Theft Management and deterrence.

[Keith Walters]

There’s been a fair bit of discussion about this recently, what with Epic #6 getting stolen. I don’t know if this has been done before, but maybe there should be a discussion thread to discuss ideas for:

• Making the things harder to pinch by opportunistic thieves who don’t know what it is they’re actually stealing,
• Minimizing the usefulness of a “Hot” camera to unscrupulous operators who do.

Anybody who was worked for a film or video rental company will know that the biggest problem is random opportunistic thefts, by people who have no idea what it is they’re stealing. In the case of the Epic, I could see how a burglar could mistake it for a high-end stills camera.

Usually what happens is when the burglar discovers it’s not really worth much on the black market, it either gets dumped, or winds up in a pawnshop, whose owner has no idea what it either. Eventually somebody may see it and realize what it actually is, but that can take a long time. Maybe the simplest answer is an inbuilt message that appears on the LCD display explaining all this!

GPS with automated location “phone in” is a fine idea in theory, but is heavily dependent on the necessary cellphone infrastructure being present. Also, I’m not sure how practical it is to build in a UHF transceiver that is both sensitive enough to work reliably, and immune to disabling by dodgy but technically literate operators.

I don't entirely agree with the notion that a stolen RED camera would be too difficult to use commercially either; I could imagine fully self-contained Porn production houses that might be happy to have a couple of extra angles available!

Personally I think you could get more mileage out of a system something like the following, which is more applicable to a rental house situation, but could also be used by owner-operators. It would also only require a software change to the camera:

1. The camera’s owner has “personalized” software installed on his own computer which is either supplied on a flash drive when the camera is delivered, or extracted from the camera itself. That is, the installed software is specific to the camera (or cameras) he owns. (Presumably a “retrofit” service would be also available as part of a normal firmware upgrade for existing cameras).
2. Whenever the camera goes out on a job, the owner enters details of the rental’s expected duration into the software, and it in turn generates a unique code that is then entered into the camera itself, and will only work on that particular camera.
3. For the duration of the agreed rental period, everything works normally, but, once the time is up, the camera would start putting a digital “watermark” into the Redcode files’ metadata.
   This could do several things: It could appear as a faint but clearly visible overlay on the decoded image, or it could simply prevent final rendering altogether. Whatever, the idea is it would make the final “Mix down” unusable or impossible, but still allow the normal "off line" editing processes to take place.
4. If the legitimate customer then contacted the owner(s) and arranged to extend the rental period, a new code would be generated which could be entered into the camera to switch off the watermark on any further footage.
5. The proposed software would also be able to generate a different unlock code, which could be either fed into the editing computer to remove the watermark (and only THAT time-specific watermark), or used during the file transfer process to make watermark-free R3D copies.
   
   The great advantage of the above system is that if there is a genuine mistake, no real harm will be done, because the watermark would be completely reversible in the R3D environment, and it would not prevent the editing process, which is where most of the work usually is.
   However, if someone stole the camera, it would be of no use to them because there would be no way they could generate an unlock code. The watermark could even be the name and address of the owner, which would help to re-unite them with their property!

 

[Steffen Vala]

Interesting idea Keith.
I wonder if there's any programmers that would take the time to begin developing this and get it implemented by RED.
I have a feeling that with rental houses existing for so long, that just because new gear is developed and released, there will not be any heightened priority for such a system to be integrated.
We are working on how to best safeguard ourselves from ANY of our equipment being stolen or go missing. Things like first time renters needing to proof of ID etc etc. But this tech solution you mention does sound great in theory.

 

[Austin Glass]

There's certainly no reason why it should be mandatory. If a rental house doesn't want the hassle of it, then let them opt out, but for those that don't mind implementing a new system, and for those O/O's out there, it'll work like a retro-active lo-jack. I like the idea.

 

[Liam Hall]

How would any of this stop theft? By your own reckoning, it wont. It will simply mean your random, opportunistic thief will dump the camera faster and they'd be absolutely no chance of recovering the unit.

Also, by implementing this you're simply giving insurance companies another reason to up our premiums. And no doubt, the one time the rental house enters the wrong code will be when you're stuck in some god damn awful hole, in the middle of nowhere with no means to phone and give them some abuse.

Seems daft to me...

 

[Keith Walters]

How would any of this stop theft? By your own reckoning, it wont. It will simply mean your random, opportunistic thief will dump the camera faster and they'd be absolutely no chance of recovering the unit.

Also, by implementing this you're simply giving insurance companies another reason to up our premiums. And no doubt, the one time the rental house enters the wrong code will be when you're stuck in some god damn awful hole, in the middle of nowhere with no means to phone and give them some abuse.

