Karim D. Ghantous
Well-known member
I think that most of us have similar philosophies when it comes to theft. Some years ago on a photography forum I suggested that digital cameras output encrypted RAW files. Many responses were recommending that we just insure our cameras; and that maybe it would add unnecessary cost and complication. Um, that won't help get it back, will it? And it won't stop thieves making good use of our stuff, will it? And these same folks have no trouble with expensive cameras with big sensors and high pixel counts which require more memory cards etc.
Of course all ideas like this get poo-pooed until the manufacturer gives its imprimatur, at which point they all are ideas great and good.
Computer security depends not on one, monolithic feature but on many, smaller features. The Nazis had fewer, bigger tanks while the Soviets had more, smaller tanks. Guess whose army was able to utilize its armour better? That philosophy would serve us well. FWIW, the Second World War is my moral compass.
Maybe some outlandish features could be custom mounts with matched lenses. Expensive, but nobody can use their lenses on your camera, or your lenses on their camera. Only for those with the money, though.
Martial arts offers very good insights on defence. Don't resist your opponent. Let him come at you instead. Don't be stronger than your opponent, be faster (at the beginning of WW2, the German army was weaker than the French army, but much faster). Only by admitting that thieves are smarter than you will you be able to out-manoeuvre them. They might be in the wrong but the successful ones are still very, very intelligent. Don't forget that.
But GPS is a much better thing, though it doesn't help with lenses. I also agree that each frame should have some metadata, possibly encrypted, which identifies the camera. Any footage with corrupted or absent metadata can by default be under suspicion, and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it should be law that all equipment offered for sale should identify a serial number (though that can generate false claims of theft, so there will have to be a provision for that).
The best way to minimize theft is to maximize the effort required to use or offload stolen property. Punishing thieves isn't necessarily the best answer, even though theft is rarely spontaneous and therefore there is no excuse for it (medical emergencies exempted). If everyone agreed that material objects are not the most important things in life, then there would be no theft. Still, our society recognizes property as sacred, and rightly so.
Of course all ideas like this get poo-pooed until the manufacturer gives its imprimatur, at which point they all are ideas great and good.
Computer security depends not on one, monolithic feature but on many, smaller features. The Nazis had fewer, bigger tanks while the Soviets had more, smaller tanks. Guess whose army was able to utilize its armour better? That philosophy would serve us well. FWIW, the Second World War is my moral compass.
Maybe some outlandish features could be custom mounts with matched lenses. Expensive, but nobody can use their lenses on your camera, or your lenses on their camera. Only for those with the money, though.
Martial arts offers very good insights on defence. Don't resist your opponent. Let him come at you instead. Don't be stronger than your opponent, be faster (at the beginning of WW2, the German army was weaker than the French army, but much faster). Only by admitting that thieves are smarter than you will you be able to out-manoeuvre them. They might be in the wrong but the successful ones are still very, very intelligent. Don't forget that.
But GPS is a much better thing, though it doesn't help with lenses. I also agree that each frame should have some metadata, possibly encrypted, which identifies the camera. Any footage with corrupted or absent metadata can by default be under suspicion, and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, it should be law that all equipment offered for sale should identify a serial number (though that can generate false claims of theft, so there will have to be a provision for that).
The best way to minimize theft is to maximize the effort required to use or offload stolen property. Punishing thieves isn't necessarily the best answer, even though theft is rarely spontaneous and therefore there is no excuse for it (medical emergencies exempted). If everyone agreed that material objects are not the most important things in life, then there would be no theft. Still, our society recognizes property as sacred, and rightly so.
