Apples

Apples

by Garik

submit your photo


Picture of the Week Themes
Suggest and vote on themes

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tell me more ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Does any manufacturer produce a compact camera which has the ability to securely delete pictures from the memory card? Or, failing that, have a format feature which really blanks the card rather than just deleting the FAT?

I work for a healthcare organization and we're trying to find the easiest way to wipe photos of patients after they have been transferred to our network.

I'm aware that we can load the memory into a PC and wipe it there, but I'd like to find something built in, for convenience.

share|improve this question
10  
Cameras and PC software can't offer truly secure deletion on flash devices because of the way those devices manage the memory where the data is actually stored. (See this question on StackOverflow for a slightly more detailed explanation.) If your local regulations require erasure to the point where there's absolutely no trace of the information left anywhere on the media, you will probably have to resort to buying inexpensive, low-capacity devices and physically destroying them after each patient. – Blrfl Dec 7 '12 at 19:55
2  
But couldn't you just fill the card up after "deleting" the images? – Paul Cezanne Dec 7 '12 at 21:23
1  
@PaulCezanne: Depends on how the wear leveling algorithm in the card works. The only practical, 100% safe possibilities are physical destruction and using cards that implement the ATA secure erase operation. Hard disks and some SSDs implement the latter; I've never seen a flash card or USB stick that did. – Blrfl Dec 8 '12 at 14:12
3  
I would recommend a two-stage process. Erase images in the normal way once you have uploaded them to the network, but also treat all SD cards that have been used for this as if they were hardcopy patient records - keep them locked up when they are not in use, use tracking numbers so they don't get lost etc. The first will prevent casual browsers from finding pictures and the second will prevent determined violators. – DJClayworth Dec 10 '12 at 19:15
1  
@BillN - Most likely the pictures will be transferred from outside the network i.e. from a laptop via VPN. We've discussed the possibility of wiping cards after they are in the laptop, or the camera is mounted over USB, but it would need to be a very easy to use process as this will be done by non-technical staff. Hence my hope to find a camera with a secure delete option; it would be simplest of all. – Chris Dec 12 '12 at 13:10
show 7 more comments

8 Answers

The closest you could get is to have a secure (encrypted) card so that the contents were scrambled to those who don't have the password.

Lexar produced a CF card range called LockTight, which offered encryption in combination with the Nikon D200 although I've seen nothing new on it in a few years.

I haven't heard much if anything about the technology for a few years but it's a starting point.

Edit: I should have mentioned that the encryption mechanism happens within the card rather than in camera/computer - which means the key management is not subject to the usual forensic recovery techniques which come about as a result of wear levelling.

share|improve this answer
I don't think anything like this is currently available. – mattdm Feb 2 at 15:27
Ah: turns out that although Lexar says "encryption", it really wasn't. – mattdm Feb 2 at 15:30
I noticed this when I posted an answer involving the locktight card on another question a few of days ago. It just blocks the card's access until the passphrase was entered. So while not technically encryption, locking the card in this way would still be sufficient for the needs of this situation since the card it would be unlikely to be under any kind of well resourced or sustained attack. I can edit to clarify if you like, matt? – James Snell Feb 2 at 15:45
This sounds like it's private medical information: pictures of patients. I think more protection than this is likely required. Speculation on Scheier's blog is that an attack would be as simple as swapping the flash chips into a normal CF card. – mattdm Feb 2 at 16:00
I see where he's getting at as it's just locking out the controller based on a password/hash you could bypass the controller, assuming it's not baked into the chip(s). I figure to remove and install the chips elsewhere requires a surface mount device workstation as a minimum, making the attack well resourced and highly targeted. In those situations a card like this is very unlikely to be the weakest link in the chain and that simpler attack vectors would be more effective and cheaper. – James Snell Feb 2 at 17:16

Here are some alternative idea:

