back to article Give us encrypted camera storage, please – filmmakers, journos

Over 150 prominent filmmakers and photojournalists have asked leading camera makers to add support for data encryption to their devices. An open letter published on Wednesday by the Freedom of the Press Foundation – a group that includes Academy Award winners Laura Poitras and Alex Gibney – states that encryption is absent …

  1. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

    Since their D2 models, they have the option to digitally sign the RAW files primarily to prove in court the photos haven't been tampered with. I'm sure it's just a little extra to completely encrypt them (with a signature as well).

    1. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

      No, decent strong encryption is not easy. It has to be properly designed and implemented. I'm sure it would also need hardware support, like an Apple-style trusted module. It's not just a "little extra" bunged on.

      There's now a Florida court decision saying you have to reveal your passwords:

      http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38303977

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

        You evidently missed the photos of men on the moon - taken by a digital Nikon, if you are to trust their digital signing.

        Nikon's digital signing got broken after a couple of months if its release.

        Even without border guards nabbing your SD card, loss is not uncommon. Maybe a reason to leave it in your camera and use a cable instead?

        1. Trigonoceps occipitalis Silver badge

          Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

          "You evidently missed the photos of men on the moon ... "

          Surely you mean "on the back lot at NASA"?

      2. streaky

        Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

        At rest it's very very easy, given we're talking about crypto at rest... Entirely possible to do securely in firmware, if you trust the firmware - if you don't you're boned either way.

        I'd say the main problem is it doesn't really change anything, if you're talking about photos in countries where there's not a sane rule of law what's to stop them cutting pieces off you in a room somewhere until you give up keys or forcing your finger onto the reader or whatever.

        1. streaky

          Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

          Know what, just don't leave data on your cameras. Strip the images off the memory cards, put them on tablet/laptop/phone and crypto them and/or use this thing called the internet the cool kids are talking about to ship them securely somewhere. If they gave a toss we wouldn't be having this discussion because photographers would actually be trying to secure their data. Yeah on thinking about it there's no reason for any of this to be part of a camera's system.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

            The problem with your argument is that bandwidth is a limiting factor. Most places where photojournalists report on stories that are liable to endanger them, don't have enough of a communications network to instantly transmit a 64Gb + card full of pictures safely out of the way.

            1. streaky

              Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

              The problem with your argument is that bandwidth is a limiting factor. Most places where photojournalists report on stories that are liable to endanger them, don't have enough of a communications network to instantly transmit a 64Gb + card full of pictures safely out of the way.

              Right but it was an *or* - I think it's viable to do it securely at the technical level I just don't see the value in it. Carry a tablet, carry a laptop.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

            "Know what, just don't leave data on your cameras. Strip the images off the memory cards, put them on tablet/laptop/phone ... If they gave a toss we wouldn't be having this discussion because photographers would actually be trying to secure their data."

            You either don't understand the issue, or are missing the point. The police have had a habbit of seizing photo-journalist's equipment under spurious reasons in order to identify suspects - this is actually exactly why the "special procedures" part of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act exists. From memory, such seizures would occur during the event, and therefore the photographer would be busy taking images, not worrying about copying data off cards.

            As to whether the proposals are workable, that's another question ...

            1. Mark 65 Silver badge

              Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

              You either don't understand the issue, or are missing the point. The police have had a habbit of seizing photo-journalist's equipment under spurious reasons in order to identify suspects

              And in dodgey regimes they'll kick the living shit out of you to get your crypto key. Your best bet is to have a device that enables you to backup your images from your fast camera card to multiple encrypted more easily concealed but slower to access micro-SD cards when you are unable to upload. In-camera encryption only works in nicer policed parts of the World (that don't have reveal your keys laws). Wrong solution to the problem.

      3. tony2heads

        @ Gene Cash

        Then the system should be that the journo DOES NOT HOLD the key.

        The encryption should be public-key with the decrypt key in head office.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

        To reveal what? I just forget. And will never remember.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby

      @ Alien Re: Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

      You do realize that it takes time and CPU to encrypt files... This slows down the capture and write process.

