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?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by Sourcery42 on Friday December 16 2016, @05:46PM
Sounds like a good idea, don't get me wrong, but the cynic in me immediately thought that if bad actors really want a look at what is on those cameras encryption will lead to an unfortunate mashup of fingernails and pliers. Or perhaps a $5 wrench https://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Friday December 16 2016, @06:27PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by jcross on Friday December 16 2016, @06:58PM
Right on! I'm in the middle of reading "The Strategy of Conflict" and it seems to apply to so many situations. This is a perfect example of commitment as a negotiation strategy. If the journalist can convince their captors the photos can't be decrypted, the rubber hose treatment becomes an ineffective threat, and even a real liability if there's any concern about the beating being publicized.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Unixnut on Friday December 16 2016, @07:02PM
Then they will just be imprisoned for not decrypting their device, as is now allowed in the UK. 3 years for not decrypting files you own, whether you can remember the password or not, and regardless of whether you are innocent of all other charges.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 16 2016, @08:56PM
In the GP's example there is no password. Though that implies that they would not be able to review the encrypted images in the field.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday December 16 2016, @09:06PM
There is a password somewhere, otherwise the person being arrested would never be able to decrypt the files. Ergo there is a password somewhere. Doesn't matter if it is on the person at the time or not.
I guess you can claim "I don't know the password, honest", but if you can't convince them of why you would be creating encrypted files you cannot decrypt, then they may just assume you are lying.
Either way, you're going to be in trouble.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 16 2016, @09:27PM
You can have key-pairs without passwords.
You just have to hope you can explain to you interrogator the concept of public-key encryption.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday December 16 2016, @09:37PM
> You just have to hope you can explain to you interrogator the concept of public-key encryption.
I don't think they will care. If they arrest you and demand you decrypt, you either do it, or you go to prison. Simple.
Doesn't matter the type of encryption, they don't care. They have forensic people (the ones who found the files in the first place) who most likely know about the encryption, but that isn't in the remit of the police officer. All they know is you have encrypted files on your device, by law you have to provide the ability to decrypt the files, if you don't provide, you are breaking the law. Simple.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 16 2016, @09:46PM
What you say is:
1) "I'm the picture TAKER, that's all I can do. I point, click, and an encrypted file gets created with information I've never seen, possessed, or interacted with. If I connect it to Internet, everything syncs back to my employer's servers in the United States. Here is my job overview and the manifest of pictures my employer would like me to take."
2) "Please speak with Bob Smith, my supervisor, at 714-555-1212 in the United States. He's the picture READER. Only he can decrypt these pictures and view them. When I'm done I hand the entire device to him and my job is done."
With a setup like this it's rather easy to create TAKERS and READERS. It's like getting angry at the guy in the nuclear silo because he can't unlock anything. It's a two person operation, and when you separate those two people by oceans and thousands of miles it makes it pretty difficult to unlock again.
Sounds reasonable to me, and not even a lie. That's the truth.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Friday December 16 2016, @10:09PM
If the password is available in physical form in my home country, I can claim to be quite willing to cooperate. Oh yes, I'm happy to give you that password/private-key, I just need to fly home and unlock the safe in my house and then I'll be right back with it. I'm sure the law can be applied in nasty ways, but if any kind of jury is involved it would be hard to convince them to convict someone making an apparently sincere offer to decrypt the files. And if there's nothing like a transparent legal process, then all bets are off regardless.
Also, how the hell do they fundamentally distinguish encrypted data from random data? Is it illegal to possess random data? After all, no one can prove it doesn't contain encrypted files.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 16 2016, @11:27PM
Several people seem to think that oppressive governments are "reasonable".
Police Chief - "You were seen on the south face of Mt. PooPoo, and we know you carry your camera everywhere you go. Give me the images."
Prisoner - "I can't decrypt anything on the camera."
