> But why should they believe that you really don't have the access to the key? You might end up with torture :/

On http://security.stackexchange.com/a/83059/6870 you can find a basic idea how you can create keys that you cannot have access to. There is of course some work to be done to fit it to the "camera scenario".

Please list your alternative solution for storing photos where capture/torture is not a possibility.

I'd have to say that selectively keeping inconspicuous photos and transferring the "incriminating" ones via the internet (as suggested by others) seems to be the best possible course of action.

Aside from that it seems better to allow the authorities immediate access to all photos without encryption. You might lose the pictures but I think you'll have a better chance at avoiding personal harm.

If you're caught though there's a good chance you were seen taking pictures and those pictures not being present is going to be quite obvious. Also, if camera makers add this feature than those confiscating camera equipment will know about it.

I don't really see how you can technologically avoid personal harm if you're in a war zone [or similar] taking imagery that some people don't want publishing and you're captured in that process. Harming you is the standard way of stopping you continuing to defy such people.

Not being able to destroy the images taken is good, but it's not going to save cameras and people from being smashed up IMO.