      Not a cheap process.

      1. david 12

        Re: @ Alien Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

        >Not a cheap process.

        If only there were a "Secure Digital" card hardware format that you could just insert into devices...

        1. LDS Silver badge

          Re: @ Alien Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

          You mean a secure 'Compact Flash' one, right?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @ Alien Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

          If only there were a "Secure Digital" card hardware format that you could just insert into devices...

          Would that be the Secure Digital format that is about digital watermarking and bugger all to do with encryption?

          1. Joe Harrison

            Re: @ Alien Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

            Is there even a single device on the planet which can use the theoretical SD capabilities? All of my gadgets just use SD card as a dumping ground for data and that's it.

          2. david 12

            Re: @ Alien Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

            One of the original use cases for the Secure Digitial hardware was to encrypt copyright material, so that you couldn't decrypt it unless you had the key. If that's what you mean by "digital watermarking", then you've got a different understanding of "watermarking" than I do.

            And no, I don't know of anything using the SD API on SD enabled SD cards, except for cable/satellite TV modems. Certainly not for privacy protection, even though is exactly what SD provides.

      2. LDS Silver badge

        Re: @ Alien Shouldn't be hard for Nikon to do

        Yes, and then these will be the same ones who will then complain that:

        1) The camera makes them miss critical images because they need to enter a PIN\password when they turn it on

        2) The camera can't shoot fast enough

        3) battery life is too short

        4) The cards can't be easily read on another device

  2. ma1010
    Big Brother

    Fairly pointless, really

    And even then, it may not withstand the threat of rubber-hose cryptanalysis or a $5 wrench.

    If you're dealing with a (mostly) civilized country, they will have the resources to crack the encryption if they really want to (think NSA or GCHQ). If you're dealing with a banana republic, they'll fall back on, shall we say, more forceful decryption techniques.

    If I was a journalist, I'd remove all the "good" pics from my camera and fill the memory with cat photos and vacation snaps, putting the "real" stuff elsewhere. Then you MIGHT have a chance to get it through customs, but probably not, and if you get caught trying, expect the worst.

    Big! Big! Big! Big! [see icon]

    1. G.Y.

      no! Re: Fairly pointless, really

      If the crypto is public-key, with the private key kept in a safe country, the journalist in the field cannot be forced to decrypt.

      1. goldcd

        Well I'm going to keep sir sitting here

        until he gets somebody to email him the private key.

        Encrypting your emails is fine. If it gets seized I just sent it again.

        If I'm holding the email in my hand when it's seized, it's a bit more problematic..

        Not to say it's not helpful, but I can't see encryption actually being *that* helpful - oh, and then Nikon have to deal with people with a card of 'great shots' that they can't access for blah blah.

        *Should* you want this functionality, I'd have thought maybe a fancy SD card.

        It encrypts data and writes to a hidden partition, that doesn't consume capacity from the main fake partition (so be careful not to take more shots than the card can hold).

        Then at home, have a USB adaptor with the key built in. When you drop the card in, it looks to see if any of the 'unwritten free space' makes an image, if you try to decrypt it.

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: Well I'm going to keep sir sitting here

          @Gold CD

          Yeah, some sort of fancy SD card with a hidden partition seems a good idea. A few different ways of implementing it.

          1. LDS Silver badge

            "hidden partition"

            Security by obscurity? Once cameras support "hidden partitions", cops will know it as well and search for them. It's not like hiding porn from your mummy, or your affair from your partner...

            And if they're not sure, probably they will seize and/or destroy your cards. Just like they did with films, when they couldn't see what you shoot.

      2. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: no! Fairly pointless, really

        >If the crypto is public-key, with the private key kept in a safe country, the journalist in the field cannot be forced to decrypt.

        Alas, nor can the journo in the field review the photos, or select which photos (from potentially GB's worth) she wants to send down a slow, unreliable ADSL line to her editor. Nice thought though. :)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: no! Fairly pointless, really

          > Alas, nor can the journo in the field review the photos, or select which photos (from potentially GB's worth) she wants to send down a slow, unreliable ADSL line to her editor. Nice thought though. :)

          The camera could temporarily keep unencrypted thumbnails for field review, to be wiped at the press of a button or after a set length of time.

