# 150 Filmmakers Ask Canon & Nikon to Sell Encrypted Cameras



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 14, 2016)

```
<strong>From Wired:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p><span class="lede" tabindex="-1">IN THE SUMMER </span>of 2013, when documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras was shooting a still-secret NSA leaker named Edward Snowden in a Hong Kong hotel room, she took security seriously. She’d periodically transfer her footage to encrypted hard drives, and would later go so far as to destroy the SD cards onto which her camera recorded. But as she watched Snowden through her lens, she was haunted by the possibility that security agents might barge through the door at any moment to seize her camera. And the memory card inside of it remained dangerously unencrypted, full of unedited confessions of a whistleblower who hadn’t yet gotten his secrets out to the world.</p>
<p>“When you’re in the field filming and your camera is taken by authorities, that footage is completely vulnerable,” Poitras says. “That’s where encryption is really needed.” <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/12/200-filmmakers-ask-nikon-canon-sell-encrypted-cameras/">Read the entire article</a></p></blockquote>
<p>This is something I’ve never personally thought of, but seems to be something that should be taken seriously.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojournalists-call-major-camera-manufacturers-build-encryption-their-cameras/">list of filmmakers</a> can be seen in the open letter written to Canon at the Freedom of the Press Foundation website.</p>
<blockquote><p>As filmmakers and photojournalists who value our own safety and the safety of our sources and subjects, we would seek out and buy cameras that come with built-in encryption. Adding these data security features to your product line would give your company a significant competitive advantage over other camera manufacturers, none of whom currently offer this feature.</p></blockquote>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 14, 2016)

I agree with Poitras.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 14, 2016)

This makes sense, as does automatic upload to a server, as I gather is already done for sports photos and other news photos. If it is not in a copy off-site, it doesn't exist.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 14, 2016)

Sony must already have encryption. : : :


----------



## unfocused (Dec 14, 2016)

On the surface, this sounds good, but the same encryption to protect these filmmakers would also protect child pornographers.


----------



## bvukich (Dec 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> On the surface, this sounds good, but the same encryption to protect these filmmakers would also protect child pornographers.



The argument that I may not have something because someone else may abuse it, is not a valid one.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 14, 2016)

Encryption with real-time duplication of files off-site is the way to go. 
Re: child pornography. Perps are in it for the money and sick kicks, and have no "product" if they can't distribute it to a paying or trading customer. Users are not necessarily going to decrypt - encrypt every time they view the file. That's where you can get useful information leading to the film-maker perp - on the customer's computer.


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 14, 2016)

Hi bvukich. 
Although in theory you should be correct, it is very much a fact that you are not and there are unfortunately many instances of this mentality prevailing, more is the pity. 

Cheers, Graham. 



bvukich said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > On the surface, this sounds good, but the same encryption to protect these filmmakers would also protect child pornographers.
> ...


----------



## IglooEater (Dec 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> On the surface, this sounds good, but the same encryption to protect these filmmakers would also protect child pornographers.



Baseball bats have often been used to kill people- they should be taken off the market and illegalized.

I don't mean in anyway to diminish the wickedness of child abuse in every form, but the problem is not a technological one.


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> On the surface, this sounds good, but the same encryption to protect these filmmakers would also protect child pornographers.



non-isue.

How many peodophiles are caught red handed with the footage as they're shooting?

yes, secure writing to card ought to be a feature, even if only on the 1DXII. presumably that would mean you can't play it back on camera but can only see live images.

The real problem is going to be ensuring the encription is sufficent, what's the chances a "good enough" policy is taken which turns out not to be good enough.


----------



## gmrza (Dec 15, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> non-isue.
> 
> How many peodophiles are caught red handed with the footage as they're shooting?
> 
> ...



Firstly, as you point out, any technology can be abused. In fact, to get to the root of the problem, with pedophiles, we should just ban cameras! 

More seriously: it is a difficult technical challenge to implement encryption on cameras for a variety of reasons:

It is not practical to have to enter a password every time you want to use the camera, and having things happen like locking the camera after a time-out
You need encryption hardware which is powerful enough to encrypt HD video, and you will need additional battery capacity
How do you deal with the issue of getting a camera confiscated when it is switched on, but not locked. 