Chief - "Unfortunately for you and your camera, that is a death sentence. Tomorrow morning, you and your camera are going to accidentally fall off the NORTH face of the mountain."
Prisoner - "My boss will demand an inquire."
Chief - "There will be an inquiry, and it will be found that you imbibed in illicit drugs and alcohol before your death. It's been a pleasure talking to you!"
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Saturday December 17 2016, @12:01AM
Good point, but I think there's a spectrum of reasonableness. The extreme in your example probably does exist, but it's important to understand that such an action is not without risk, especially when dealing with foreign nationals and especially journalists. There's international reputation to consider, if nothing else, and potentially legal complications as well. I think the important thing is that while the journalist might have the protection of being from a powerful country and having a large mouthpiece at their back, their sources probably don't, and this measure extends some protection to the sources where they don't really have any now.
Also it's not that oppressive regimes are "reasonable" so much that they act in their own self-interest, and summarily executing foreign journalists is not without risk for them. Consider the Chief in your example, tasked with actually throwing the journo off the cliff. How does he know that if the story blows up internationally, the dictator won't throw him under the bus by claiming that no orders were issued to that effect. In a place where the journalist can be summarily executed, he might be also, so he's going to make sure to CYA somehow if possible, leaving a paper trail or whatever. So really the self-interest goes all the way down, and corruption or oppression doesn't necessarily translate to "do whatever you want to whoever you want". Even in the absence of law, there can be order.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday December 17 2016, @01:11AM
Then you better don't own DRMed content in the UK. Because you surely won't get the key for that.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Saturday December 17 2016, @01:36AM
DRM content is an interesting one, because they will get the key for that no problem, just from the company who the files belong to.
DRM files are not yours, in the eyes of the law. They belong to the company who you are licensing the content from. In such a case, they would seek the keys from the company, if the company refuses, then they get in trouble.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 16 2016, @09:12PM
but there's no way to actually review the files once encrypted until they are back in a safe location and the private key is available.
The net result: Camera (or at least the flash card) is confiscated.
That or government mandated back doors, hopelessly compromised encryption schemes, warrants demanding companies decrypt the content, etc.
Its already true that encrypted mail is preferentially gobbled up and archived. Possession of Encrypted pictures alone would become a criminal offense: And not JUST in North Korea.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @11:47PM
That the $5 wrench won't work is absolutely no comfort to a photographer being interrogated by the soldier who makes $.10 per day plus bed and board. The soldier will not listen when you say he can't do it, and will get worked over with the wrench until dead.
Maybe it's better that the key is in the hand of the person who can turn it over.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday December 17 2016, @09:08AM
Maybe sneak in a duress key that unlocks harmless content?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 17 2016, @01:34AM
So much better than encrypting your images on the physical device would be encrypting them and communicating them up to "the cloud." Devices can always be destroyed. A few milliseconds on a 4G network can preserve a multi-megapixel image forever.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday December 17 2016, @02:48AM
A few milliseconds on a 4G network can preserve a multi-megapixel image forever.
No, it will take VASTLY longer than a few milliseconds, especially with what passes for 4G in many places.
Further, you've just moved the problem to a different place, and brought MORE restrictive laws into play, and put the encrypted images into the hands of more governments.
There is no point in taking pictures if they are never to be seen - EVER. But until you are well clear of the location being restricted, and have had time to scrub all exif and raw info, you don't dare put them out there on the web or in the cloud - encrypted or not.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:51AM
So, yes, there are places where network connectivity simply does not exist. But, even when you don't get "true 4G speeds", getting images out of your camera, off of your physical person, stored on servers in other political territories, is infinitely more likely to lead to those images getting published where they are most needed. Your physical person is just as subject to arrest, and even erasure, as your memory cards are. If you don't work alone, getting images to your colleagues outside the hot zone is the goal - and network will accomplish that much much faster than sneaker net.