          I'm afraid I can't think of a foolproof safeguard for the encryption key, though.

          Maybe the ultimate solution for oppressive regimes is not a camera, but a gun?

          1. Anonymous Blowhard

            Re: no! Fairly pointless, really

            "Maybe the ultimate solution for oppressive regimes is not a camera, but a gun?"

            Most of these regimes are more worried about bad publicity (i.e. the truth) than a few people with guns; they can usually deal with those using labels like "terrorism" and more soldiers.

            It actually sounds like the required functionality is similar to the old "TrueCrypt" software (strong encryption with hidden/false partitions using different unlock keys), so maybe get the manufacturers to agree on a single TrueCrypt-compatible system; it would also allow the cards to be used in PCs of most O/S flavours (obviously TrueCrypt is discontinued, but forks of the project are available).

            1. Dave 15 Silver badge

              Re: no! Fairly pointless, really

              I dont think Mrs May gives a shit about publicity good or bad, neither I suspect do Obhama, Trump, Merkel...

              Forget the old cliche banana republic and realise we all live in a spied on world where the ever richer want to keep us mere plebs locked down in our place behaving ourselves. If they cant scare us into behaving they will control us, when that fails they just shoot us on an underground train, beat us to death at our newspaper stand or shoot us because they think a plastic cross on a geriatric old geezer is a gun... 7 bloody shots from 20 feet... couldn't the idiot copper have used one shot at the guys arm... or even better just tackled the guy... he wasn't exactly young and fit.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: no! Fairly pointless, really

          "Alas, nor can the journo in the field review the photos, or select which photos (from potentially GB's worth) she wants to send down a slow, unreliable ADSL line to her editor. Nice thought though. :)"

          In which case, why keep the photos on the camera any longer? The interesting ones have been dispatched, the rest is of slow time interest; what's wrong about stashing them in an encrypted ZIP? If one uses a tool like KeePass one can bring a copy of one's password file, use a password from that when creating / encrypting the ZIP file, and then secure delete the local copy of the password file. That way i) you never need to actually know the password and thus cannot be obliged to disclose it, ii) it can be long, well crafted, etc. One issue with such a scheme is that all cameras use FLASH for storage, and the wear levelling practically guarantees that old pictures are left here and there in the chips even if they've been "thoroughly deleted". So, best chomp up the FLASH card too into fine dust. One might have similar concerns about temporary files on one's laptop, etc.

      3. ma1010
        Big Brother

        Re: no! Fairly pointless, really

        Well, those banana republic cops could just insist that he die trying to decrypt it. And if he truly cannot accede to their demands, well, that will just be the worse for him, won't it?

        Off to MiniLove! Room 101 for him. Or maybe just a bullet in the head.

    2. Just Enough
      Big Brother

      Re: Fairly pointless, really

      Scene: "civilised" country passport control. A journalist sits before a disembowelled suitcase where his camera has been found. Two "civilised" officials examine it.

      Official 1: Boss, we have a Nikon camera here with encryption switched on.

      Official 2: Hang on.

      (He reaches for box file marked "Nikon".)

      Official 2: You'll find the details of the backdoor we made them install in there.

      Official 1: Thanks boss. Encryption, heh heh! Who needs cracking?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why not use steganography to encrypt the pictures ? That's a nice cat picture and not a picture of the secret police slamming a dissidents balls in a draw.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      The plods aren't dumb. They can run various analyses to determine the picture's hiding something: not the least of which would have to be that the mask picture seems unusually low quality for something so big. Ergo, you're hiding something. Any technology that attempts to conceal something, the plods would become aware and assume you're using it. Thus it makes things worse for honest people: how do you prove you're not using something whose whole purpose is to conceal its very existence?

