Talk:Secure digital camera

Blythe & Fridrich
The sources seem to all be about the publication: Blythe, P. and Fridrich, J.: "Secure Digital Camera", Digital Forensic Research Workshop, Baltimore, Maryland, August 1 1-13, 2004, or about other unrelated co-occurences of the words "secure digital camera" unrelated to the Mohonty et al. topic of the present article. I'm not able to find a single source beside the primary sources by Mohonty et al, which is why I proposed deletion and now tag it as a notability problem. I think I'll go ahead and AfD it, having checked again. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your point is unclear as these sources all seem to be talking about the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OR
The 'Reasons for Use' section appears to be WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Things the sources don't say
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That "A secure digital camera or trusted digital camera is a digital camera that has built-in security features to provide immediate digital rights management and image authentication."
 * That SDCs have "active methods such as watermarking and encryption or passive, forensic methods which use the properties of the image sensor and resulting artefacts to verify the integrity of the image"
 * That "Epson and Kodak have produced cameras … such as the Epson PhotoPC 3000Z and the Kodak DC-290" that are SDCs

AfD opinions supporting a merger
The "editorial decision" to merge this article to Digital watermarking had a clear consensus on the recent AfD. It is particularly appropriate as the relevance/on-topicness of everything in the article except Blythe's definition is questionable at best. Unless any new opinions, or substantial new and clearly on-topic "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" comes up, I am intending merging on the basis of this consensus. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Decision to remove SDC is Wrong which is Based Wrong Observation
It is simply a wrong observation that the SDC entry is a COI, when the SDC research is going on in many places for several years. SDC is a much bigger concept than just digital watermarking and deserves individual place. I will not waste more time to get into editing war here. Recommending for deletion is not a progressive approach, wikipedia can't afford it. Here are the reference which are thoroughly peer-reviewed top-notch publications.

R. Lukac and K. N. Plataniotis, “Secure Single-Sensor Digital Camera”, IEE Electronics Letters, 25th May 2006, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 627-629.

O. B. Adamo, S. P. Mohanty, E. Kougianos, and M. Varanasi, "VLSI Architecture for Encryption and Watermarking Units Towards the Making of a Secure Digital Camera",  in Proceedings of the IEEE International SOC Conference (SOCC), pp. 141-144, 2006.

S. P. Mohanty, N. Ranganathan, and R. K. Namballa, "A VLSI Architecture for Visible Watermarking in a Secure Still Digital Camera (S2DC) Design", IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration Systems (TVLSI), Vol. 13, No. 7, July 2005, pp. 808-818.

G. R. Nelson, G. A. Jullien, and O. Y. Pecht, “CMOS Image Sensor with watermarking Capabilities,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2005, pp. 5326–5329.

P. A. Blythe, “Biometric Authentication System for Secure Digital Cameras”, Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Binghamton University, State University of New York, May 2005.

P. Blythe and J. Fridrich, “Secure Digital Camera,” in Proceedings of Digital Forensic Research Workshop (DFRWS), 2004.

S. P. Mohanty, N. Ranganathan, and R. K. Namballa, "VLSI Implementation of Visible Watermarking for a Secure Digital Still Camera Design", in Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on VLSI Design (VLSID), pp.1063-1068, 2004.

O. L. Friedman, “The Trustworthy Digital Camera: Restoring Credibility to the Photographic Image,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 905–910, November 1993.

(Sarajumohanty (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Since the content is now at Digital watermarking, you might want to take your effort there; expand it with more sourced information if you want (preferably not about your own primary sources -- instead mention those on the talk page for other editors to review and summarize), and if the content looks like it needs to expand outside the scope of that article, you can propose a move or a split. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that the above list appear to be mostly (all?) WP:PRIMARY sources. WP generally requires substantial WP:SECONDARY sources for an article to exist. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)