Baseplate with AirTag

Horshack said:

tundracamper said:

Horshack said:

Apple has third-party support for their Find My protocol and network, which means any device with bluetooth could be made compatible.

It's also time for camera makers to add anti-theft features to their products, in particular optional passcodes to bodies and lenses. After a user-configurable amount of time, the user would be prompted to tap a passcode on the touchscreen or a knock-code combination on the camera controls. Bodies and lenses would have independent codes, although for convenience both could be set to the same code so the lens is automatically in an unlocked state whenever the camera is in an unlocked state. The same code could also be used across multiple bodies/lenses owned by the same person / team, to support interchanging lenses across all bodies owned.

Click to expand...

Please, no.

Click to expand...

Why? Anybody who doesn't want to use the feature can simply choose to not enable it.

Click to expand...

Because if people want to steal your camera, they will do so anyway. And most likely they will find a way to decode, unlock it. Quite a few Apple Stores in my area have been robbed, repeatedly, even though a lot of Apple devices have such features. Once I was inside a very crowded Apple Store when such a robbery happened. (That was back in 2019, shortly before the pandemic. It was packed and I was in the middle of the store. The robbery was at the front entrance so that I wasn't really affected.)

Most of the time, such anti-theft features will block the rightful owner from using their devices, at the most inconvenient time, e.g. you are in a rush at a sports event or some wedding, suddenly you forget your code or you are under pressure and keep on keying in the code wrong.

I think the Kensington lock Nikon provides on the Z9, D6, and some longer lenses is more effective, because it is a physical lock and cable, but then you risk people damaging your camera when they try to steal it and cut the cable.

Tord S Eriksson said:

Horshack said:

tundracamper said:

Horshack said:

Apple has third-party support for their Find My protocol and network, which means any device with bluetooth could be made compatible.

It's also time for camera makers to add anti-theft features to their products, in particular optional passcodes to bodies and lenses. After a user-configurable amount of time, the user would be prompted to tap a passcode on the touchscreen or a knock-code combination on the camera controls. Bodies and lenses would have independent codes, although for convenience both could be set to the same code so the lens is automatically in an unlocked state whenever the camera is in an unlocked state. The same code could also be used across multiple bodies/lenses owned by the same person / team, to support interchanging lenses across all bodies owned.

Click to expand...

Please, no.

Click to expand...

Why? Anybody who doesn't want to use the feature can simply choose to not enable it.

Click to expand...

I could imagine it a pain if it activates during a shoot unless you can keep them all in your phone for easy recall?!

Click to expand...

The user-configurable automatic lock time would avoid that. I'm thinking the options would be:

• Never - only lock the camera when the user manually tells it to, such as they might do at the end of a shoot or when traveling
• Always on shutdown - always lock the camera at shutdown and/or standby
• Specific interval - specific number of minutes/hours/days since last being unlocked.

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

tundracamper said:

Horshack said:

Apple has third-party support for their Find My protocol and network, which means any device with bluetooth could be made compatible.

It's also time for camera makers to add anti-theft features to their products, in particular optional passcodes to bodies and lenses. After a user-configurable amount of time, the user would be prompted to tap a passcode on the touchscreen or a knock-code combination on the camera controls. Bodies and lenses would have independent codes, although for convenience both could be set to the same code so the lens is automatically in an unlocked state whenever the camera is in an unlocked state. The same code could also be used across multiple bodies/lenses owned by the same person / team, to support interchanging lenses across all bodies owned.

Click to expand...

Please, no.

Click to expand...

Why? Anybody who doesn't want to use the feature can simply choose to not enable it.

Click to expand...

Because if people want to steal your camera, they will do so anyway.

Click to expand...

Apple’s Activation Lock Leads To Big Drops In Smartphone Theft Worldwide

shuncheung said:

And most likely they will find a way to decode, unlock it.

Click to expand...

"Most likely" based on what? To my knowledge nobody has compromised the iOS or Android cloud locking mechanism on a wide-scale basis. Why would that not also be true when implemented in a camera?

shuncheung said:

Quite a few Apple Stores in my area have been robbed, repeatedly, even though a lot of Apple devices have such features.

Click to expand...

Brand-new phones aren't locked, so thefts of new phones from retail stores is not material to the discussion. Phones are only locked once a user activates them.

shuncheung said:

Once I was inside a very crowded Apple Store when such a robbery happened. (That was back in 2019, shortly before the pandemic. It was packed and I was in the middle of the store. The robbery was at the front entrance so that I wasn't really affected.)

