Computers, Court, and Fingerprints 313
Degrees writes "Should Law Enforcement be allowed to Photoshop fingerprints? That is the question posed in this article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. The suspect is charged with murder, and the evidence was circumstantial before the fingerprint enhancment. At the end, the crime scene investigators say they want encrypted cameras. The implication is they want DRM-enabled digital cameras with software for full audit-trail capability. Would that make the Photoshoping more credible? Would DRM cameras be a good thing for Joe Citizen?"
"Enhanced" evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Enhanced" evidence (Score:3, Interesting)
The real reason (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Enhanced" evidence (Score:2)
Spot on! I don't mind if the police use this kind of thing for leads, but this shouldn't be considered "hard" evidence.
Re:"Enhanced" evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Applying, say, a contrast filter to a digital image to bring out details is no different from the subjective treatment that a conventional photograph gets when developed in a darkroom.
I imagine that the various tests that forensic scientists perform are rigorously standardized. There's no reason that digital processes couldn't be similarly regulated. I supposed what is called for is the certification of "official" digital filters, that are analyzed and confirmed to manipulate the image in an "unbiased" fashion.
Re:"Enhanced" evidence (Score:3, Funny)
Nonsense. I've seen with my own eyes how a fuzzy security camera or satellite photograph clearly show faces or license plate numbers using sophisticated software in several major Hollywood movies.
Re:"Enhanced" evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems real simple to me. Give someone the evidence to enhance all they want in absolutely any manner they like. Just don't give the person doing it a copy of the suspect's fingerprint, image, voiceprint, whatever.
If the result matches the suspect and does not match anybody else then it sounds like solid evidence to me. There is no way you can photoshop someone's fingerprint into an image if you don't know what his fingerprint looks like.
Even better make it a seperate person who checks for a match. Even better give that seperate person a dozen random fingerprints and don't tell him which one is the suspect's. If he says there is a definite match AND he says it to the print that happens to be the suspect then you have a pretty damn bulletproof system. It would be pretty serious event if the expert ever reported a "definite match" to one of the extra random prints he's given.
At that point I don't care if the image was "enhanced" by a chimpanzee twiddling an etch-a-sketch.
-
Re:"Enhanced" evidence (Score:4, Informative)
I believe that you're wrong.
If you're given an anonymous tip, or someone takes a lie dectector test, you can't use these as evidence--but you CAN use them to get evidence.
Anything that comes from ILLEGAL police procedure is tainted. Not just inadmissable evidence.
Re:"Enhanced" evidence (Score:2)
NO WAY (Score:4, Funny)
THis does absolutely nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing is flawless, any form of encryption can be cracked.... all you need is time.
It would give the community a false sense of security. Just becasue id has DRm doesn't mean anything. Evidence should not be tampered with.... PERIOD
Zero Post ?? (Score:3, Informative)
Here is a good article that covers a lot of this
The "Authenticity Crisis" In Real Evidence [lewisandroca.com]
Scientific Evidence Review
10.1.2001
You might also be interested in the KODAK Picture Authentication Module [kodak.com] [kodak.com] which uses PKI in a camera.
If I post before the story goes up is that a "Zero Post "?
Having been involved in traditional analogue photography for 30 years, I can tell you that I'd trust one of those Kodak cameras more that say a 35 mm Ektachrome Transparency, or worse yet, a color print. A while back Polaroid was blowing out a digital printer that output on spectra film for 30 bucks. I considered buying it for all sort of practical jokes and parking ticket disputes.
Re:THis does absolutely nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
So, ideally, an officer takes a photo and it is automatically digitally signed in some form of read only storage. The image and the signature are then transferred to an electronic "vault." Any 'enhancements' would also be signed and stored in the vault. When the case goes to court, the defense is given access to all versions of the picture, and all the images are matched with their signatures to ensure that they haven't been tampered with. This way, the defense can have their own experts evaluate the 'enhancements' that the police made.
In this scenario, you never deal with concerns that encrypted images may be decrypted. You have to have confidence in the vault -- I'm guessing that a physically secured, tamper evident device with easily auditable features could be implemented (e.g, in the same manner as the FBI carnivore machines are secured at ISP sites).
Re:THis does absolutely nothing (Score:2)
Wrong. One time pads cannot be cracked. It is mathematically impossible.
After that, we can stop playing word games. When someone says uncrackable, they mean uncrackable by any practical method. Practicality is the only thing that matters in the discussion of encryption.
Re:THis does absolutely nothing (Score:2)
Re:THis does absolutely nothing (Score:2)
A one time pad is a key made up of a bunch of random numbers exactly the same length as the message. So one side encrypts with the pad, while the other side decrypts with the same pad. It is mathematically impossible to crack the code without the pad.
Re:THis does absolutely nothing (Score:2)
Here you are, completely unbreakable encription.
You are correct.
One-time pads require that your key is as long as the message. Hello?
And the problem with that is... ?
Encryption is encoding a message in a secret way such that it cannot be read by unintended recipients. If I'm sending news from deep within my oppressive government to share with the world to my partner in a free country, and I use a one-time pad that we exchanged in the past, is that supposed to not qualify as encryption?