Personally, if I were filming the next Rodney King, I'd want those images streaming out of my camera as fast as possible, because with each passing frame you are at an increased risk that a "defender of the blue line" is going to walk up behind you, crack you on the back of the head with a billy club for "resisting arrest," destroy that camera, and then take you in to the station where they will hold you as long as possible before dropping the charges.
Now, if I'm filming human rights abuses in the DPRK, I'll want two main things: one, an encrypted, invisible partition in my SD cards where encrypted high resolution copies of my best photos are stored (looks like random noise in un-allocated space if you don't have the key and the software to decrypt it), plus I'd want to steganographically encode the best images into the sub-space of some benign approved pictures that I frequently e-mail out from my monitored network connections. I'd also want the cryptography/steganography software to be encoded as a rotating key easter-egg inside something like a Candy Crush app on my phone. They'll still throw you in a hole and forget to feed you if they think you're leaking their secrets, but at least make it hard for them to be sure, and try to keep constant contact with someone on the outside while doing approved journalism.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @08:54PM
That is part of what would happen. The other is 'decrpyt this or we keep your 1500 dollar toy'.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday December 16 2016, @06:00PM
Ok, I'm missing something here. Cameras don't generally have a keyboard, and I don't see photo-journalists typing in long passwords on a tiny touch screen every time they want to use their camera. Yet without access control, encryption isn't particularly useful. It isn't magic pixie dust.
A worried photographer could transfer the pics from their camera to a laptop or smart phone, and then erase them off the camera. Laptops and phones already have encrypted file systems and access controls. Better, of course, would be to transfer the pics to the cloud, but that may not always be possible.
Can anyone explain how encryption on the camera is supposed to help?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nerdfest on Friday December 16 2016, @06:06PM
You push your public key to the camera. All pictures saved on the camera are encrypted with that key. You need the private key (stored elsewhere, like on your home laptop) plus a password to unencrypt the pictures. Most cameras don't even have secure erase, and you want the pictures encrypted the instant they are taken. Same for video.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Friday December 16 2016, @06:19PM
Seems like the easiest option would be to bake that to an sd card that just does that to every file saved on it with a name matching a regex. Media is much cheaper than a camera, so if the crypto becomes effectively useless in the future, you can just swap out the card for a better one, rather than replacing your camera or hoping for a firmware upgrade. Of course, I don't know if the sd specs support the power or space in the package needed for the overhead.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 16 2016, @09:39PM
I was thinking that something like an EyeFi card could real-time transmit your images to a little pocket-pc that locks them up as tight as you care to, preferably on redundant microSDHC cards that can be hidden almost anywhere - even embedded in post-cards for a hail-mary trip through the physical mail system.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday December 16 2016, @09:46PM
Good idea. RPi in slim case with battery. Saves to some media and the Pi encrypts everything in that directory every 30 seconds via cronjob.
Bulky, but you could just leave it in your bag or what have you. I like it.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday December 16 2016, @06:20PM
You push your public key to the camera. All pictures saved on the camera are encrypted with that key. You need the private key (stored elsewhere, like on your home laptop) plus a password to unencrypt the pictures.
I don't buy it. Photographers need to see the pics they take. If the pics are no good, they have to take more.
At best, you could implement two levels of storage: open and encrypted. In the open state, you can look at the pics you just took. When you're happy with the pics, you push them into encrypted memory.
Maybe. But how many non-technical people do you know, who successfully deal with public/private keys? Techies use them all the time, for SSH and such. Non-techies? I don't know any, not one.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday December 16 2016, @06:24PM
As with so many things, you choose convenience or security.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday December 16 2016, @06:47PM
So, you don't encrypt the picture before the viewing buffer, but you encrypt it when you write it to the card.
You may just keep the last one unencrytped for review, leaving the phtotographer the choice of turning off the camera or taking a random pic just before handing the camera in, to clear it.
Modern cameras have pretty deep buffers, because Flash only goes so fast. You'll have to declare a timeout on that.