Click to expand...

See above

shuncheung said:

Most of the time, such anti-theft features will block the rightful owner from using their devices, at the most inconvenient time, e.g. you are in a rush at a sports event or some wedding, suddenly you forget your code or you are under pressure and keep on keying in the code wrong.

Click to expand...

See this post.

RL Photography said:

GeoffRG said:

areallygrumpyoldsod said:

I "WISH" SmallRig offered this feature (airtag housing) as an option for ALL their cages and L-plates -- simply put adding an additional base plate later just does not work for me.

Whereas the NineVolt AirCap works great. Obviously when the body cap is in use, less so when the camera has a lens on it.

Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I love the idea but I don’t want a bracket hung on the bottom of my camera. To me an L bracket is useless ballast because I don’t use tripods. Of more use to ne would be a built-in socket for an air tag in the camera.

Click to expand...

Do you use a strap?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B1P475Y6/

Click to expand...

Straps are easily removed, very easily if you’re not fussed about reusing them.

Horshack said:

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

Why? Anybody who doesn't want to use the feature can simply choose to not enable it.

Click to expand...

Because if people want to steal your camera, they will do so anyway.

Click to expand...

Apple’s Activation Lock Leads To Big Drops In Smartphone Theft Worldwide

Horshack said:

And most likely they will find a way to decode, unlock it.

Click to expand...

"Most likely" based on what? To my knowledge nobody has compromised the iOS or Android cloud locking mechanism on a wide-scale basis. Why would that not also be true when implemented in a camera?

Click to expand...

We are talking about (Nikon) cameras and lenses here. Those are not iOS devices. If you use some 4-digit, 6-digit passcode, it is pretty easy to use a program to unlock it. Such features will mainly trouble the rightful owners so that they cannot use their cameras.

Horshack said:

Horshack said:

Quite a few Apple Stores in my area have been robbed, repeatedly, even though a lot of Apple devices have such features.

Click to expand...

Brand-new phones aren't locked, so thefts of new phones from retail stores is not material to the discussion. Phones are only locked once a user activates them.

Click to expand...

Those iPhone that are robbed from Apple Stores are not brand new phones in boxes. They are on display for customers to play with. Apple would be very stupid not to lock them. A lot of those robberies happen in day time. A bunch of thieves just rush in and take a bunch of iPads and iPhone from display tables near the door and then take off. It all happens in seconds. There are plenty of security videos of such robberies, and I was in the middle of one myself.

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

Why? Anybody who doesn't want to use the feature can simply choose to not enable it.

Click to expand...

Because if people want to steal your camera, they will do so anyway.

Click to expand...

Apple’s Activation Lock Leads To Big Drops In Smartphone Theft Worldwide

shuncheung said:

And most likely they will find a way to decode, unlock it.

Click to expand...

"Most likely" based on what? To my knowledge nobody has compromised the iOS or Android cloud locking mechanism on a wide-scale basis. Why would that not also be true when implemented in a camera?

Click to expand...

We are talking about (Nikon) cameras and lenses here. Those are not iOS devices. If you use some 4-digit, 6-digit passcode, it is pretty easy to use a program to unlock it.

Click to expand...

Why would it be easy? Try typing the wrong passcode into your iPhone multiple times. Notice how it takes progressively longer before it allows the next attempt? Why would this and other countermeasures not be implemented on the camera as well?

shuncheung said:

Such features will mainly trouble the rightful owners so that they cannot use their cameras.

Click to expand...

Why? Many people still use passcodes on their phones, even though biometrics are available. Is there a rash of phone users who forget their passcodes? They could use the same code on their camera.

Horshack said:

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

Why? Anybody who doesn't want to use the feature can simply choose to not enable it.

Click to expand...

Because if people want to steal your camera, they will do so anyway.

Click to expand...

Apple’s Activation Lock Leads To Big Drops In Smartphone Theft Worldwide

Horshack said:

And most likely they will find a way to decode, unlock it.

Click to expand...

"Most likely" based on what? To my knowledge nobody has compromised the iOS or Android cloud locking mechanism on a wide-scale basis. Why would that not also be true when implemented in a camera?

Click to expand...

We are talking about (Nikon) cameras and lenses here. Those are not iOS devices. If you use some 4-digit, 6-digit passcode, it is pretty easy to use a program to unlock it.