Re:THis does absolutely nothing (Score:2)
Sure they can; just get your hands on the pad.
Stealing the key is not cracking the code.
But how do you exchange the pads securely?
Here's a CD with the pad. Don't lose it. Not every communication has to be electronic.
The glove didn't fit (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that guy that was on trial recently for the disappearance of that girl didn't surf for child porn, the cops did... then changed the dates on the files to cover their own butts.
Re:The glove didn't fit (Score:2)
This is nothing new; many Photoshop-style transformations are easy to do with traditional photographic print methods (dodge and burn, editing out objects you don't want to be there, blurring, cropping, etc).
Re:The glove didn't fit (Score:2)
*Ahem*. So you wouldn't believe what you'd see on the tape if I captured video of bigfoot on a digital camera, but if it's captured on film it must be real?
And you'd put faith in a 35MM film photo of nessie, but not one taken on a digital camera?
Just because most people can do basic manipulation doesn't mean that anyone can do a convincing forgery that would convince the experts.
Well, all it takes is a computer forenics expert to analyze the hard drive, and he can definitively tell you if that was the case.
Forge a signature, forge a timestamp, either may pass at first glance, but won't pass close scrutiny by an expert. It's the case with digital, as well as analog. In fact, computers can more effeciently analyze digital sources, so digital may be even harder to convincingly forge, than analog.
I saw this on tv (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I saw this on tv (Score:3, Informative)
It seems to be a useful technique for gathering evidence to find a suspect, but I'm not sure that I'd want it to be key evidence for a conviction.
Re:I saw this on tv (Score:2)
Its not prosecution or defence quality evidence. Only investigative.
Re:I saw this on tv (Score:2, Insightful)
So it should, as an investigative technique. But to be admissable in court it needs to be shown that no other changes were made. To do this would require an in court demonstration. Something like:
"Here's the original fingerprint. We will now scan the fingerprint."
"As you can see (shows jury), the scan matches the original."
"I will now open and install this original copy of Photoshop. (Installs). I have a representative from Adobe here to verify that this is, in fact, an unaltered copy of Photoshop. (Adobe rep verifies installation.)"
"Now you may observe as I use the following standard technique to clarify the scanned image. (Uses big screen so entire jury can observe.) As you can see, the enhanced image matches the accused's fingerprint."
Using this method, the fingerprint can be entered into evidence, and the jury can be reasonably certain that no underhanded alterations were made during the process. However, the defense can also attack the evidence in a number of ways: arranging expert witnesses to attack the reliability of the method, demonstrating an alternative clarification technique that provides a different but equally convincing result, and so on. In this way, the prosecution can present their real evidence, but the jury is given proper opportunity to weigh its reliability and relevance.
IceDiver.
Politically Incorrect - and Proud!
Re:I saw this on tv (Score:2)
Of course there is the opportunity for abuse or falsification, but that's the case with any kind of evidence. Unless the defense is claiming some kind of deliberate tampering with the fingerprints then they're just taking advantage of people's ignorance.
Data Mining, "Airframe" and more. (Score:2)
So, what's that got to do with anything? The use of enhancing techniques CAN be abused. By selectively enhancing a section of a print against another one you can manipulate the outcome. It is very different to increase visibility on the whole print than to darken some parts, blur others. If there is a human element, it is not to be trusted. Allow me to explain (and sorry for the long rant):
Some time ago I attended a Data Mining Seminar. Many people here will be familiar with the techniques that are used in that area. What's the point of using a computer algorithm to find patterns when we are so good at it naturally, you ask? Why, exactly that. Humans are extremely good at finding patterns. We even tend to see them where they're not, and ignore the extra evidence that may point in different directions. A computer works on the data and does not have prejudice for/against it. Before the AC's jump and say that algorithms can be manipulated too, let me just say that they can be audited for soundness and logical mistakes/mathematically analized, etc. They are much more reliable than a human. There have been numerous instances when a correlation between factors was suspected, and data mining was used to prove/disprove the correlation or give a score to it.
So what's the right way to go here, you ask? I think that an image you can get from running an algorithm against the source is valid and can be considered an objective derivative of the original. Tools that allow to selectively retouch pictures should be out of the question. There are many techniques that can be applied to images to enhance them and that are wholly based on what's already there.
--
Re:I saw this on tv (Score:3, Informative)
Having amused myself by mixing filters and data in all sorts of weird ways, I can tell you that often the results are not simply enhancement. Data disappears, artifacts appear, either of which could create spurious fingerprint ridges. So aside from the possibility of simple pixel painting, it is open to abuse.
I don't think the principle is bad, but rigorous standards would have to be developed and applied, including a complete audit trail (and incremental files) for each image.
Re:I saw this on tv (Score:2)
Re:I saw this on tv (Score:2)
Re:I saw this on tv (Score:2)
But the question remains. If the cops wanted to frame the suspect by altering the evidence, why not plant an object with the suspects fingerprint at the scene to begin with. Or replace one piece of evidence later. Much easier than manipulating existing fingerprints in graphics software.
woah! (Score:3, Informative)
Tween the image and voila, it's anyones fingerprin (Score:2)
What's to stop law enforcement from doing this to a fingerprint?