Seems daft to me...

Well the title of the thread is "Theft management and deterrence" not "How to Stop Your Camera Getting Stolen". I just thought it might be interesting to discuss a few ideas.

"Also, by implementing this you're simply giving insurance companies another reason to up our premiums."

I worked for Panavision and one of its competitors for over 15 years, and was involved in many Insurance Company "Post Mortems". The Insurance companies always seemed glad of any loss-prevention measures we thought up. I certainly never heard of them wanting to increase our premiums because of it. Maybe it's different if you're a smaller operator.

"And no doubt, the one time the rental house enters the wrong code will be when you're stuck in some god damn awful hole, in the middle of nowhere with no means to phone and give them some abuse."

Well, as I said, my proposed system doesn't prevent you from shooting footage. It doesn't corrupt it in any permanent way, and you can still edit, it just stops you from doing the final render. It's more like you have the workprint, but the lab hangs onto the negative.

Anyway, you are drawing a pretty long bow here; not only does someone have to enter the wrong code, the camera assistant has to fail to check the rental duration (which I would imagine would be available on the camera's LCD display), you have to be a "god damn awful hole" where it's not possible for someone to send you a simple 15 (or so) digit code, AND you're going to be shooting, editing and rendering all in the same god damn awful location?

If you're in the habit of shooting under those conditions, I rather think you're going to be facing some pretty stiff insurance issues anyway...

 

[Keith Walters]

There's certainly no reason why it should be mandatory. If a rental house doesn't want the hassle of it, then let them opt out, but for those that don't mind implementing a new system, and for those O/O's out there, it'll work like a retro-active lo-jack. I like the idea.

I think rental houses would be all for anything that forces their clients to pay for the actual time they use the equipment...

I can tell you many stories of people complaining about equipment problems that the timecodes reveal happened on what were supposed to be travel days! You always get a bit suspicious of people who turn up at the crack of dawn, but race through their checkout procedures with what seems indecent haste, particularly when they seem to have ample time to get to the location...

My favourite story was the "gentleman" who phoned us up to give us an blistering earful about the "appalling quality" of the three Betacams we'd supplied them. Turns out they were actually three old written-off Saticon units with burns on the tubes and other issues, that were supplied as props! (They'd been ratted for parts, but I'd gone to the trouble of getting them "sort of" working, so there would be a picture in the on-board viewfinder in case the DOP wanted that).:smilielol5:

Then there was the Airhead bitch who returned and received replacements for two Betacams, (from out in the middle of nowhere) before we finally realized that the "fuzzy dots" she was complaining about were actually just the PAL colour subcarrier on the composite video output...

 

[Jannard]

All ears to number 1. Number 2 is handled. Won't mention exactly how.

Jim

 

[Travis Moulton]

All ears to number 1. Number 2 is handled. Won't mention exactly how.

Jim

Great to hear! Will something like this possibly be on the Scarlet as well?

 

[Liam Hall]

Well the title of the thread is "Theft management and deterrence" not "How to Stop Your Camera Getting Stolen".

Without getting too pedantic, that is what deterrence means.

That aside, I reread your opening post slower and more carefully! You do have a good point with the use of a digital watermark as it doesn't disable the camera in the field.

I can see how your system might be advantageous for rental companies, to log usage, but I don't see how it would be a deterrence to theft. Maybe I'm missing something - it wouldn't be the first time

There are lots of people who will be using Epic out in the field on their own, with no assistant or communications back home. Indeed, I often shoot in some very shitty places where security is very important. I'm all for using technology to help, but I don't want a system that gets in the way of actually doing my job.

As for insurance, my premiums will go up if the system used is an option, an option that I choose not to have.

I agree it's an important debate and there have been lots of ingenuous suggestions on RedUser - including yours. Another important debate is theft prevention and good practice when out in the public with your expensive equipment. Personally, for my Epic I've got several stickers ready. The one with Holga emblazoned on it is a particular favourite...

 

[Imran Farouk]

Number 1 could be done with the camera connecting via WiFi to the same network as the computer and generating a random code that is then plugged into the computer software and unlocks the footage

or....

