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: 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.