Remember we have the LAPD (planting guns/drugs), NYPD (broomhandle, Central Park Rapist(s)),
When a DA is freaking out and the public is wanting someone caught, the stresses of these situations generally lead to bad things for innocent people. Plus if you're a minority it's significantly more likely that you'll number one, be convicted and number 2, face a significantly harsher sentence than a white/anglo counterpart.
Re:Tween the image and voila, it's anyones fingerp (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of people have complained that who knows what the authorities might do with Photoshop -- enhancing evidence and such. That's a valid point but you should take a step back and realize how scientifically flawed fingerprinting is in the first place. (In my opinion, of course.)
Fingerprinting came about around the turn of the twentieth century as a replacement for a failed biometrics system, in which certain mesaurements of a person (size of head, length of arm, stuff like that) were being tabulated, and recorded to make a database of known criminals. Problem is, two people could have the same measurements.
Likewise, there is no "guarantee" that two individuals have the same fingerprints. Observation has shown that two people probably don't have the same prints, but that's no guarantee. I don't believe the medical community even really understands what makes fingerprints "grow" in the first place.
Fingerprinting is not a "science" in the way physics, chemistry, etc. are. (Legally, this is called the Daubert Test.) Where is the peer review? If fingerprinting were truly a science, as American courts have determined science to be, the national fingerprint database should be publicly accessible. It is not. The formula/algorithm by which fingerprint examinters determine a "match" would be public. The method that the computer uses to match fingerprints would be public knowledge, but it is not.
I'm not trying to say that fingerprinting doesn't provide valuable evidence, and I certainly do believe that fingerprint evidence is a good indicator that somebody touched something. But is it iron-clad proof? No. And worse than that, is is a closed-source, proprietary system.
Were fingerprinting evidence to be invented today, the courts would probably not allow it. It has not withstood (likely it cannot withstand) the same sort of scientific scrutiny that DNA identification has. However, they have significant enough momentum behind them that even though they may not be an "exact science" they are good enough for the purposes of the criminal justice system.
Here are some good links:
Federal Judge Slams Fingerprint "Science" [insightmag.com]
Cornell News: Fingerprint Study [cornell.edu]
Latent Print Examination [onin.com] disagrees with most of what I say...Click the Ressam link...if you don't support fingerprint evidence, then you support terrorism!
Re:woah! (Score:2)
That's not to say that the jury still won't have the ability to throw such evidence out. They are members of the "general public" still, and as far as lawyers go, the dumber the jury is, the better.
DRM is like the SUV (Score:2)
DRM is bad because it causes problems with fair use and long term archiving.
SUV's are bad because people use them for the wrong tasks (people moving) and manufacturers prefer huge profit margins to efficient vehicles.
May they have certain (albeit limited) acceptable uses? Of course!
This is an exciting idea (Score:3, Funny)
Like double D's or so.
Sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Enhanced... (Score:2, Insightful)
Remeber, LAPD *may* have tried that with OJ, Time "enhanced" OJ's picture to the tune of a big dollar lawsuit.
Someone else mentioned Waco, yea, "enhanced" evidence is bullshit evidence.
Someone can "enhance" anything, even some yokel atop WTC with a 757 in the background.
Secure digital cameras, photoshoping fingerprints, no way.
Even with a "secure" digital camera, there will be wiggle-room to screw with pixels.
This is NOT DRM (Score:5, Informative)
DRM is about taking options away from users. This is about providing users with a new option: a strong audit trail. You can make a copy of the image using non-auditing software, but that copy of the image would lose it's "seal of approval." The original would remain valid. The end result: cops can make any copies and image manipulations they want that may help them solve a case. But in court they'll only be able to present images with the valid audit trail, ensuring that the image was never mishandled and clearly showing what manipulations were done to it. It sounds like a great idea and I strongly support this option for users. (I am suspicious that it may not be possible... but I'm happy to let people try.)
Re:This is NOT DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM is about taking options away from users.
Uh, no. This is an extremely popular misconception by some people, and an extremely popular knowing lie by other people.
DRM is about preserving the rights of content creators. Period.
Now, unfortunately, taking options away from users is a side-effect of most of the DRM schemes out there. But that is a side-effect, not a first effect. People advocating DRM are not evil boogeymen who derive pleasure from your pain like some music industry vampire. They care about preserving their rights in the face of rampant, out of control copyright violations.
Put it this way: if DRM existed that preserved your fair-use rights while taking away your non-right to mass distribute copyrighted material, they would fine with it.
Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly want my fair-use rights watered down, buy lying about these people's motivations just makes everyone looked like thieves in the eyes of lawmakers, and ultimately hurts the cause.
Re:This is NOT DRM (Score:2)
DRM is about managing rights, both those of the user and those of the creator. "Managing" is a very fuzzy word. It can mean anything from enforcing access controls with encryption and digital signatures all the way down to simply providing a way to store information about rights electronically.