On the brighter side, the typical use cases of a camera make it possible to use public/private key encryption, such that only a public key, which is used to encrypt media is loaded onto the camera. Decryption would require the use of a private key, which is never loaded onto the camera. The private key would only be stored on the computer which is used to process the video. The private key can still be password protected. This would mean that a film maker could go do work in a risky area and shoot. It would not be possible to decrypt the media until returning back to the computer which houses the private key. For instance, if your camera was confiscated in airport security or customs it would be impossible for you to decrypt the media on your camera. - The only key you have with you (on the camera) is the key required to encrypt, but no ability to decrypt.
There is still the issue that authorities will not understand that "rubber hose cryptography" will not work.


----------



## RunAndGun (Dec 15, 2016)

gmrza said:


> More seriously: it is a difficult technical challenge to implement encryption on cameras for a variety of reasons:
> 
> It is not practical to have to enter a password every time you want to use the camera, and having things happen like locking the camera after a time-out
> You need encryption hardware which is powerful enough to encrypt HD video, and you will need additional battery capacity
> ...



While I'm not an engineer, points 1 & 3 seem simple enough.

1) The system is designed with the option that the camera can always works "normally" from a shooting perspective(turn it on and shoot like we always do), but recording is encrypted automatically with no user intervention.
3) The system is designed with the option that playback is never allowed in-camera which would cover the concern of the camera being confiscated while it's on or being used.


----------



## IglooEater (Dec 15, 2016)

RunAndGun said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > More seriously: it is a difficult technical challenge to implement encryption on cameras for a variety of reasons:
> ...



Yup, basically a camera that can encrypt but cannot decrypt it's own encrypted footage. Everything's as safe as the private key at home. No playback would require somewhat more rigorous technique and note keeping, like in the days of film.


----------



## davidj (Dec 15, 2016)

This sounds like a business opportunity for Atomos or Blackmagic or another manufacturer of external video recorders.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 15, 2016)

gmrza said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > non-isue.
> ...



AFAIK, some encryption algorithms were designed to be implemented by ASIC, e.g. DES and AES, which would required about as much hardware & power as JPEG compression.

Public key cryptography will have the advantage of not keeping the decryption key in the camera, but AFAIK at higher hardware & power requirements. It might be simpler to implement a switch that cuts the power to the camera.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 15, 2016)

I use bitlocker (and previously truecrypt) on my computers. But anyone who follows this topic would know that there is always doubt about backdoors and special access for government agencies. I think the desire for an encrypted camera is worthy, but whether the camera makers would make a fully secure one is debatable.

Oh, and if such a camera came into existence, don't be fooled by an eventual Canon vs FBI court case. This is just psy-ops to make the less gullible feel that their device is secure. They're not.

I can imagine such a feature would be of use to people wanting to keep personal footage away from pickpockets and thieves. The movie "European Vacation" comes to mind.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Dec 15, 2016)

Hmmmm, on the one hand Canon does listen to professionals... on the other hand this is a niche feature that a simple cost-benefit analysis will say don't even try it - they'll have seen from the Apple vs FBI case that it'll inevitably cost them millions in legal fees in the USA (only to find that it can be got around anyway) and of course China will just say 'No' to those models anyway.

TL;DR Potential evenue generated - negligible. Potential problems generated - significant. Canon not interested.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 15, 2016)

Three things.

1. Encryption can be set-up like *Art Filters*. No-one can force you to use them.

2. Passwork protection is getting to the point that even the NSA can't brute-force them.

3. Child pornography, as a thing, didn't exist before the mid 1970s. In many major cities, world wide, you could buy it at news-stands. Today many of the producers are teen girls, making _risqué selfies._


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 15, 2016)

Hesbehindyou said:


> Hmmmm, on the one hand Canon does listen to professionals... on the other hand this is a niche feature that a simple cost-benefit analysis will say don't even try it - they'll have seen from the Apple vs FBI case that it'll inevitably cost them millions in legal fees in the USA (only to find that it can be got around anyway) and of course China will just say 'No' to those models anyway.