Click to expand...

Why would it be easy? Try typing the wrong passcode into your iPhone multiple times. Notice how it takes progressively longer before it allows the next attempt? Why would this and other countermeasures not be implemented on the camera as well?

Horshack said:

Such features will mainly trouble the rightful owners so that they cannot use their cameras.

Click to expand...

Why? Many people still use passcodes on their phones, even though biometrics are available. Is there a rash of phone users who forget their passcodes? They could use the same code on their camera.

Click to expand...

I am afraid that you have just explained why this is an undesirable feature yourself. I want to take some pictures in a hurry, and now all of a sudden I need to key in some stupid passcode first. And if I accidentally make a couple of mistakes because I am under pressure, it will take progressively longer to unlock my camera and my lens, while I am missing the on-going action.

Another issue with cameras and lenses is that even though you can somehow lock them, the thieves can always take them apart and sell them as parts. That is what happens to a lot of car thefts.

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

Why? Anybody who doesn't want to use the feature can simply choose to not enable it.

Click to expand...

Because if people want to steal your camera, they will do so anyway.

Click to expand...

Apple’s Activation Lock Leads To Big Drops In Smartphone Theft Worldwide

shuncheung said:

And most likely they will find a way to decode, unlock it.

Click to expand...

"Most likely" based on what? To my knowledge nobody has compromised the iOS or Android cloud locking mechanism on a wide-scale basis. Why would that not also be true when implemented in a camera?

Click to expand...

We are talking about (Nikon) cameras and lenses here. Those are not iOS devices. If you use some 4-digit, 6-digit passcode, it is pretty easy to use a program to unlock it.

Click to expand...

Why would it be easy? Try typing the wrong passcode into your iPhone multiple times. Notice how it takes progressively longer before it allows the next attempt? Why would this and other countermeasures not be implemented on the camera as well?

shuncheung said:

Such features will mainly trouble the rightful owners so that they cannot use their cameras.

Click to expand...

Why? Many people still use passcodes on their phones, even though biometrics are available. Is there a rash of phone users who forget their passcodes? They could use the same code on their camera.

Click to expand...

I am afraid that you have just explained why this is an undesirable feature yourself. I want to take some pictures in a hurry, and now all of a sudden I need to key in some stupid passcode first. And if I accidentally make a couple of mistakes because I am under pressure, it will take progressively longer to unlock my camera and my lens, while I am missing the on-going action.

Click to expand...

The options presented would allow the automatic relock time to be set to a user-configured interval. To avoid the scenario you described the user could set it to a large interval, say one day, and unlock their camera once at the start of each day to avoid ever having to unlock it in a rush throughout the day. And of course the entire feature would be optionally enabled so it's not as if the feature would be forced upon users.

shuncheung said:

Another issue with cameras and lenses is that even though you can somehow lock them, the thieves can always take them apart and sell them as parts. That is what happens to a lot of car thefts.

Click to expand...

That is true and a good point. But thieves would get much less selling a camera for parts vs whole, and unlike cars, cameras generally don't have constantly wearing parts that require replacement, so there would be much less demand for major parts.

I would at least face the tag mounting plate screws toward the camera. It just needs to be more time consuming, so that you have enough time to track them during their getaway. The right tools to take anything apart are only an Amazon visit away. However, I think mounting flexible black air-tags inside a lens hood would be more effective, and less likely to spot.

Maybe something integrated into the battery, or since we can't use third party batteries anyway, offer it as a feature, take that one step further, and require that the batteries be registered with the cameras you own; perhaps using snapbridge.

An even better solution would be for security that uses Snapbridge, where the camera would need to be re-enabled based on a set time frame from a few hours, to every day, or once-a-week. Or even an RFID/proximity wearable.

Regarding the use of a passcode to prevent someone from stealing your camera, I do not at all follow the logic for two reasons:

1. Nikon will never make a camera that will be forever disabled if one does not have the correct passcode.

2. Even iPhones can be erased if stolen. Here is an article explaining how to do that, right from Apple:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204306

A passcode ONLY protects from someone stealing your data. It does ZERO to protect from someone stealing the hardware.

tundracamper said:

Regarding the use of a passcode to prevent someone from stealing your camera, I do not at all follow the logic for two reasons:

1. Nikon will never make a camera that will be forever disabled if one does not have the correct passcode.

2. Even iPhones can be erased if stolen. Here is an article explaining how to do that, right from Apple:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204306

A passcode ONLY protects from someone stealing your data. It does ZERO to protect from someone stealing the hardware.