A system that stores rights information-- who is allowed to use the media, and how, and when-- in a database with a link to the content file itself is a DRM system. It doesn't prevent anybody from doing anything; it doesn't force anybody to do anything. But it does provide users with a facility to help them manage rights and clearances. My former employer made and sold systems like this, calling them "DRM systems" the whole time, and nobody was ever confused about what was meant by that.
DRM is a very generic term for an entire class of technology products, like "spreadsheet" or "browser." Saying-- or even implying-- that DRM is inherently either good or bad is just about as meaningful as saying that FTP is inherently good or bad.
Re:This is NOT DRM (Score:2)
It's not a side effect - it's the main effect. The point of most DRM is to prevent the copying of material; whether or not that copying is illegal, it's still an option of the user.
Re:This is NOT DRM (Score:2)
I can't know the real purposes of something that is being proposed. I can only know what effects I can reasonably predict it will have. Thus, that's what my definition is based on.
The one you are proposing is based on assuming that what a pr guy tells you is true. I find that at best dubious. At best.
Re:This is NOT DRM (Score:2)
I can't know the real purposes of something that is being proposed. I can only know what effects I can reasonably predict it will have. Thus, that's what my definition is based on.
Well then, don't be surprised when the opinions of you and those like you are ignored as ignorant by the people who make the laws. Anyway who walks up to a lawmaker and says "The purpose of DRM is to take away my rights!" is going to be ignored.
Just for the record, the proper statement is "The music industry is well within their rights to try and prevent rampant copyright violations. But I believe that DRM as currently implemented infringes too heavily on the fair-use rights of consumers. The solution is for anonymous distribution to be illegal (which it already is), perhaps even with criminal implications in extreme cases. Most cases should probably be civil."
Re:This is NOT DRM (Score:2)
DRM is not only about preserving rights of content creators, because it enables the creation of additional rights for content creators that did not previously exist. Copyright law does not give a content creator the right to control private use of a work, only copying or the distribution of derivative works. But DRM lets the creator control use.
An analogy with hard evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, DRM means "this file is evidence, and thou shalt not tamper with it, nor allow others to tamper with it". There is no issue of rights (or lack thereof), but rather of data integrity and provenance. This, IMO, is a rightful use of DRM.
Would YOU want to be on trial based on an image that had received an uncertain amount of twiddling by persons unknown? Of course not. You'd want to know that the image was correct, untampered, and that no one with an agenda (for OR against the defendant) had ever had access to it.
This is really no different than maintaining the integrity and provenance of physical evidence. Say you're arrested for drug trafficking, but in fact you only had a bag of sugar. Naturally, you'd want to be completely certain this very same bag of sugar is the one brought into evidence and presented in court, and you'd want to be equally sure that no naughty persons had dropped a spoonful of coke into the bag while no one was watching.
Think of the image file as the bag of sugar, and all should become clear.
I am ..... the LAW! (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a good idea, but this DEFINATELY leaves a resonable doubt as to whether the evidence is real and legit
Bottom line: too much risk for too little benifit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the tool, it's the people.. (Score:4, Interesting)
As we all know, it is almost impossible to prove that a forgery has been done if it's done the right way. Besides, a normal court do not haev the knowledge to decide if it has been tampered with or not.
Bottom line is, make tools that can perform single tasks and not be used to alter anything. Make a bianry filter that can be run against the print and enhance. Make different binary filters for different tasks. By doing so, it should not be an issue wheter the print has been tampered with or not.
if this is all they are doing... (Score:4, Insightful)
dodge and burn only lighten and darken areas of an image.
if this is all they are doing, how is it different from using a computer to enhance a video image from a bank camera?
Re:if this is all they are doing... (Score:3, Insightful)
At what point did I stop darkening/lightening and start manipulating for the sake of tricking someone? After all, I'm only using the dodge/burn tool.
Re:if this is all they are doing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I admit that an expert couldn have looked at the shadows, and proved that tampering had been done. So? In the first place, I wasn't trying to prevent that, and in the second place, this was a really complex image. Fingerprints are, comparatively, simple. I'm quite sure that an essentially undetectable forgery could be made with decent graphic imagery tools, if you took a bit of time over it. Now I'm not a graphics professional, so I don't know the capabilities of PhotoShop. I was using Deneba Canvas, as when I work with images it is generally with documents that blend object images and bit-map images. (What I really need is a CAD program that has good bit map tools. At a decent price.) But I really doubt that PhotoShop is that inferior to Canvas.
If you're going to allow this as evidence at all (a bad move on my opinion), then you MUST restrict the tools that can be used. Unfortunately, there is no standard tool that will work as needed. You need a tool that will keep a COMPLETE chain of undos (and redos), all the way back to the original image. So that you can demonstrate each step that was used along the way. This lets out every bit map file format that I am aware of.
And each image that it prints must be signed with a key that combines not only the image, but also all of the operations performed on it. (This still won't prevent a fake being produced on a different piece of software and then scanned in as if it were the original.)
Also, software that cannot be audited, cannot be trusted. The only way that we can be sure that it's doing what it claims is if we can check the code.
