just like OSK-E3 designed to encrypt photo.
would ML perform some kind of encryption to the photo?
and that decryption can be done when it is copied to computer and with proper decryption key.
why?
I doubt this one will be of any use. OSK-E3's intention was to cover legal issues. In short: To guarantee the claim of the photographer that this very picture wasn't manipulated in any way. I have more than reservations here. The way ML works (tasks running on top of Canon's firmware) will cause some serious questions. Is there any way to prove there wasn't an additional software module running on this machine mocking with ML's encryption?
How will it stand in court? A software add-on not supported by the manufacturer? Who is responsible for legal issues? This is for starters, there is more and a lot.
Opponent's lawyer will have a field day.
And you know OSK-E3 has been cracked some 3 years ago?
Ciao
Walter
yes, I know the verification function is already broken in. While the encryption is still good.
I read this from another site
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/33902/do-any-dslrs-offer-in-camera-file-encryption
"This would prevent self-incrimination, for example if your camera is seized and the photos therein are used as evidence against you."
or maybe a simpler way, if the playback is not displaying the photo, this should be avoiding a lots of trouble. other might just use the playback function to check your camera, if they are not seeing anything, you will not be bothered.
Search "fake delete". You will find all arguments (and workarounds) in former threads.
BTW: In Australia and UK (at least) you will be forced to uncrypt your data or fined/put in jail.
Ciao
Walter
PS: Was discussed for CHDK, too.