When the camera is shipped the unique code that goes with the RED Footage is embedded into RED program and so only that REDcode footage can be used with that or those computers authorized via the flash that is shipped holding all the data and program,

You could also then link everything to the purchase email and do something like iTunes where you can deauthorize all the accounts at once when a camera goes missing for that particular serial number so whenever cam footage is plugged in from that point into a computer and a RED program is opened for that footage it flags it and geo locks it via IP address,

the geo location and IP address can be put into the program and noted in the terms and agreement so any privacy etc. that RED maybe liable for would be negated in the interest of security and is only made available once the camera has been flagged stolen via deactivation.

not sure how well this will work on a large scale when scarlet and epic get released publically but could work,

The first suggestion I made is from when I use to play around with Blizzard games and they had a method to authenticate user accounts when the hacking got really bad. It would either be via the iPhone app or via the authenticator key chain that would generate a random code when you asked for it but this had to be in time with the login asking for it otherwise the code was bad, it was a bit glitchy though, to the point that I had to delete the iPhone app and go through a lengthy process just to get my account back all because it kept flagging the numbers as wrong

EDIT:
CF module, like the SD cards that can geo locate via wifi spots, you could imbed a dumb wifi into the CF module that geo locates all the footage. When a camera is flagged stolen, the minute it pings any WiFi, if its open then the camera gets a response that activates a watermark that gets placed on all footage. So if anything loaded up to the net it's easy to tell if its stolen instead of trolling through so many pictures and footage that's placed online for their meta data.

Given all this is alot easier said then done

The question is though, with all the unique codes etc. passwords and what if the thief tries and fails, so the cameras locked or unusable, what's the chance on the camera being turned in? I mean if they've stolen it they certainly wouldn't be going to be stupid enough to hand it back...
They could take it to a pawn shop but that still leaves it in the wild, so how would one get it back to its owner? I think that would probably be needed to be answered before RED even goes heads into a security enhancement. It lessens the chance on it being stolen I realize, having all the security etc. but thief's aren't exactly bright enough to work out that its not a benefit to steal these cameras once locked...

 

[Richard Goodwin]

I’d like to propose a scheme which reverses this discussion by focusing on the theft of non-brain modules; then expand that into a way to potentially protect the brain as well.

I realize the brain is the most expensive component but on a busy set; or when equipment is in transit; individual loose modules are pretty tempting items for theft. Also we can assume that to have a working camera you need brain + modules. And a thief, unless they were very lucky might have make a few “small” thefts to get a whole system.

In this system modules would be configured to only work with a brain or set of brains. If they were connected to an unauthorized brain they would not work or potentially even lock until unlocked at the factory or by their owner.

- Using Public/Private Keypairs

Core of the system: we would use what is know as Public <-> Private keypair encryption. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography) a simple explanation of which is the system requires two software keys to unlock anything. In fact it’s pretty much like the scenario in an old movie where two different people have two different parts of a broken necklace, playing card etc, that when put together make a whole.

The beauty of this system is that you only need to keep the private key safe. The public key can be copied as many times as you like, and even be viewed by anyone. Yes, one private brain key and lots of module public keys

- Practical Implementation

So in this system the brain module would hold the private key and the additional modules would hold copies of the public key. When they connected to the brain unit; modules would transmit their public key to the brain unit (I’m assuming that modules have a connect and boot up protocol already when they are plugged into a system, so adding a key transmit/verify would just be an additional step in the “boot up”). The brain would then verify that module with it’s private key. If it failed then it could take precautionary steps such as displaying a warning or just take drastic steps like locking up the whole system (the owners of the camera could pre-program that).

- For Larger Productions

If this was a larger shoot you could just load the modules with the public keys of all the brains that were part of the shoot. This could be done when the cameras left the rental house or by the production on the first shoot day. After that the same steps would be used. But, in this case each brain would scan through all the public keys in the module before giving the OK or NOT-OK sign.

- Protecting the Brain Too

You could also use this method to protect the brain as well. One method would be to keep the private key on an SD card that came with the kit when you rented it. You could use that to verify the modules once a day. Or once a power cycle etc (it could be operator set). So that even if the whole kit was stolen it would cease to function pretty quickly. Note: in this case you could even store a public key on the brain that required an occasional verification using the private key on the SD card. Pretty much preventing long term usage.

This could also be used a system for passive theft detection. If a module transmitted an unknown public key the brain could just store it and do nothing. However diagnostic software at the rental house could scan the brains when they came back from a rental for unknown public keys. If so they could be transmitted to RED where, presumably any RED owner who had a stole component could have given RED a copy of their public key to match against.

- Taking This Into Post

Public keys could be embedded in footage as well, allowing for a sort of radioactive blip that might help trace a theft back through the production chain. Software could be designed to scan for it. And, it even reject footage which might have come from compromised systems. Remember you only need a copy of the public key (so the core credential would not have been given away). This is less apparent than a visual watermark. But, that is part of the idea. Don’t let thievies know that they are being tracked at all.