Too many holes here. This is just a bad idea.
Re:if this is all they are doing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well.. dodge and burn is a tool that is manually controlled and could possibly be used to actually draw things that weren't really there by "enhancing" artifacts.
Despite that, the defense attorney's claims are beyond ridiculous. Fist of all, she claims "I think it's very suspicious that you have something that is of no value and suddenly you enhance it and it becomes of value." Even someone with a very small background in digital imagery can tell you that there are a lot of things that the human eye cannot see that are captured in a digital photograph. In fact, I have most recently been working on a consumer application [truview.com] bringing multiscale retinex image enhancement to the masses. For those not familiar with MSR, it is an idea originally proposed by Edwin Land (of Polaroid fame) which accounts for human vision by working on each pixel individually unlike an (auto)levels, curves or other colormap modifications.
To top that off, the ignorant reporter (is there any other type?) spits out claims like "The software used to enhance the print is the same that some tabloid newspapers use to create seamless 'photographs' of space aliens hanging out with celebrities." and "Time magazine used a similar program to alter a police mug shot of O.J. Simpson and make his complexion appear darker on its front page in 1994." Gee.. do you think maybe you use an image manipulation program to do various different image manipulations? Nah.. couldn't be.
Then there's the choice quote from a medical examiner turned defense attorney "They call it science, but the hallmark of science is the ability to reproduce the same result. If a scientist in Fort Lauderdale and a scientist in California can get the same outcome from the same raw materials, that is science." Well, I do have to agree with that, and I certainly invite the prosecution to have another independent technician perform the process. I suspect an independent technician will probably come up with something that at least looks similar to (though obviously won't be exactly like) what the first technician came up with. It is certainly true that there's a bit of human error involved, and certainly the best way to minimize the error is to repeat the experiment several times. Indeed, if only one technician can produce this result then I'd call it an anomaly, but if multiple technicians can arrive at this result, then I think the evidence will be rather damming to the defense.
Remember, a defense attorney can argue (nearly) anything she wants. One hopes that 12 people will decide that she's full of shit.
Now, as far as the "DRM cameras" goes, I think it is another case of sensationalism on Slashdot. The submitter obviously figured it would be more likely to be posted if it mentioned a few loaded words here and there.
In reality, I think a watermark scheme for digital cameras would be a great idea! With watermarking for DRM, you are trying to make sure people cannot remove the watermark. However, in this case you are trying to make sure that the camera and ONLY that camera can sign images to certify that they were indeed taken by that specific camera. Really all you would need is basic public key cryptography and a unique key pair for each camera. The private key would be stored on the camera in such a way that it is inaccessible for reading, but can be used to sign data. Ideally it would be physically impossible to get the private key out of the camera. If that is not possible then perhaps it could be made in such a way that it will be obvious if the camera has been tampered with to obtain its key. For instance, if it requires physically taking the camera, opening it up, and cutting away at the chip until you can see the pertinent data with an electron microscope, then it would call in to question any image supposedly signed by the camera.
It is not necessary to allow the encryption to be turned off since the signature could always be removed later on a computer. The key here is that you absolutely must not allow the signature to be added by anything except for that one specific camera. All in all I'd say doing this is a great idea.
Useful... possibly (Score:4, Interesting)
That way it removes the ability to "doctor" prints to match what the cops want, and it adds a valuable tool to the investigative process.
If this process involves the tech working on a print, with the "target suspect" print available to him, I'd cry foul in an instant.
Re:Useful... possibly (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone MOD that man up. That would be the only safeguard that would work.
Re:Useful... possibly (Score:2)
Or, you could RTFA.
"I don't think I could recreate a fingerprint," said Knoerlein, pointing out that he never sees the suspect's fingerprints. The system might be more vulnerable where print examiners have both sets of prints and also are responsible for enhancing the prints, he said.
Not Digital Rights Management! (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM is an important fight, but keep the boundaries clear or you'll muddle your argument. These are separate technologies.
Re:Not Digital Rights Management! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's easy enough; make 'digital film.'
By that, I mean write-once PROMs that can be popped into a digital camera; they can hold x number of pictures, and when you click the button, the picture gets burned right into the PROM.
Burn in a checksum or something as well, and you can tell if bits were removed. Build it so that it's not random access, and you can't swap bits around or anything.
Sure, you'd need another system if you WERE doing enhancements or changes or anything, but the ability to pull out a PROM chip and say 'here is the original photo, guarenteed unaltered' would be good.
Actually, I kinda like this idea (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
How to stop this method from working in court... (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the biggest questions about the new technology is: Could a skillful technician create or copy a suspect's fingerprint and frame someone by making it look like that fingerprint was at a crime scene?
Here's an idea: Get a copy of the print image, find somebody with Photoshop skill, get them to alter the image to show judge's/prosecuting attorney's/etc's print; evidince (hopefully) supressed when the judge realizes how easy it is to fake 'evidince' that way.
Re:How to stop this method from working in court.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is case of a another facet of technology that can be used by a Corrupt Offical For Nefarious Gains[TM]. If it exists, it will be used. And it will be allowed only when those in judgement allow it to be used.