> 
> TL;DR Potential revenue generated - negligible. Potential problems generated - significant. Canon not interested.



IMHO, the analogy doesn't hold. I'll break it into two scenarios:

1. Recovering password from the camera RAM: Canon would provide an external power source with a kill switch on the cable. Someone breaks in? Press the button, the camera is turned off, end of story.

2. Cracking recorded contents: the FBI can't forbid a Japanese company from implementing good crypto. Photographers could re-encrypt the data during the offloading process, the any backdoor would expose data for a short while, so its hardly worth the FBI's effort to get one.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 15, 2016)

c.d.embrey said:


> 2. Passwork protection is getting to the point that even the NSA can't brute-force them.


Assuming they haven't got their quantum computer working yet.


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 15, 2016)

gmrza said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > non-isue.
> ...



you don't need to put a password in ever, a encrypting key, once, yes. You simply record such that what you put onto the card is encrypted. The screen can show you what it's writing, either last frame or current video frame, like shooting without a card, that can be unencrypted, but of course with no memory on the screen, there's no risk there.

you can't review in camera, should someone half-inch it there's no possibility of decoding as the camera has never known the key, no clever government memory retrieval process will help get the key out of the camera.

Someone can then snatch the camera while you're filming and not be able to recover what you've filmed, as there's no possibility of decode you can leave that back in your office, in another country and just email the encrypted data assuming no one has take it out of your hands of course.

Many encoding algorithms are designed to encrypt "live" steams, that is to protect live data, they are usually breakable, but not if you have to search the entire radio-space and don't know what you're looking for as they demand a lot of computing power to crack, in this case you need top end encoding as they can put a cray on it day and night for weeks to get the data, so clearly you'd need a dedicated chip to keep power demands reasonable.

Additionally who needs 1080p for this feature?.. this is for taking evidence. 480i would be more than good enough in many cases, less raw data means encoders can work substantially slower (cooler), if there's enough efficiency then fine have 1080p, my point is this isn't for cinema.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 15, 2016)

these days strong encrypion vendors must provide means of decryption or even decrypted clear text data to agencies on requiest. this is by law in _all_ western world countries and _all_ BRICS countries. in fact, in BRICS countries all encryption must be certified by relevant agencies and bodies. International device and software manufacturers are not interested in providing encryption facilities with their products as it creates enormous hassle for them on so many levels. the best that I would suggest to overcome this issue - stream to HDMI port and encrypt on portable storage device in real time. that takes the issue away from Canon and moves into the portable storage domain. It's a catch 22, I know.


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 15, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> these days strong encrypion vendors must provide means of decryption or even decrypted clear text data to agencies on requiest. this is by law in _all_ western world countries and _all_ BRICS countries. in fact, in BRICS countries all encryption must be certified by relevant agencies and bodies. International device and software manufacturers are not interested in providing encryption facilities with their products as it creates enormous hassle for them on so many levels. the best that I would suggest to overcome this issue - stream to HDMI port and encrypt on portable storage device in real time. that takes the issue away from Canon and moves into the portable storage domain. It's a catch 22, I know.



sure?

Apple didn't exactly help recently if I recall.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 15, 2016)

Well, I am industry insider for 15+ years. NSA will have the upper hand in this battle eventually one or another way. With such an enormous interception budget and countries such as: USA, Australia, UK, Canada and NZ cooperating internationally, one can be sure that the case will be brought forward or conveniently created to achieve what was required to achieve. pressure is ON. the message is: do not get in our way. And why any sensible international corporation would? It makes their life difficult for nothing. In fact many encryption vendors in Australia are now pushed to go on Defence Strategic Good List. what it means for those vendors that they can no longer even sell these strong encryption products or even demo the products without explicit permission from certain agencies. There is Mass Market Exception though. that sets mass market encryption product aside. But.. one of the criterias that has to be satisfied: encryption to be not stronger than 64bit.

P.S. if you would read the following document (and ideally - between lines) please, say, from page #10 "New Crypto War?" - just a few pages.. I am absolutely sure that you would recognise major points brought forward by the Agencies to support their claim. There is an elephant in the room, whatever makes National Security weaker has to be taken care of. yes, I know.. 