      The article makes a point that no amount of concealment is going to work all the time against a paranoid State power. They're the gatekeepers and have sovereign power, so if they don't like you, you're pretty much screwed.

  4. Dave 126 Silver badge

    Is there any way...

    ..encryption could be built into the SD/CF/XQD card itself? The camera would send plaintext to the card, and the card would encrypt it. The MiFi wireless SD cards are a precedent for a card doing more than just store what a camera sends it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is there any way...

      Sure, in theory. All flash chips have processors on them, usually ARM.

    2. bazza Silver badge

      Re: Is there any way...

      Trouble is any kind of reasonable unlocking scheme isn't going to be very compatible with taking snapshots in those fleeting moments of inspired opportunity.

  5. Enno
    Facepalm

    a thin FILM of encryption...

    Of course the camera in the picture accompanying the article is an F90x by the looks... Good luck encrypting the FILM in the back of that sucker!

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: a thin FILM of encryption...

      The cable used looks to be a TriggerTrap (a remote trigger which uses a phone to add features like sound/motion sensors) and is connected to the camera remote socket. No way to transfer data that way :D

  6. MacroRodent Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Would still be useful

    Even if the journalist could sometimes be compelled to reveal the encryption key, the feature could still protect the images if the camera is stolen, or surreptitiously "borrowed" for a while by agents hoping to secretly make a copy of the images.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Would still be useful

      That is the only use for the feature.

      Anything beyond that - UK style RIPA laws + arrest without a warrant in the transit zone of an airport will do the job. Or rubber hose cryptanalysis. Or both.

      IMHO, storing it on the camera except at the moment of taking pic is wrong idea anyway. Camera + wifi or bluetooth which uploads to your phone sitting in your pocket immediately there and then. After that the camera wipes the original. No card in the camera at all - only buffer memory. Phones have has passable encryption software for a very long time they are a harder nut to crack and easier to conceal.

      1. LDS Silver badge

        Camera + wifi or bluetooth which uploads to your phone

        There's the issue how fast the camera can send data to the phone. A pro camera can take 20MB+ images at over 5fps - and rapidly evolving events are shot at those speeds. Video means a lot of data too.

        It means over 100MB/s to transfer, and 100MB/s is what a good gigabit connection can achieve. Nor a camera nor a phone can't reach those speed (it takes a MIMO setup on both devices to reach those speed via WiFi), nor a phone storage can sustain it, I'm afraid.

        And you have to hope the camera and phones had paired and didnt lose the connection...

        Anyway, auto image transfers has been available for a while on pro cameras, but may be not the most reliable one. Also, remember that a wifi or mobile transmitter active also helps to locate you....

        1. Dave 15 Silver badge

          Re: Camera + wifi or bluetooth which uploads to your phone

          Not 100% true.

          808 pureview storage was able to cope, mind that was directly coupled to the video processing chip.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Camera + wifi or bluetooth which uploads to your phone

          (1) It means over 100MB/s to transfer, and 100MB/s is what a good gigabit connection can achieve. Nor a camera nor a phone can't reach those speed

          The Nikon D5 has a gigabit ethernet port.

          (2) Anyway, auto image transfers has been available for a while on pro cameras, but may be not the most reliable one.

          Trust me. The image transfers on the Nikon pro kit is reliable. Have a chat with your friendly Nikon representative about the work they do at the Olympics (hint: pro cameras without photographers behind them, suspended from ceiling struts and such like .... i.e. Nikon's pro remote transfers are pretty solid, you're not going to go asking a Gold medalist to "do it again" because you missed the shot).

          1. LDS Silver badge

            Re: Camera + wifi or bluetooth which uploads to your phone

            Yes, a cabled gigabit port. Find one on your phone. Wireless speeds are lower.

            Also at Olympic games the network is installed well in advance and tested by pros with expensive kits. Find one in Aleppo, right now...

            And while tethered, the camera still writes locally and then uploads the images (usually, via FTP). Local images are not deleted.

      2. Paul Crawford Silver badge

        Re: Would still be useful

        IMHO, storing it on the camera except at the moment of taking pic is wrong idea anyway.