It's technically doable. Doesn't solve the $5 wrench, as someone already pointed out, unless you also add an unencrypted folder to which you write by pushing a different control: "See officer, I didn't see nothing anyone did, cuz I was fascinated by them seagulls back there. Look at the timestamps, that's all I took in the last 30 minutes, guv!"
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday December 16 2016, @06:55PM
As an amateur (read: clown who bought a mid-range DSLR) photographer, I sometimes read articles from actual photographers offering tips. Most of them say to not spend too much time looking at the pictures on the screen, and to spend more time taking more pictures, from different angles and lighting, and look at the pictures later. Maybe that's crap advice. I can't say.
Perhaps a compromise is that after a period of time, say, 5 minutes, the photos become encrypted? Cameras have a pretty decent battery in them usually. Maybe leave pictures unencrypted, but have an "oh shit" button that triggers an encryption of all the photos taken that aren't yet encrypted? As the aforementioned clown who doesn't know what he's doing, I do know that pictures are generally very, very large, especially if you're taking pictures worth looking at later. Encryption after the fact would probably take a long time unless you had some processing power behind the effort.
I'm still kinda thinking that the best way to go is to pull the pictures off on your laptop, encrypt, and then put them on a sd card you toss into your shoe or something if you're that worried about it.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 16 2016, @09:03PM
To frustrate bad actors and authorities, the files should be encrypted before you run into trouble. Encrypting a 64GB card would just take too long.
An "oh shit button" can me useful for deleting symmetric encryption keys from memory. As has been pointed out, with Public Key cryptography, the decryption key may be on another continent.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday December 16 2016, @10:12PM
Actually, it's kind of a moot point, at least for the preview function on my T5i. I just popped the sd card out and gave it a few clicks. It will display the preview even with no storage, so it's pulling that from buffer, not the card. Surprised it will even try to snap the picture without a card, but it at least warns you on-screen (assuming you have the screen flipped out).
Of course, displaying AFTER that second or so initial preview might be tricky. I do agree that encrypting an entire card as whatever villain this scenario is worried about is walking toward you would probably be a bit too late though.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zocalo on Friday December 16 2016, @07:01PM
Well, you *could* has a system that let you review the image before you commit it to encryption and storage, or take some test shots that are not encrypted to review, but that premise is flawed. Believe it or not, photo-journalists didn't typically cart around a processing lab so they could check their images in the field before digital came along; they checked their settings, took some pictures and hoped that when they got back to the office with the film and got it developed they hadn't screwed up. Most competent photographers don't actually *need* to chimp with digital either; it's just an additional safety net to confirm the camera settings are good, especially in challenging conditions, or to pass a bit of time when there's a gap in the action.
Couple of issues with that. Firstly, the idea is presumably that the camera would do the bulk of the work - even entry level DSLRs let you load settings via files loaded via memory card/USB or to configure up some basic IPTC data to be applied to each image already, so it's not that much of a stretch in complexity to enable loading encryption keys to higher end models. Secondly your premise is again flawed; a modern photo-journalist working in the field typically *is* very technical and highly IT literate, as they often need to be be capable of troubleshooting and resolving non-terminal issues with cameras, laptops, phones, and getting connectivity in some extremely challenging environments and situations. They typically tend to be well versed in the use of data encryption tools, VPNs, getting around government Internet filtering systems, and so on, so this wouldn't be a new concept in the slightest - they are definitely not "non-technies".
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 16 2016, @09:53PM
It's not that hard. For the people who aren't technical you have an app that generates the keys and provisions the SD card or camera itself. Once there, you already got the idea for a delay. Allow 5 minutes, or some programmable duration, for review of images. If not deleted, they get encrypted and the cache is ready for the next pictures. When you get back home and transfer all of the images back to your computer, you run the app and it will decrypt all the images for you.
