Slashdot Mirror
Camera Makers Resist Encryption, Despite Warnings From Photographers (zdnet.com)
An anonymous reader shares an article from the security editor of ZDNet:
A year after photojournalists and filmmakers sent a critical letter to camera makers for failing to add a basic security feature to protect their work from searches and hacking, little progress has been made. The letter, sent in late 2016, called on camera makers to build encryption into their cameras after photojournalists said they face "a variety of threats..." Even when they're out in the field, collecting footage and documenting evidence, reporters have long argued that without encryption, police, the military, and border agents in countries where they work can examine and search their devices. "The consequences can be dire," the letter added.
Although iPhones and Android phones, computers, and instant messengers all come with encryption, camera makers have fallen behind. Not only does encryption protect reported work from prying eyes, it also protects sources -- many of whom put their lives at risk to expose corruption or wrongdoing... The lack of encryption means high-end camera makers are forcing their customers to choose between putting their sources at risk, or relying on encrypted, but less-capable devices, like iPhones. We asked the same camera manufacturers if they plan to add encryption to their cameras -- and if not, why. The short answer: don't expect much any time soon.
Although iPhones and Android phones, computers, and instant messengers all come with encryption, camera makers have fallen behind. Not only does encryption protect reported work from prying eyes, it also protects sources -- many of whom put their lives at risk to expose corruption or wrongdoing... The lack of encryption means high-end camera makers are forcing their customers to choose between putting their sources at risk, or relying on encrypted, but less-capable devices, like iPhones. We asked the same camera manufacturers if they plan to add encryption to their cameras -- and if not, why. The short answer: don't expect much any time soon.
still, they're called film cameras. Nobody can see the pictures before the film is processed, and good luck to find a shop that still processes films nowadays.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
If you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Don't you hate it when people say that?
Agreed. The number of folks who are interested in using encryption on a camera is a very very small slice of the consumer base.
I've worked as a photographer in a news organization. Even with my time there, never was there any case for encryption. Having the entire camera industry switch to encryption would be having the 1% of actual use cases drive the cost and performance factors for the 99%.
Lets see one company make a single camera that has encryption. If it sells like hotcakes to news organizations, fine. but I'll be willing to bet that it the sales will be minuscule because it's not a feature that needs to exist for realistic situations.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
You don't even need to do that - use asymmetric encryption and let the my.key file hold only the public encryption key and you can just leave it on the card - it can't be used for decryption, so it doesn't matter who else gets access to it.
Of course that would mean that you can't review your photos on the camera, but also means that the photos are protected even if someone takes your camera without giving you a chance to push the "wipe" button.
And really, there's very little need for on-camera reviewing in an evidence-collecting situation - at most you just need to be able to review the just-taken photo to be certain it clearly captures what you intended, and a professional photographer should have the skills and familiarity with their camera to make that unnecessary. Film cameras didn't have *any* on-camera review options, and did the job just fine for decades.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Who could do photography under those conditions!? ;)
Encrypt-only isn't the solution to everything, but it actually might be a better solution to the problem stated in the summary. If you leave the decryption key at home then you can't decrypt it, even under coercion. Plus, if it's in the card, you just swap cards between regular shots and things you think might be sensitive. Provides some plausible deniability too: yeah, here are the pictures I've taken; oh, haven't used that other card yet.
As for looking at the pictures, you couldn't do that in the field with film either. And documentary photographers might look at quiet times for interest sake, but they don't shoot, check the photo, ask the subjects to stand differently, shoot, rearrange.... At least they're not supposed to.
Wow... just wow. In every conflict on earth you have a side that opposes covering aspects of the conflict at one time or another. According to your bizarre logic journalists could never get any footage from any war zone anywhere without 'taking sides' and 'no longer being journalists'. The world does not work the way you think it does.
By the way, in many cases war correspondents who miscalculate their risks can be happy if they end up in prison. Often they are killed. But I guess the beheading of James Foley by ISIS was just alright from your point of view, because he was 'taking side'. Retard.