Not the cameras, the subjects ! (Score:2, Troll)
No royalties are ever paid for these pictures. Some hippies are claiming "fair use" because they paid the entrance fees to the park/monument.
A big part of them are shot with a "friend" in front of the monument/landscape. By the use of such circumvention devices, the photonic pirates claim they are creating a new work, supposedly protected itself, in fact pure piracy. Such a circumvention device should be outlawed.
Therefore, the LAMAA (Landscapes And Monuments Association of America) demands that the SSSCA be amended to make DRM on new monuments and landscape mandatories. Such a device would render all but these so-called "friends" black on the photographic device and thus encourage the fine LAMAA members into providing exciting new monuments and landscapes, like the upcoming Senator Hollings Memorial, the Shores of Montana (thanks to our president's Kyoto enforcement), or the new World Trade Center.
Any evidence can be tampered with (Score:4, Interesting)
I've mentioned before that I design, write, and support police records software. I know how important audit trailing is to them, I was up until 3 AM last night debugging some of it.
We've even been approached with this very idea, audit trailing and securly storing digital photos. (Not just fingerprints)
This is about showing a factual list of who had access to the photo, exactly what they changed, and when. If pixels were added, it'd be on the trail. If it was lightened, darkened, it'd be on the trail.
The reason is simple. The jackass lawyers who think the constitution spells out their job as 'get the client off, no matter what it takes'. Another rant entirely, but rigorous defence doesnt mean knowingly lying and misleading a jury.
Police are constantly accused of lying, tampering with evidence, planting evidence, in stupid cases like misdemeanor posession of pot.
So when Mr Defense gets up in front of the jury, with Mr Cop on the stand, and says "Isn't it true that anyone could have altered those photos?", "Mr Cop can say, here's an itemized list of every enhancement, change, and view of the photos since they were taken.".
If Mr. Defense is stupid enough to continue, they can present sworn depositions from people like me (who created the system) testifying to the authenticity of the data.
Of course - it'd go both ways. If Mr Defense truly thinks BeatCop O'Malley doctored the photos, someone like me could likely prove the when and how.
This isn't a bad thing, or about stripping rights. It's about helping to secure the right to a fair trial.
Every photo is "enhanced" (Score:2)
Even printing slide film involves adjustments.
With the computer and photoshop its even easier to "adjust" photos.
Digital watermarking of images already exists. I don't know how effective it. If images by cameras are watermarked this may image authenticity. But will watermarks those survive jpeg converstion, they can be faked too. Many jpegs from digital cameras already have information about camera/time/exposure imbeded in them.
I don't think there is any way to trust photographs. Look at the fakes with analog (ufo shots / Loc ness monster etc..) With digital it just gets harder to believe.
DRM won't help in that case. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing the DRM or encryption would do is provide yet another means of tracking the files -- but it sounds like they are already using safeguards there. All versions, the user, and the duration of use are tracked. Those are the same, or in some cases better, than protections of physical evidence.
They don't need DRM cameras or higher cost encryption schemes. They need the same arguments that first allowed for fingerprints, DNA testing, and other new technologies in the courts.
frob.
thoughts.. (Score:4, Insightful)
* Anytime you use encryption or digital signatures, it's not "DRM". It's not like these folks want to restrict copying of the pictures, or track people who see the photos, they do that by keeping the pictures within their labs. The encryption is so they can show in court that the picture was not tampered with. When you check the signature in your linux package files, that's not DRM, that's something for your own benefit.
* I was recently looking at Canon's latest EOS-1Ds camera, which has a "Data Verification Kit" encryption module available. You put a smart card in a reader and every shot is digitally signed in the camera. So this stuff is available and hopefully the forensic photographers will begin using it. Of course a malicious photographer might change the software in the camera somehow but hopefully the module checks for that.
* Dodge & Burn tools should probably *not* be used.. they allow you to darken/lighten specific *areas* of the photo, which could be dangerous. When enhancing evidence they should only allow *global* changes like overall brightness or contrast, etc. Or at least they should send the evidence to three or more independent labs, who don't know anything about the case, and let each version be seen in court. That way there's less of a chance that someone will doctor the evidence for a specific outcome. And of course the whole workflow needs encryption and signatures.
* Evidence can always be tampered with. The digital signatures just make it harder, and hopefully at least as hard as it is now in the non-digital world.
This is not how photographic evidence works (Score:5, Informative)
Note that this is "trusted computing" in service of the owner of the computer (in this case the police department and department of justice rather than the individual operator). The fundamental difference is that the owner of the computer is the one asking for the trusted service, rather than some other entity that does not trust the owner of the computer.
Bruce
Re:This is not how photographic evidence works (Score:3, Informative)
This is certainly true and for a decent review, check out Dino A Brugioni's book, Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation. ISBN: 1574881663
Dino served as one of the CIA's senior photographic interpreters and the book is a decent review.
As far as DRM and how digital image management could work, see my other comment [slashdot.org] regarding the solution to DRM issues and certification of images.