http://www2.itif.org/2016-unlocking-encryption.pdf



rfdesigner said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > these days strong encrypion vendors must provide means of decryption or even decrypted clear text data to agencies on requiest. this is by law in _all_ western world countries and _all_ BRICS countries. in fact, in BRICS countries all encryption must be certified by relevant agencies and bodies. International device and software manufacturers are not interested in providing encryption facilities with their products as it creates enormous hassle for them on so many levels. the best that I would suggest to overcome this issue - stream to HDMI port and encrypt on portable storage device in real time. that takes the issue away from Canon and moves into the portable storage domain. It's a catch 22, I know.
> ...


----------



## Fatalv (Dec 15, 2016)

Must be a slow day in rumorville... This will never happen through Canon. 

150 filmmakers asking for this is like the outcry in CR forums for 'give me what I want'. 150 sales isn't even a blip on Canon's radar. If they can't sell enough to make profit it will never come to fruition.

The only chance is something like ML. Firmware hack to do asymmetric crypto and hope whatever DIGIC chip the body has can keep up. It would be a cool proof of concept, but likely ML's audience is interested other features.


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 15, 2016)

Extremely interesting and equally delicate problem.
A problem that can be looked at from many different directions:
1) Choice of algorithm (Open versus proprietary kinds)
2) HW- or SW-based algorithm
3) Encrypt the container that holds the data to be secured, or just the content inside the container.
4) Legal problems arising from trying to export and use certain encryption algorithms.
5) Camera makers to work on it alone, or perhaps a new standard that makes it possible for card makers to create a media storage that handles the encryption on the card. (Vaguely, something like the Eye-Fi, but instead of just sending out the file, you first encrypt it and then you send it. A "No-Eye" so to speak.)
6) Cost - benefit analysis. Is it worth it?

A few of the ideas that popped into my head when I first read about this last night. As anything that comes out of that place, it can be questioned or torn apart. But I do think it's a problem that's not as easy as it first seems.


----------



## bsbeamer (Dec 15, 2016)

As much as this group of filmmakers do not want to hear it - this may be more of something for AJA, Blackmagic Design, Atomos, or Convergent Design to tackle. A 3rd party monitor that can record encrypted video with either password unlock, thumbprint scanner, etc. Then let the brains of that device handle all of the backup/redundancy or uploads to remote servers that need to be performed. For true encryption, all it would require is disabling in-camera recording and ONLY recording to the external device. Personally, not sure I'd be 100% comfortable disabling in-camera recording, but if the situation/project warranted that (and the client was on board) then maybe I would be ok.

There are times when working on projects under an NDA that I've wished for something similar, but then I remember that clients want things relatively fast and usually fairly cheap... it's just another step in the workflow chain that can (and probably will) break when it comes to crunch time to get a project out the door.


----------



## tron (Dec 15, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> I use bitlocker (and previously truecrypt) on my computers. But anyone who follows this topic would know that there is always doubt about backdoors and special access for government agencies. I think the desire for an encrypted camera is worthy, but whether the camera makers would make a fully secure one is debatable.
> 
> Oh, and if such a camera came into existence, don't be fooled by an eventual Canon vs FBI court case. This is just psy-ops to make the less gullible feel that their device is secure. They're not.
> 
> I can imagine such a feature would be of use to people wanting to keep personal footage away from pickpockets and thieves. The movie "European Vacation" comes to mind.


It seems you downgraded your computers... No further comment on this....


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Passwork protection is getting to the point that even the NSA can't brute-force them.
> ...


Imagine a video chip with 3584 CUDA cores on it, all running at 1.4Ghz.....
Now imagine 4 of those chips on a blade.....
Now imagine 16 blades in a chassis.....
Now imagine 8 chassis in a rack.....
Now imagine 16 racks.....

That gives you 128 chassis....
That gives you 2048 blades....
That gives you 8192 chips....
That gives you 29,360,128 CUDA cores....
That gives you 41,104,179 Giga flops.....

That's what you get with a modern supercomputer, and it is a fairly safe bet that NSA has more than one


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2016)

Personally, I would avoid encrypting my camera data... when something goes wrong, and it will, you are screwed. Also, data recovery software and encrypted files do not have a good history of playing well together....

