4 ms·

But why should they believe that you really don't have the access to the key? You might end up with torture :/ Also, they could hold you captive and demand tha

But why should they believe that you really don't have the access to the key? You might end up with torture :/ Also, they could hold you captive and demand that you have someone at home send the key in exchange for your freedom.

brokenmachine 10y ago
Please list your alternative solution for storing photos where capture/torture is not a possibility.
- eriknstr 10y ago
  I'd have to say that selectively keeping inconspicuous photos and transferring the "incriminating" ones via the internet (as suggested by others) seems to be the best possible course of action. Aside from that it seems better to allow the authorities immediate access to all photos without encryption. You might lose the pictures but I think you'll have a better chance at avoiding personal harm.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    If you're caught though there's a good chance you were seen taking pictures and those pictures not being present is going to be quite obvious. Also, if camera makers add this feature than those confiscating camera equipment will know about it. I don't really see how you can technologically avoid personal harm if you're in a war zone [or similar] taking imagery that some people don't want publishing and you're captured in that process. Harming you is the standard way of stopping you continuing to defy such people. Not being able to destroy the images taken is good, but it's not going to save cameras and people from being smashed up IMO.
wolfgke 10y ago
> But why should they believe that you really don't have the access to the key? You might end up with torture :/ On http://security.stackexchange.com/a/83059/6870 http://security.stackexchange.com/a/83059/6870 you can find a basic idea how you can create keys that you cannot have access to. There is of course some work to be done to fit it to the "camera scenario".

4 ms·

But why should they believe that you really don't have the access to the key? You might end up with torture :/ Also, they could hold you captive and demand tha

by eriknstr 10y ago

brokenmachine 10y ago
Please list your alternative solution for storing photos where capture/torture is not a possibility.
- eriknstr 10y ago
  I'd have to say that selectively keeping inconspicuous photos and transferring the "incriminating" ones via the internet (as suggested by others) seems to be the best possible course of action. Aside from that it seems better to allow the authorities immediate access to all photos without encryption. You might lose the pictures but I think you'll have a better chance at avoiding personal harm.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    If you're caught though there's a good chance you were seen taking pictures and those pictures not being present is going to be quite obvious. Also, if camera makers add this feature than those confiscating camera equipment will know about it. I don't really see how you can technologically avoid personal harm if you're in a war zone [or similar] taking imagery that some people don't want publishing and you're captured in that process. Harming you is the standard way of stopping you continuing to defy such people. Not being able to destroy the images taken is good, but it's not going to save cameras and people from being smashed up IMO.
wolfgke 10y ago
> But why should they believe that you really don't have the access to the key? You might end up with torture :/ On http://security.stackexchange.com/a/83059/6870 http://security.stackexchange.com/a/83059/6870 you can find a basic idea how you can create keys that you cannot have access to. There is of course some work to be done to fit it to the "camera scenario".