Click to expand...

Erasing a phone using the procedure described doesn't remove the iCloud lock from it, which means the phone is still unusable. A similar cloud-base lock would be part of the camera implementation as well.

GeoffRG said:

sjstremb said:

I recently got a new Z8 and I'm waiting on RRS to come out with an L bracket for it which is what I usually get for all my cameras and needed something short term to mount the camera to my tripods. I came across this, of all things on Amazon, its a SmallRig baseplate with a compartment built in for AirTags! The cover is plastic but it all seems solid enough.

Click to expand...

I am sure that for those who routinely use a tripod this would be very useful, as I have used a tripod once in the past year, it’s probably not for me. I do like the idea of having somewhere to attach an air tag.

I can think of a couple of things that could be done to make it more secure.

• Replace the attaching screw with one having a tamper proof torx head.
• Replace the compartment cover screws with tamper proof torx screws.

Both would slow down an opportunist thief without having any effect on the owner.

Click to expand...

Good idea, but to many of us have tamper proof torx head drive sets. No doubt so do thieves. However there are some other style tamper proof head screws. And screw drive tips for them are not common. One is a Y-wing head, other is triangle with a pin.

Real problem will be photographers will keep the security driver with camera or camera gear. Leading back to need for built-in camera security and lens security.

Horshack said:

tundracamper said:

Regarding the use of a passcode to prevent someone from stealing your camera, I do not at all follow the logic for two reasons:

1. Nikon will never make a camera that will be forever disabled if one does not have the correct passcode.

2. Even iPhones can be erased if stolen. Here is an article explaining how to do that, right from Apple:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204306

A passcode ONLY protects from someone stealing your data. It does ZERO to protect from someone stealing the hardware.

Click to expand...

Erasing a phone using the procedure described doesn't remove the iCloud lock from it, which means the phone is still unusable. A similar cloud-base lock would be part of the camera implementation as well.

Click to expand...

That capability is unique to mobile phones, especially the iPhone, because Apple is essentially a monopoly on Apple products and applications. If someone needs to send an iMessage to an iPhone, they need to go through Apple's server, if you want to install a new app or upgrade to a new version of an app, you need to go through Apple, all firmware upgrades come through Apple .... Therefore, Apple has the capability to local a particular phone so that it is effectively useless.

Nikon cameras and lenses do not have to constantly communicate with some Nikon server. In fact, cameras and lenses are not communication devices like mobile phones. Nikon has no capability to remotely disable a camera.

But one way or another, you still can't prevent people from stealing your camera and lenses, take them apart and sell them as parts. Plenty of AF motors wear out over time, front elements get scratched and lens mounts get damaged. On the body side, circuit boards get fried, plenty of areas can get damaged from drops .... In particular, since Nikon USA is not selling part to independent repair shops, there is plenty of demands for Nikon parts.

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

tundracamper said:

Regarding the use of a passcode to prevent someone from stealing your camera, I do not at all follow the logic for two reasons:

1. Nikon will never make a camera that will be forever disabled if one does not have the correct passcode.

2. Even iPhones can be erased if stolen. Here is an article explaining how to do that, right from Apple:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204306

A passcode ONLY protects from someone stealing your data. It does ZERO to protect from someone stealing the hardware.

Click to expand...

Erasing a phone using the procedure described doesn't remove the iCloud lock from it, which means the phone is still unusable. A similar cloud-base lock would be part of the camera implementation as well.

Click to expand...

That capability is unique to mobile phones, especially the iPhone, because Apple is essentially a monopoly on Apple products and applications. If someone needs to send an iMessage to an iPhone, they need to go through Apple's server, if you want to install a new app or upgrade to a new version of an app, you need to go through Apple, all firmware upgrades come through Apple .... Therefore, Apple has the capability to local a particular phone so that it is effectively useless.

Nikon cameras and lenses do not have to constantly communicate with some Nikon server. In fact, cameras and lenses are not communication devices like mobile phones. Nikon has no capability to remotely disable a camera.

