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: 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