If you really want to be safe from someone grabbing your cards and looking at your pictures, you are best off with no pictures on the card. Stream them to your phone and upload them "back home" as you go. Even if your card is encrypted, it will do you very little good.

For example, Let's say I am the "security person" and that I take exception to you having taken pictures of me and my buddy beating some protester..... I ask you to give me the memory card, and you either say yes, or you say no. If you say yes, you have lost the images.... if you say no, I beat you, take the camera, and remove/break the memory card, and you have lost the pictures....

You are at customs, I ask you to clear the encryption so that I can see the images on the card, you say no, I impound the card (and camera, phone, laptop, etc), and if you are lucky you get them back in a couple of weeks.....

I steal the camera, doesn't matter if they are encrypted or not, they are gone!


----------



## dafrank (Dec 15, 2016)

This whole thread, populated as it is with well intentioned and technologically astute posters, is still quite truly missing the most important content from the OP. To wit, is it advisable, let alone feasible or likely to be granted, to ask for a camera company to offer a "nearly unbreakable" encryption option for recording on Canon's mid-to-high-level video cameras.

Everyone will have differing opinions about this, but for me, I don't see this as something I would want to wind up paying for, to serve other people's needs or desires. Even making it "optional" would spread the development costs to those not exercising such an option. For the literal one-in-a-million event in which a film maker might truly possess some footage that, like in some James Bond thriller, contains information critical to the public's safety that one's government would like to suppress, I think it would be the duty of the film maker to encrypt the footage in post, rather than make me pay for his "black swan" event.

Furthermore, this request has the whiff of much of the recent very common and annoying public "virtue-signaling," which has been roaring across our media for the last year or so, implying that those asking Canon have at least an occasionally superior grasp of what is vital to our understanding of culture and politics than the rest of the rubes with which they share space, thereby making their needs special and their request reasonable, despite its highly unlikely requirement in the course of professional, or even amateur, work.

Regards,
David


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 15, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Well, I am industry insider for 15+ years. NSA will have the upper hand in this battle eventually one or another way. With such an enormous interception budget and countries such as: USA, Australia, UK, Canada and NZ cooperating internationally, one can be sure that the case will be brought forward or conveniently created to achieve what was required to achieve. pressure is ON. the message is: do not get in our way. And why any sensible international corporation would? It makes their life difficult for nothing. In fact many encryption vendors in Australia are now pushed to go on Defence Strategic Good List. what it means for those vendors that they can no longer even sell these strong encryption products or even demo the products without explicit permission from certain agencies. There is Mass Market Exception though. that sets mass market encryption product aside. But.. one of the criterias that has to be satisfied: encryption to be not stronger than 64bit.
> 
> P.S. if you would read the following document (and ideally - between lines) please, say, from page #10 "New Crypto War?" - just a few pages.. I am absolutely sure that you would recognise major points brought forward by the Agencies to support their claim. There is an elephant in the room, whatever makes National Security weaker has to be taken care of. yes, I know..
> 
> ...



thanks, yes I see what's going on. In my line of work encryption is limited to more basic levels where real time cracking is impossible simply due to volume.

one thought came mind that the video data could be streamed out of the cameras unsaved, then encrypted and saved on a laptop.. there must be a way of doing this?


----------



## bsbeamer (Dec 15, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> one thought came mind that the video data could be streamed out of the cameras unsaved, then encrypted and saved on a laptop.. there must be a way of doing this?



Streamed? Not 100% sure, but unlikely to have a fully encrypted stream that can be recorded in full quality without dropouts or other issues.

Recorded via HDMI/SDI or other direct camera output? Absolutely.

AJA, Blackmagic Design, Atomos, and Convergent Design are the companies they should be targeting with this request. The external recorder market is probably most capable of delivering a solution that actually works.


----------



## gmrza (Dec 15, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> thanks, yes I see what's going on. In my line of work encryption is limited to more basic levels where real time cracking is impossible simply due to volume.
> 
> one thought came mind that the video data could be streamed out of the cameras unsaved, then encrypted and saved on a laptop.. there must be a way of doing this?