But one way or another, you still can't prevent people from stealing your camera and lenses, take them apart and sell them as parts. Plenty of AF motors wear out over time, front elements get scratched and lens mounts get damaged. On the body side, circuit boards get fried, plenty of areas can get damaged from drops .... In particular, since Nikon USA is not selling part to independent repair shops, there is plenty of demands for Nikon parts.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not a "iCloud" lock; but it is possible to lock hardware to where a PIN code (or password) is required to use hardware. It's been done for decades on various hardware. I remember old PC which had option to prevent booting unless a passcode was entered. It would not boot from any internal or external devices.

Yes, thieves could sell body and lenses for repair parts; but when it came to electronic boards; thieves would need to hack boards before selling. Increasing the level of difficult helps. Of course, if photographer is like some idiot computer users who write their passwords down on a Sticky-note adhered to backside of keyboard or screen; oh well.

Horshack said:

It's also time for camera makers to add anti-theft features to their products, in particular optional passcodes to bodies and lenses. After a user-configurable amount of time, the user would be prompted to tap a passcode on the touchscreen or a knock-code combination on the camera controls. Bodies and lenses would have independent codes, although for convenience both could be set to the same code so the lens is automatically in an unlocked state whenever the camera is in an unlocked state. The same code could also be used across multiple bodies/lenses owned by the same person / team, to support interchanging lenses across all bodies owned.

Click to expand...

NO. Keep this out of cameras. Its an absolute mess when lending or borrowing equpiment between colleagues and friends. Furthermore, it doesn't prevent theft. It might prevent the thief from selling the camera at a decent price but when an opportunity arises, it will be stolen first and checked out later.

Even when not using this locking mechanism at all, you can't ever leave the camera unattended again because all it takes to get locked out of your own camera is one troll knowing about the locking thing. It might still be your camera but with someone elses passcode on it and at that moment all the security turns against the legitimate owner. If the system is secure, the camera is a writeoff. If not, theres no point in using it.

It takes considerable manpower to create a locking system that won't be broken over the expected lifetime of the device and whatever amount of resources get spent on implementing anti-theft features will end up missing somewhere else. Remember that image autentication system Nikon introduced more than 10 years ago?

In reality, chances are it gets "broken" without any hacking at all. Either by observing/filming the owner unlock the device or simply making him/her tell the code.

A better optional/b] anti-theft system would be steganographically embedding lens and camera serials in each image and regularly scanning bigger social media sites for stolen serials.

Robert Salton said:

Horshack said:

It's also time for camera makers to add anti-theft features to their products, in particular optional passcodes to bodies and lenses. After a user-configurable amount of time, the user would be prompted to tap a passcode on the touchscreen or a knock-code combination on the camera controls. Bodies and lenses would have independent codes, although for convenience both could be set to the same code so the lens is automatically in an unlocked state whenever the camera is in an unlocked state. The same code could also be used across multiple bodies/lenses owned by the same person / team, to support interchanging lenses across all bodies owned.

Click to expand...

NO. Keep this out of cameras. Its an absolute mess when lending or borrowing equpiment between colleagues and friends. Furthermore, it doesn't prevent theft. It might prevent the thief from selling the camera at a decent price but when an opportunity arises, it will be stolen first and checked out later.

Click to expand...

It reduced theft significantly for smartphones. Of course it will take time for thieves to catch on before they realize the stolen camera gear can't be resold

Robert Salton said:

Even when not using this locking mechanism at all, you can't ever leave the camera unattended again because all it takes to get locked out of your own camera is one troll knowing about the locking thing. It might still be your camera but with someone elses passcode on it and at that moment all the security turns against the legitimate owner.

Click to expand...

If you mean someone changing the passcode on an unattended camera that is currently unlocked, that can't happen since the user would be prompted for his existing passcode before being allowed to change the code, irrespective of whether the camera is currently unlocked. Like how every secure password changing system is designed.

Robert Salton said:

It takes considerable manpower to create a locking system that won't be broken over the expected lifetime of the device and whatever amount of resources get spent on implementing anti-theft features will end up missing somewhere else. Remember that image autentication system Nikon introduced more than 10 years ago?

In reality, chances are it gets "broken" without any hacking at all. Either by observing/filming the owner unlock the device or simply making him/her tell the code.

Click to expand...

The notion that a security system shouldn't be designed because it might be broken doesn't make much sense to me. The image authentication system was broken because it used a master signing key that wasn't properly secured. This system wouldn't require a signing key, and to my knowledge the Nikon firmware has never been fully reversed-engineered.

Robert Salton said:

A better optional/b] anti-theft system would be steganographically embedding lens and camera serials in each image and regularly scanning bigger social media sites for stolen serials.

