but you seem to be talking about situations where concealed camera equipment is more suitable, or even just your run of the mill phone.
bit strawman?
what they are asking for isn't technically difficult or even that expensive to develop.
bit strawman?
what they are asking for isn't technically difficult or even that expensive to develop.
Strawmen's got nothing to do with it; I just don't see why one should try to make a product with an unneccesarily limited set of use cases.
a) Encrypted storage would be a benefit for both Laura Poitras and just about anyone else; true.
b) Adding steganography does not put Laura Poitras at a disadvantage; however, it may provide a benefit to other users under other use cases. Also, it is not technically very difficult or even that expensive to develop.
c) To some users, the existence of encrypted, visible files could be just as bad - perhaps even worse - than unencrypted files; after all - you are basically showing the person challenging you that you've got something to hide.
So - I think adding the option of plausible deniability will add negligible complexity while making the potential user base larger, thus making a camera (or memory card) incorporating this technology more commercially viable - benefitting both the Laura Poitrases and the others. No strawman.
"This is too limited because it doesnt help people taking the camera"
when the whole problem has nothing to do with taking the camera and everything to do with what happens afterwards.
the equivelent to "there is no point in encrypting your banking transactions because it wont stop someone stealing your wallet on the street"
-> typical strawman.
A strawman would be me saying something like "This is a good idea, but it is obvious it needs quantum cryptography to succeed, and as we all know, that is hardly commercially available in a form factor you could incorporate in a digital camera, hence the idea will never fly." (Yes, this is taken almost ad absurdum - but, hey, this is the Internet, after all. :))
Me arguing that this is a good idea which could be even better at no disadvantage to Poitras et al and for negligible extra development, however, is hardly a strawman.
Then again, I may be misunderstanding you altogether; English is my third language and I am struggling to understand what you mean when you suggest that I (paraphrased) say "This is too limited because it doesn't help people taking the camera"
Even Poitras' suggestion is intended to help once someone has taken the camera; you do not need encryption or anything per se as long as the camera is in your possession. (Assuming it is offline!) - It is when someone - be it the US Govt, a competitor, your friendly neighbourhood grunt, some guerilla in a disagreeable part of the world has taken it that limiting access to the images/footage is necessary.
not a million miles from
->I think you'd still only have a solution which is workable against a very limited set of adversaries - namely, the ones who play by the rules, more or less.
which is exactly why i said "a bit strawman"
perhaps where we differ is you think encryption only keeps information safe from those who play by the rules?
-No, that is not what I think and neither is it what I've been trying to bring across.
Let's just put it on the account of poor communication skills (at either end).