Professional point of view. (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as a member of the Law enforcement community, I see how increasingly difficult it is to get a good solid conviction.
This is just playing with fire. The encrypted cameras sound like a good idea, but I think that you need to have more solid evidence. Video cameras in squad cars is a great example. When you can get a drunk to admit how many beers he has had on video tape while conducting a field sobriety test it is pretty easy to refute his claims in court that he was just driving home from grandma's house and got a little tired.
The thing is, maintaining a trail of custody for the photos I think would be much harder, therefore easier to refute their validity in court. And any time you start messing with anything remotely related to being circumstantial evidence, you might as well just throw the case out the window, cause thats just what the judge is going to do.
It is going to be hard to convince people that this is a technology with feasible use in the courtrooom after they have seen pictures of OJ wearing ducky slippers.
Seriously... (Score:2)
For example: The "face on mars." Enhanced one way and it looks like a face, enhanced another and it's just an unimpressive hill.
Digital certification (Score:2)
Photoshop Vs. Law (Score:2)
Photographic evidence, specifically such evidence, that has clearly had the oppertunity to be edited, should never be permissable.
Evidential material, or not? (Score:2, Informative)
They told me that digital material is only treated as 'evidential' by UK courts if it has not been processed digitally any way. Raw data from digital cameras is ok, but lossless compression (zip, rar etc) cannot be used before storage or transmission of data. Thus encryption is not allowed, and lossy processing like MPEG? Forget it.
This is one reason why security recording are still largely analog - VCRs. Another reason is that VCR tapes are cheap, hold a hell of a lot of information, don't take up much room, and can be re-used.
It is probably fairly easy to present reasonable doubt of digitized evidence unless the resolution is so that tampering would be detectable.
encryption != DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
What's needed here is a "tamper-proof" digital image format, one that can't be modified or that can't be modified without leaving a record. Think checksums and digital signatures here, comprehensively applied. The same thing will be useful not only in criminology but also in medical imaging and lots of other areas as well.
DRM has nothing to do with "tamper-proof" data. DRM, which stands after all for "digital rights management," is simply a catch-all term for any technology that serves to capture rights as metadata, and possibly control access to media according to that metadata.
As I've written before, DRM is most important in the commercial TV broadcast space. A TV station buys a "rights package" for a syndicated program, and has to pay a very large fine if they violate the terms of that package. (Say, if they show the program at 10:00 AM when the contract says they can only show it between noon and midnight.) DRM in that arena will be a life-saver for those kinds of folks.
I know this is Slashdot and ungroupthink is doubleplusungood, but DRM is not a dirty word, and DRM and "tamper-proof" media are not the same thing at all.
Yes to both questions (Score:2, Insightful)
We also need the right to "photoshop." Enhancing a photograph is no different then using a microscope to make the image more clear.
Although I could compromise on the first one if the law would be strong enough to prevent evidence from being thrown out, we need a strong law to be passed allowing digital enhancing.
-Brent
Re:Yes to both questions (Score:2)
Right. The public defender who writes The Law is a Ass [worldfamouscomics.com] says that he's near the top of his office having got evidence thrown out twice, and that judges hate to throw out evidence just like anyone else would.
Enhancing a photograph is no different then using a microscope to make the image more clear.
Once you put something under the microscope, you can play with a couple knobs, but what you see is what's there. There's no such guarentee with Photoshop -- you could load it into Photoshop, erase it, and draw a new fingerprint. "Enhanced" photographs shouldn't be accepted until it's passed the scientific acceptance test (like microscopes have), and even then it's important to tell what was done to a picture.
Re:Yes to both questions (Score:2)
I do not see how in the world this post was modded as insightful. It is just parroting the same old tired right-wing "law and order" rhetoric. Probably the mod was some "Ditto-head" or he/she works as a cop or DA...
Yeah, lets give our cops and DAs <insert random power here> as long as it is rigidly controlled and fair and just. Trust us, the government doesn't make mistakes.
Look at the death penalty. The overwhelming thing that jumps out at you is that minorities are on death row disporportionate to their population percentages. There are also more poor people on death row than rich people.
For some reason, White techies tend to be conservative, they are always dogging the liberals and espousing Republican and/or Libertarian viewpoints. Why is that?
Look around you, it is the Republicans that are taking rights away from you. They are selling this nation down the river but as long as you White techies are making money you are content to ignore what is going on around you.
Bah! I am getting disgusted with this country and am looking for somewhere to go. I'm thinking Costa Rica, Spain or maybe even Ireland. Anyone have any suggestions on any techie nirvanas out there?
Crypto-fingerprinted JPGs (Score:2)
DRM? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, even the system of encryption, et al which is being proposed doesn't really do much. First, is the machine picking the randomly generated password or the person picking an easily recognizable password as in this problem [harvard.edu].
Second, the machine (whether it be a camera, computer, or nightstick) doesn't have intelligence built into it. Thus, it would allow anyone who knew how to work the machine (and could guess the passwords) to alter the information. Even the fact that the computer is smart enough to make a copy of the original doesn't mean anything. If someone knew how the program worked - they could (and would) alter the original as well as the copy.