Click to expand...

Serial numbers are already embedded in EXIF for bodies (lenses too on some systems). And there are sites where stolen serials for camera gear can be registered.

shuncheung said:

Horshack said:

tundracamper said:

Regarding the use of a passcode to prevent someone from stealing your camera, I do not at all follow the logic for two reasons:

1. Nikon will never make a camera that will be forever disabled if one does not have the correct passcode.

2. Even iPhones can be erased if stolen. Here is an article explaining how to do that, right from Apple:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204306

A passcode ONLY protects from someone stealing your data. It does ZERO to protect from someone stealing the hardware.

Click to expand...

Erasing a phone using the procedure described doesn't remove the iCloud lock from it, which means the phone is still unusable. A similar cloud-base lock would be part of the camera implementation as well.

Click to expand...

That capability is unique to mobile phones, especially the iPhone, because Apple is essentially a monopoly on Apple products and applications. If someone needs to send an iMessage to an iPhone, they need to go through Apple's server, if you want to install a new app or upgrade to a new version of an app, you need to go through Apple, all firmware upgrades come through Apple .... Therefore, Apple has the capability to local a particular phone so that it is effectively useless.

Nikon cameras and lenses do not have to constantly communicate with some Nikon server. In fact, cameras and lenses are not communication devices like mobile phones. Nikon has no capability to remotely disable a camera.

But one way or another, you still can't prevent people from stealing your camera and lenses, take them apart and sell them as parts. Plenty of AF motors wear out over time, front elements get scratched and lens mounts get damaged. On the body side, circuit boards get fried, plenty of areas can get damaged from drops .... In particular, since Nikon USA is not selling part to independent repair shops, there is plenty of demands for Nikon parts.

Click to expand...

The camera would only communicate with the server in order to authenticate a user with a lost passkey. Same with smartphones, which won't let you proceed with a reset phone before logging in to their cloud account.

Horshack said:

If you mean someone changing the passcode on an unattended camera that is currently unlocked, that can't happen ...

Click to expand...

No, I meant a camera not using the lock system at all. You mentioned it beeing optional while it really isn't, it has to be used just to prevent its abuse.

Horshack said:

The notion that a security system shouldn't be designed because it might be broken doesn't make much sense to me.

Click to expand...

Once you consider that resources for Nikon, as well as its competitors, are limited it will. Lenses can last decades and designing a security system to remain unbroken without major changes over such a timeframe will consume a significant amount of manhours and money.

Horshack said:

The image authentication system was broken because it used a master signing key that wasn't properly secured. This system wouldn't require a signing key,

Click to expand...

It would require some kind of cryptography. A simple solution, like a string stored in an EEPROM, won't do as the passphrase must not be changeable by modifying the contents of memory or swapping it alltogether. How would you approach this problem without any signing keys?

Horshack said:

and to my knowledge the Nikon firmware has never been fully reversed-engineered.

Click to expand...

Define 'fully' please.

Firmware for a couple of Dxxxx cameras can be run in an emulator and has been modified in the past. It hasn't been fully "reversed" mainly due to lack of interest and money to be made by doing so, not due to technical reasons.

Horshack said:

Serial numbers are already embedded in EXIF for bodies (lenses too on some systems). And there are sites where stolen serials for camera gear can be registered.

Click to expand...

EXIF data is easily edited or stripped from images. As far as I know, big image hosting sites sadly do not scan for stolen serials.

Robert Salton said:

Furthermore, it doesn't prevent theft. It might prevent the thief from selling the camera at a decent price but when an opportunity arises, it will be stolen first and checked out later.

Click to expand...

Robert Salton said:

A better optional/b] anti-theft system would be steganographically embedding lens and camera serials in each image and regularly scanning bigger social media sites for stolen serials.

Click to expand...

Likewise, your suggestion would not prevent theft or be anti-theft system.

What PIN / pass code or your suggestion would do is deter theft. And deter dishonest photographers from grabbing up a back-alley trunk special.

Robert Salton said:

It would require some kind of cryptography. A simple solution, like a string stored in an EEPROM, won't do as the passphrase must not be changeable by modifying the contents of memory or swapping it alltogether. How would you approach this problem without any signing keys?

Click to expand...

If I understand what you are wanting to know.

The PIN / Pass code entered is never decrypted, always encrypted and compared to already stored encrypted PIN / Pass code.