It could be a module for Photoshop, GIMP, etc. Nearly every SSH program that I know is capable of generating keys and managing them. I'm pretty sure that the convenience can be maintained with a little bit of programming.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday December 17 2016, @01:23AM
Indeed, for employed professional programmers, their employer's IT department could generate the keys and load then onto the cameras. Indeed, that way the photographers can truthfully claim that they have never possessed or seen the private key.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @06:21PM
Wouldn't that make it impossible to view the photos on the camera to see what you just took?
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday December 16 2016, @07:28PM
I was wondering that myself.
I also thought that encryption might result in many more broken cameras, both from photographer frustration and from other parties smashing cards and phones/cameras because they don't want to take chances with what might be on them...
-
Maybe the manufacturers could rig an unobtrusive switch between a public, visible folder on a camera, and a hidden, encrypted card?
That way a photographer could take some "innocent" public photos as cover, flip the switch and send the subsequent shots to the card. The first time accessing the card after switching would require a password (or a set sequence of actions with the camera controls functioning as the password) and then as long as the switch was "on," the card could be accessed as normal.
There might even be a control whereby the photographer could send dummy shots to the public folder whilst remaining in the encrypted mode.
If the switch was flipped "off," say, in handing the camera over to a cop or soldier, the camera would only show the public folder with the "innocent" photos, and would require flipping the switch and entering the password before even showing the existence of the hidden card...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday December 16 2016, @09:11PM
You may be better off with just a setup that uploads all pictures/video taken to a (sufficiently trusted) cloud account. Dropbox is set up to do that on my phone.
On the plus side, destroying the camera wouldn't help that situation at all. Not that the piggies might not decide to do it anyway just out of spite/ignorance.
On the downside, you need to have good connectivity and bandwidth and hope the pic/video gets uploaded quickly enough to make it to the server before camera smashage ensues.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday December 16 2016, @09:40PM
Oh, for Demon Murphy's sakes!
You kids...instant gratification is not fast enough for you anymore...sheesh!
(Score: 2) by Username on Friday December 16 2016, @11:41PM
I’d have an optional 1 to 16 button combination that you enter when powering on the camera. Then an option to encrypt the card with the button code. IE: Turn on camera, camera asks for code, Press ISO, ISO, BKT, WB, MENU, WB, MODE, AF-L, AF-ON.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @07:18PM
In this case there would probably be a button to encrypt the latest set of photos, they would be clear data until the encryption is run. It could also run the encryption before fully powering. That would solve the usability problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @11:30PM
Apple/Android figured it out a while back. Why would't that work with cameras?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @06:32PM
To this encryption as well? We will never know.
The only thing worse than vulnerability is false sense of security.
(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.
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(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.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 16 2016, @09:55PM
The SD cards are getting faster:
Secure Digital 5.0 Standard: Memory Cards Intended for 8K and Virtual Reality Recording [soylentnews.org]
I assume your encryption capable model will also have improved memory bandwidth and an improved price.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17 2016, @12:03AM
1) Yeah, why not add 10% more to the cost of your camera so that this can be done?
2) Any encryption such as is being discussed can either be beaten out of the keyholder, or the person suspected of being the keyholder (the photojournalist) will be beaten to death or placed in a prison that makes a Federal PMITA seem like Club Med. So why bother? If I'm a journalist or whatever, and I'm convinced I'll be killed if I don't turn over my photos.... yep, I damn sure want to turn over the photos and I DON'T want the data to be unavailable for me to do so.
3) Drop the "cloud storage" bullshit. The proper answer for this on a photojournalist level is to equip your photojournalist with an in-country broadband data route to your corporate servers, and/or laptops that you can upload the files to, encrypt them there, and leave them in a secure location as the journalist tries to cross the border. First comes to worst and the camera is lost, copy the data card onto an SD, pop it into an mp3 player that a mule walks over the border. If one must, make that Iridium with data capability (though that's slower than hell for photo data.)