I completely agree that ethics in conservation technology must address the dual challenge of protecting both the people placing the equipment and those whose lives might inadvertently be surveilled. Encryption is indeed a critical tool to safeguard data and mitigate risks, especially in sensitive deployments like anti-poaching efforts.

You’re absolutely right to point out the broader challenge of corruption or misuse by authorities who control the platforms. This raises the question of governance and oversight—how do we design not only the technology but also the systems of accountability around its use? For example:

• Could we develop decentralized systems where no single authority has full control over sensitive data?

• Should conservation tech projects include mandatory ethical reviews, akin to institutional review boards in academic research, to prevent misuse from the outset?

Your example of anti-poaching tech highlights how ethics isn’t just about “what” we do but also “how” we do it. Ensuring anonymity in the data trail or creating “dummy” deployment footprints could be practical steps to protect the individuals involved.

Would love to hear your thoughts on how we can move toward implementing these safeguards. Are there successful case studies or projects you’ve seen where encryption and oversight have been effectively integrated?

Looking forward to continuing this conversation!

Well I do have an upcoming product release that uses both secure boot and encryption for a camera trap solution as well as for an ARU solution. So for my products, this part is addressed. If you captured such a device you could not read any data on it and there would be no digital clues leaked as to the owners. So you can see now more easily understand my eagerness to highlight this particular part of the solution 😊

But no, there are no case studies involving it for my products are they are brand new.

The corruption part of it is much harder to deal with. However, in the case of camera traps for example, one could in principle, if using AI detectors, don't take any pictures if people are in view. That particular piece of functionality would be available with my product. But it does come at a price, because matching people also can provide a means to protect the equipment.

Perhaps one could start out in good faith. But if it's abused, then tighten it up. The social problem is way harder. but to determine that it was abused might in fact require even more surveillance initiallly. Unless you waited for feedback from the people on the ground to report. However, that's likely to easily fail as they would have to know how to provide the feedback in the first place. It might also be difficult for deployment where a lot of people are naturally.

Audio recorders could also do voice detection and mute or delete sections that contain voice from their recordings.

I have a feeling you were more interested in persuing the social side of it,  no ? That's great of course, cause that's where the harder challenge is.

Thanks for sharing this—it’s exciting to see how your product is tackling these challenges head-on with encryption and AI solutions. The idea of AI-driven detection to avoid capturing people while still protecting equipment is such a smart balance.

You’re absolutely right that the social side is the harder challenge. Maybe co-designing these solutions with local communities could help build trust and make feedback systems more practical? It’s tricky, but I’d love to hear how you see these ideas evolving as your product rolls out!

Looking forward to more on this!