        This is exactly what the cameras should be 'avoiding' - the SD card should look like noise no matter what was stored there, or nothing at all. Add to that a plausible deniability of more than one password to reveal different photo sets and it becomes very difficult to establish if the camera has anything on it at all. For example, if I am going out to take any photos of importance I format the SD card first and take a spare just to have more chance of it storing things properly and not having corrupted FAT, etc. So a camera showing no stored photos is not unusual.

        As for speed of taking photos, if for example, it was using an asymmetric key arrangement the camera can always encrypt the files without your (stored) public key so no need for PIN/password at switch-on, and only that private key can decrypt it later. It can show the in-RAM copy briefly after taking it for you to check composure, focus, etc, and then its wiped and you need the private key to recover the on-disk copy.

  7. Dave 15 Silver badge

    One way of doing something useful

    Perhaps if I have my private key on a PC back in my office in my safe country and unavailable away from my desk and the image is encrypted with my public key then in theory I guess I can't unlock the data anywhere other than back at base... however much the border force want.

    Not that I really think government has a problem with breaking current encryption, especially when you can be fairly sure what the first few bytes of a file are going to contain.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Steganography would be better

    With such massive images these days - sacrificing some megapixels is a better and safer solution. Encryption is only as strong as your will to suffer coercion.

  9. Joe Harrison

    Don't see the point

    The cops in the warzone don't much care about finding out what's on your photos - they already know what's on them, they're photos of a warzone why else would you be there with a pro camera? OK they would still look at them for intelligence if they could but their real concern is not letting the atrocity photos out of the warzone so will confiscate your camera encrypted or not.

    What these journos really need is an invisible camera or one that looks exactly like a camping stove.

    1. JetSetJim Silver badge

      Re: Don't see the point

      The cops in the warzone don't much care about finding out what's on your photos ... so will confiscate your camera encrypted or not.

      What these journos really need is an invisible camera or one that looks exactly like a camping stove.

      Completely agree, the images of Tank Man were smuggled out by hiding the film while handing over a sacrificial film, for example. If an official can't figure out what's on a media card, it'll just get confiscated/destroyed. Punishment to the journo will depend on the civility of the country...

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Slightly different model perhaps ?

    Camera encryption might be best implemented in a n-key model ? So even physically possession of the camera and operator won't be enough to unlock the data.

    If nothing else it would highlight when data was trying to be accessed.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is film the solution...

    Why not use a film camera if you are concerned about being stopped?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is film the solution...

      No, they used to take journalists' film and yank it out of the rolls.

      It was actually quite like encrypted SD cards. It takes some effort to obtain keys/passwords or develop film, but both are easy to destroy if a news blackout is the goal.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anyone else find it amusing ....

    That a profession that makes most of it's money by invading other people's privacy wants it's own privacy to be maintained .......

    Not entirely sure whether the above should be considered a joke/sarcasm as first intended, hence chickiening out by being anonymouse

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Anyone else find it amusing ....

      It's not so much privacy they're after as safety of their work. If they can't get out of there with their material intact, they might as well have not gone at all. Thing is, it's VERY hard to get such things past a paranoid state. There are only so many ways to hide footage, and the State's probably aware of all of them.

  13. Jim-234

    Picking the wrong end of the problem

    They are, as quite often with Journalists worried about the wrong thing.

    State actors or sophisticated rivals getting copies of your pictures are not really the problem, no matter how sneaky you think you are, most likely if anybody who matters cares, somebody has a pretty good idea of where you are doing and what you are photographing. In addition, your photos are not much use for "journalism" if you can't publish them.

    What is the problem & is becoming even more pressing is those actors who want to prevent you from keeping the photos or getting the photos out, even down to your local police forces who want to stop photos & specifically videos of their abuses getting out.

    What they need is simple easy to use, reliable & fast remote storage capability with auto mesh replication and multiplexing mobile bandwidth to servers across several types of regimes.

    So you start shooting with your camera and also taking video.