  • Maybe you can take a look at Eye fi SD card ( http://www.eye.fi/ )
    It's an SD card that ransfer the captured image in real time on the computer via a WiFi network. I never used one: you can check if it's possible to transfer the images without storing them in the memory of the SD card.
    UPDATE: @Chris already own an Eye fi card, and it seem that this solution is not possilbe
  • Find a camera that have integrated support for WiFi image transfer, AND can take photos without a memory card
  • you can look in the "alternative firmware" world (CHDK come to mind http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK) and ask if someone want to develop a "secure erase/overwrite" function, or maybe you can develop you own with some kind of scripting... (I don't know it's possible, but maybe you want to check out)
share|improve this answer
I have a Eye Fi card and I don't think it transfers without storing first (unless newer models/updates allow this). However, this wouldn't be an option as they will rarely have wifi access when taking pictures. Interesting idea though! I'll have to look into chdk and see what scope that offers. – Chris Dec 12 '12 at 12:55

Samsung has a new Android based compact camera, the Galaxy Camera.

Using this camera, you should be able to logon to Google play and download Android apps for Secure file deletion.

I've not tried this myself as I do not have that camera but hopefully this would work for you.

share|improve this answer

I suspect that such a system does not exist. At one time Canon produced a system for its Pro cameras to ensure that images taken on the camera were authentic and not retouched, however, this system was proven to be inadequate and subsequently easily cracked. As a result, Canon no longer produces the system.

I suspect that deletion or even secure deletion will never be adequate, as it is not adequate for computer hard drives. With enough time and money, files are easily recovered from most media. In-camera Encryption would likely be the preferred route, but I suspect this would require a significant step up in processor power on the camera (hence the 'security' system Canon provided which was an encryption dongle for the camera), and therefore expense. I know of no system that provides encryption of the card.

I would recommend that you 1) simply reformat the card following each use, making it part of the training for camera users, and 2) since this is technically inadequate, treat the card (or card and camera for convenience) as a form of PHI, and secure it in the same manner you do other sources of PHI.

share|improve this answer

While not specifically a camera, what about an iPod Touch or iPhone? Both offer hardware encryption, passwords, remote wipe and other mobile device management options. You could use configuration tools to lock it down to just the camera app and if something does go awry you could remotely wipe it (or maybe even locate it!).

Users would plug in the device to a computer, enter a password and download the photos.

I too work in healthcare and have been pondering a solution for handling photos of our burn victims. Taking a photo and storing in securely is a much better experience than having to wrap and unwrap bandages.

share|improve this answer

Most cameras (if not all) uses the same chip, or a variation of it, to handle the FAT-file system as this makes it cheaper to implement support for cards and so on.

The drawback security-wise, is that they all offer the same functionality. Deleting a file only deletes the header of the file and such the file can easily be reconstructed.

Simply full-formatting the card helps, but with forensic techniques it is possible to get those data back (picking up and amplifying weak electric/magnetic residue). With quick-format only the file table is cleared, content is left untouched.

So what you can do to achieve high security with a common camera is the following:

After you have transferring the pictures use the following procedure:

  • Format the card (important: full format, not quick).
  • Turn off flash and take as many pictures you can to fill up the card. Point the camera to the sky f.ex. This is to overwrite the old left-over traces with "noise".
  • Re-format again with full format

And repeat once more (or twice) to be sure.

This technique is basically what file "shredders" do, only here you do it manually. It's somewhat time-consuming but offer good data security in terms of ability to restore data from the card.

share|improve this answer

Cameras and PC software can't offer truly secure deletion on flash devices because of the way those devices manage the memory where the data is actually stored. (See this question on StackOverflow for a slightly more detailed explanation.)

If your local regulations require erasure to the point where there's absolutely no trace of the information left anywhere on the media, you will probably have to resort to buying inexpensive, low-capacity devices and physically destroying them after each patient.

share|improve this answer

For anyone who's interested: we ended up using Panasonic Lumix cameras with pictures stored on the internal memory instead of an SD card. The image files are transfer over VPN to a network share and then securely deleted; this is all done with a batch file the users can just click on.
Blrfl's answer about whether secure deletion is even viable is well taken, but we figure it's about the best we can do and the fact that the memory is internal probably helps here.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.