4k footage that is uncompressed (4:4:4/4:2:2). All in-camera processing/recording needs to be committed to achieving such high-end quality.
Any circuits dedicated to anything else just takes away from the potential processing power/bandwidth.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Snotnose on Friday December 16 2016, @07:28PM
any encryption/compression is something to be avoided.
First off, encryption and compression are completely different things.
Second, there are plenty of lossless compression algorithms out there. Remember pkzip, or gzip?
Fun fact. Encrypted files don't compress worth a damn, but if you compress it first you make it easier for the bad guys to crack the encryption.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @09:58PM
First off, encryption and compression are completely different things.
Yes. I don't need you to tell me that. Note that I wrote "encryption/compression."
However, it is likely that the footage/image data will have to be compressed before it goes to the encryption stage -- to reduce the needed encryption processing power (again, "bandwidth").
Second, there are plenty of lossless compression algorithms out there. Remember pkzip, or gzip?
I know, but that is not the point.
Any type of in-camera data conversion (other than the A/D conversion and raw-to-uncompressed-codec conversion) takes away processing resources from precious image bandwidth.
Encrypted files don't compress worth a damn, but if you compress it first you make it easier for the bad guys to crack the encryption.
... and any in-camera encryption in anything but a high-end camera (>US$5000) is likely to be accompanied by compression in a prior stage.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday December 16 2016, @07:30PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @09:37PM
No. I am not confusing encryption with compression. However, it is likely that the footage/image data will have to be compressed before it goes to the encryption stage -- to reduce the needed encryption processing power (again, "bandwidth").
Any type of data conversion that is executed in the camera will take away from the bandwidth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @10:20PM
Remember that the usage case here isn't for stuff destined for National Geographic documentaries and IMAX movies; it's for current affairs and reportage where the content is *much* more important than the quality which, in a pinch, only needs to cross the minimal bar of "good enough" - news channels will often use appalling quality live video from warzones etc. because a low-bandwidth satellite link is all they can get, for instance.
Marketing notions on forums such as this one are such pie-in-the-sky, but camera manufacturers tend to follow trends each others. If they start to put encryption into cameras, it is very likely that we will still be stuck for some time to come with another glut of 8-bit, compression-heavy, pro-sumer cameras -- until the manufacturers feel that they have squeezed every dime out of such models. Until such camera models have run their course, they likely won't make a separate, high-end version unless they can charge a lot more $$$.
The manufacturers are always on the look-out for ways to incrementally delay giving pros the quality that they want, which is actually possible for a lower cost. This type of camera quality crippling is a historical, established trend of the past ten years..
Now that the manufacturers have maxed-out the different versions of 8-bit camera models, we are starting to see a few 10-bit capable pro-sumer cameras appear. We are on the verge of getting small, inexpensive 10-bit-12-bit, uncompressed cameras.
We don't need a few docu folks spoiling all the progress we have made toward such accessible pro quality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @09:23PM
Encryption has no effect on on the image 'purity' (you mean quality?). Also, the limiting factor probably is the flash write speed. Encryption can be handled by one extra chip. I might cost extra, but it doesn't need to be slower.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @09:42PM
I know that encryption doesn't necessarily reduce quality of data. Notice that I wrote "encryption/compression." They are two separate things.
However, it is likely that the footage/image data will have to be compressed before it goes to the encryption stage -- to reduce the needed encryption processing power (again, "bandwidth").
Any type of data conversion that is executed in the camera will take away from precious image bandwidth.