    Photos / footage is usually stored on your device unless you decide not to.

    Friends / activists / fellow journalists / hidden drops have small pocket sized receivers that get the data right away and store it, as well as mesh with each other to replicate the data as much & far as possible.

    Automatically links to all available mobile communications devices and uploads as quickly as possible using multiple carriers / links / hops to fixed communication lines.

    Automatically replicates the data to servers around the world with different regimes (preferably lots of ones that don't like each other), so the data can't be easily confiscated.

    Other people make offline copies to store, just incase the NSA decides it's time to hack your servers & delete all the copies of said pictures.

    Then you don't have to worry about carrying photos / videos through borders / checkpoints on your camera, you can for that matter have nothing with you at all except for the hardware with no data stored

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Picking the wrong end of the problem

      Except the plods are well aware of mesh networks, dead drops, and the like. Moles, control of the airwaves, and radio sniffers will make your proposition quite dangerous. I believe Iran itself has used these tactics to smothering effect.

  14. Gordon861

    Encrypted USB Datastcks

    Would it not just be simpler to add a USB port or adaptor lead that would allow you to write the images onto a hardware encrypted USB stick? Tech that already exists.

    Alternatively, if the encryption is actually done by the PCs CPU on the sticks, could a device not be produced that uses a lower power CPU like a Pi with a card reader/USB connector on one end, and a USB slot on the other end to slurp the data from the camera/card, encrypt it, and write it to a USB stick. Considering that these camera users already have access to power it should only need fairly limited battery life built in and be fairly portable. It would also mean that you don't need to replace all your existing cameras with new ones and the device would be able to encrypt any data rather than just pictures.

    If you wanted to be even more secure you could have the decryption key stored on a third microSD and send that out via a different source or destroy it. A copy of this key could already be stored back at home so the data is impossible for the camera user to access once you have copied it and destroyed the key. Carry multiple preset key cards for each time you encrypt and the device could be designed to destroy the data on the key card once used once.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Encrypted USB Datastcks

      ANY form of storage could be found and destroyed by a paranoid state.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Gordon861

        Re: Encrypted USB Datastcks

        Yes, but it stops the locals being able to access it which is what I thought the goal was.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: Encrypted USB Datastcks

          No, the REAL goal is preventing ANYONE (local OR international) from being able to access it. And once it's out of their sovereign control, the genie's out of the bottle, so to speak, so a paranoid State will take any measures within their sovereign borders to block bad news. By controlling the airwaves and employing radio sniffers, they can block pirate broadcasts and mesh networks. By searching photographers at the points of exit, they can seize (and destroy) anything that could hold compromising footage. Heck, there are even ways to guard against things being smuggled inside the photographer's body. And since they DO hold sovereign power, there's sod all the photographer can do to stop these countermeasures being used.

          And last I checked, these countermeasures ARE being used in places like Iran, so it's not just theoretical, either.

  15. TAJW

    Hypocrisy. They want freedom of the press, unless it exposes them. Why am I surprised? Oh, wait, I'm not....this is about freedom for the elite PRESS, but the serfs, knowledge to them should be suppressed unless the elite deigns to provide it.

  16. JJKing
    Thumb Up

    Fast data transfer

    There's the issue how fast the camera can send data to the phone. A pro camera can take 20MB+ images at over 5fps - and rapidly evolving events are shot at those speeds. Video means a lot of data too.

    Not an immediate solution but Bluetooth 5 may be able to help with this particular problem.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Fast data transfer

      Even against radio jammers?

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If their is need there will be supply

    If their is demand, you can be sure it will happen, if major brands don't do it, some German company will do it... hopefully they will have security audits before sending the product to the market... full of flaws, like those flaws in digital signatures in some major brand some years in the past, that some researches were able to extract from the processor.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: If their is need there will be supply

      But that's not what they REALLY need. What journalists behind enemy lines REALLY need is a trusted and clandestine egress. The only way to prevent the State from taking your footage is to never encounter them until you're under a DIFFERENT sovereign power.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021