- Personalizing Camera

This could also be used to even prevent bootup or functioning of the camera unless its authorized owner was on hand. Part of the firmware could be set to hold a public key and authorization program. It would look for a private key to verify against. If it did not find it (and remember there is only one possible private key) it could act accordingly. So the owner’s signature is their private key (via SD card "dongle")

- How This is Vulnerable.

The main way this I see that this system could be broken is to re-wire the camera or firmware to bypass the checks for the keys. This partly could be protected against by wiring these checks deeply into the camera hardware/firmware; making it really difficult to bypass. It could also be protected against by a simpler method. Modules that did not ask to be verified would be disabled or worse. And, brains that did not ask for verification from modules would be locked out from communicating by modules themselves.

What gives this system a slight edge is that even if robbers get "the secret code" they still will not be able to use the rig; same is true if they find the code and try to just delete it.

Im sure there are holes in this scheme. And, its only one potential direction. But, hopefully this provides help with ways to protect owners equipment.

 

[Wayne Beck]

Well here I go again. Many of you are beginning to realize that Wayne will talk about anything. Whether he knows anything about it or not.

What about an alarm system in the brain? Operator has 3-5 seconds to enter code/switch/whatever when camera or body is moved. The alarm system could be deactivated by operator on set or location while in use. Turns it back on at his discretion.

The alarm most likely could not be too loud but how loud would it have to be to get attention.

Opps . . . battery life when in storage. Oh wait. The storage unit would be bugged/alarmed. OK, we're still good,

 

[Keith Walters]

Number 1 could be done with the camera connecting via WiFi to the same network as the computer and generating a random code that is then plugged into the computer software and unlocks the footage

or....

When the camera is shipped the unique code that goes with the RED Footage is embedded into RED program and so only that REDcode footage can be used with that or those computers authorized via the flash that is shipped holding all the data and program,

You could also then link everything to the purchase email and do something like iTunes where you can deauthorize all the accounts at once when a camera goes missing for that particular serial number so whenever cam footage is plugged in from that point into a computer and a RED program is opened for that footage it flags it and geo locks it via IP address,

the geo location and IP address can be put into the program and noted in the terms and agreement so any privacy etc. that RED maybe liable for would be negated in the interest of security and is only made available once the camera has been flagged stolen via deactivation.

not sure how well this will work on a large scale when scarlet and epic get released publically but could work,

The first suggestion I made is from when I use to play around with Blizzard games and they had a method to authenticate user accounts when the hacking got really bad. It would either be via the iPhone app or via the authenticator key chain that would generate a random code when you asked for it but this had to be in time with the login asking for it otherwise the code was bad, it was a bit glitchy though, to the point that I had to delete the iPhone app and go through a lengthy process just to get my account back all because it kept flagging the numbers as wrong

EDIT:
CF module, like the SD cards that can geo locate via wifi spots, you could imbed a dumb wifi into the CF module that geo locates all the footage. When a camera is flagged stolen, the minute it pings any WiFi, if its open then the camera gets a response that activates a watermark that gets placed on all footage. So if anything loaded up to the net it's easy to tell if its stolen instead of trolling through so many pictures and footage that's placed online for their meta data.

Given all this is alot easier said then done

In my experience anyway, if you make the security systems too complex, they're more likely to be either ignored or mis-applied by minimum-wage rental staff. My scheme is simply intended to be another layer of protection, which could be implemented as part of a firmware upgrade, not requiring extra hardware.
With my proposed scheme, the extent to which a legitimate user can be inadvertantly inconvenienced is pretty minimal, since the "spoiler" only kicks in any serious way right at the end of the production chain, where they would normally have had plenty of time to sort this out.

The question is though, with all the unique codes etc. passwords and what if the thief tries and fails, so the cameras locked or unusable, what's the chance on the camera being turned in? I mean if they've stolen it they certainly wouldn't be going to be stupid enough to hand it back...
They could take it to a pawn shop but that still leaves it in the wild, so how would one get it back to its owner? I think that would probably be needed to be answered before RED even goes heads into a security enhancement. It lessens the chance on it being stolen I realize, having all the security etc. but thief's aren't exactly bright enough to work out that its not a benefit to steal these cameras once locked...

Still, a small chance is better than no chance. Particularly if it can be done for minimal cost.
Of course there's no substitute for simple viligance, a fact that seems to get overlooked far too often. Obvious things like simply covering up expensive-looking equipment locked in the back of a car with a plastic tarp are routinely ignored.
I once bought some amazingly effective burglar alarms in a "$2 Shop" that consisted of a stick-on magnet/reed switch assembly and an extremely loud "shrieker" alarm, batteries included, all for $2! I mostly used them for stopping kids fiddling with things they weren't supposed to, but they could be a remarkably effective deterrent for stealth-dependent thieves.