I think you may be touching on a good alternative: if camera manufacturers offered a feature which allowed streaming of video out of the camera as it is shot, with no recording on the camera, this would open the door for third parties to provide encryption attachments which could then store the video encrypted.

This could have a number of advantages:

Camera makers (like Canon and Nikon) would not be perceived by governments as "aiding the baddies" by providing encryption. The feature could be marketed at those who need to store really large amounts of video - amounts too large to store on a memory card. - no mention of encryption in the marketing
This is a much cheaper feature to implement - Canon, Nikon etc. would not be burdened by the R&D and manufacturing cost of an encryption solution, and they would not have to defend demands by authorities to decrypt content
This would open up the market to open source encryption solutions - i.e. source code and designs could be published to allow review by industry experts - the Bruce Schneiers of this world
Different users could use different encryption solutions - taylored to their needs. Heck, you could even use wireless to stream the video to a colleague who is carrying the encrypted storage a hundred metres away!


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 16, 2016)

tron said:


> It seems you downgraded your computers... No further comment on this....


I won't disagree. But I just want to ensure that people stealing my computer won't easily get access to the content. I'm not so concerned about plausible deniability of illicit content. Though, this topic has piqued my curiosity and I might take a closer look at VeraCrypt.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 16, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Apple didn't exactly help recently if I recall.


Surely that was just a PR stunt to convince baddies to leave content on Apple devices by convincing them that they are secure? These sort of stories are also good for sales - eg one of the main reasons people still buy blackberries is because of perceived uncrackable encryption.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2016)

dafrank said:


> This whole thread, populated as it is with well intentioned and technologically astute posters, is still quite truly missing the most important content from the OP. To wit, is it advisable, let alone feasible or likely to be granted, to ask for a camera company to offer a "nearly unbreakable" encryption option for recording on Canon's mid-to-high-level video cameras.
> 
> Everyone will have differing opinions about this, but for me, I don't see this as something I would want to wind up paying for, to serve other people's needs or desires. Even making it "optional" would spread the development costs to those not exercising such an option. For the literal one-in-a-million event in which a film maker might truly possess some footage that, like in some James Bond thriller, contains information critical to the public's safety that one's government would like to suppress, I think it would be the duty of the film maker to encrypt the footage in post, rather than make me pay for his "black swan" event.
> 
> ...



The most well thought out and reasonable post on this thread. (And, your pictures are damn impressive as well.)


----------



## jpaana (Dec 16, 2016)

Magic Lantern has this sort of thing, though only for pictures http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10279.0


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 16, 2016)

Bingo! can I just quote this guy here, just on the previous page?  

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31491.msg640882#msg640882

" _.. the best that I would suggest to overcome this issue - stream to HDMI port and encrypt on portable storage device in real time. that takes the issue away from Canon and moves into the portable storage domain..._"

any/ or almost any remote storage is capable off real time drive content encryption this days. so.. the solution available now: stream to HDMI and then to have service runing on the intelligent remote storage watching for new files and encrypt them as soon as they written to the storage media. very unsofisticated tech. Encryption does not require alot of processing power contrary to the popular believe. Audio / video encoding and stream compression is much more processing power hungry though.




rfdesigner said:


> .. one thought came mind that the video data could be streamed out of the cameras unsaved, then encrypted and saved on a laptop.. there must be a way of doing this?


----------



## retroreflection (Dec 17, 2016)

A person says "I have a problem."
It is good to take them seriously, unless it isn't.
"And I want it fixed this way..."
Be very careful of taking that part seriously.
The problem statement is, "Sometimes I film, or shoot, stuff that has the potential to anger powerful and violent people. I wish to maximize the chance that the images can be retained and shared with others."
I accept the fact that that is a problem.
The suggested fix is misguided.
Encryption in camera does nothing. Physical security through stealth, misdirection, luck, or your own application of power and violence is required until such time as you have reached a place of relative safety. At that point it is time for you and the bits to part ways. Major camera manufacturers should have nothing to do with things at that point. Keep the cameras innocent, that will minimize collateral damage for ordinary folks.
It is also probable that the inconvenience of using an encrypted camera will induce users to use shortcuts and weak passwords to "fix" the inconvenience, thus breaking the security.


----------