Until machines become self-aware or at least are aware of what someone is trying to do to them - we will not have a "good" way to stop fraud. (I say "good" because even then we will probably have some way to circumvent/unplug the smarts from a machine which puts us back where we are currently.)
Thoughts:
If the police want a more fullproof method of maintaining equilibrium in the establishment of, and verification of proof. Then they will need to greatly improve how that information is handled. A network (probably made up of Linux boxes) which are attached to a central repository and to which they can send information but not retrieve information (ie: a blind send) would be a step in the right direction. Information would only be retrievable from the main console connected directly to the centralized hardware. Also, files can not be deleted from the main system until the files have been backed up to a reliable medium (such as CDs/DVDs/tape). Otherwise, the system simply allows a user to register updates and nothing else.
Contrast (Score:2)
"'I think it's very suspicious that you have something that is of no value and suddenly you enhance it and it becomes of value,' said [defense attorney] Heyer. 'It is very clear that this type of thing can be manipulated.'"
I dislike it greatly when a person states a truth then follows it up with an obvious untruth in order to give the latter credibility. Yes, evidence can be manipulated. yes, it should be protected against. No, being able to discern something you could not discern before does not invalidate that evidence out of hand. Perhaps she's heard of DNA?
I think just about anyone familiar with Photoshop/gimp and actual photographs will realize that details can be brought out of a picture that aren't immediately obvious. Don't believe me? Take just about any non-perfect picture off the net, open it with gimp, then:
Should it be held under the cold light of courtoom examination? Sure. Is it pseudoscience? Not on it's face.
Threshold (Score:2)
Simple.
As for it's potential for abuse, give me a break. Planting a print at the scene is about a kabillion times easier to do than to digitally forge one. Occams Razor, kids.
Keep Film Cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
Unenhanced fingerprints also unreliable (Score:2)
Limited photoshop? (Score:3, Insightful)
I see a software niche....
Enhancing Evidence (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the 'As if by magic' and 'psuedo-science' bits in the article, those are irresponsible hype. It's like saying you expose film in a camera, develop it, and an image appears as if by magic. If you didn't know how a TV worked, you'd think that was magic too. As for the unrepeatability of results, no two people using fingerprint dust will get exactly the same results. Same with a photoshop brush. If you brushed the same areas in the same ways, you'd get the same results, otherwise not. Duh.
This does bring up a point of repeatable, localized image processing. My guess is it wouldn't be too hard to get the GIMP to record all brush strokes. It surely stores their results for the undo option. How hard would it be to output an XML encoded series of operations along with the output image? Then if there's any question as to the usability of the results, someone can start with the original image and apply the same set of operations one at a time. Maybe add image cryptosigning, and sell linux+gimp boxen as forensics tools.
Finally, i'm surprised there isn't a standard government issue image transform system. NIH Image [nih.gov] might be a good place to start, or just a front end to matlab's image processing toolbox which is luser-friendly and keeps usable, crypto-signable records of each transform it does. As long as there aren't any brushes, no expert witness in image processing is going to say you could doctor prints.
Get the right tool for the job (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, DRM does not apply (you are certifying the source here, not caring about end user rights). Photoshop is way too broad a tool, with too many abilities to create your own content. As for a digital file, don't put that in your mouth unless you know where all it has been.
What you would need would be image processing (not editing) tool, preferably specific to enhancing fingerprints. The best thing would be a self contained fingerprint enhancing appliance, with scanner, printer, and built in algorithms. The fingerprint would be scanned in, enhanced, and then go back to the real world as a watermarked print that could be taken to court with the device's serial number and the original fingerprint.
The device would of course be fully certified to do exactly what the court would admit. And that is the ticket: you need a fully controlled process that can be examined at every step with a fine tooth comb by some agency of the court to prevent forgery of evidence. You also need to link the evidence to the specific machine, so it can be hauled into court and publicly verified that it hasn't been tampered with.
Of course, to make Slashdotters happy, the device could run embedded Linux, and use Gimp routines, as long as you could find somebody to fill out enought paperwork to keep a certifying agency happy. A few boxcars would do.
This device would not be a consumer or pro graphics device. So there is no need (or even desire) to burden the public and the pro graphics community with the requirements of forensic evidence.
"The thousand year dragon king: King Ghidora."
Yuri, "Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidora: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack"
Don't forget King Ghidora's birthday is tomorrow.
My favorite quote (Score:2)
Should we make the same claim for film development equipment? What about scissors and tape?
I'm all for more accountability when it comes to evidence. Having an audit trail for all digital processing is a wonderful solution. That way you can always verify who did what to an image, from start to finish. Heck even if an analyst uses a tool like dodge and burn that requires "painting" onto an image, you can keep a record of the trajectory of the pen stroke used. This isn't rocket science here.
But to claim that a valuable tool of science, because it can also be used to create art, is suddenly invalid, is simply reckless and irresponsible.
Since when did a product name became a verb ? (Score:2)
Perhaps the verb you were looking for was to enhance ?
Nonreputiation, accountability (Score:2)
In a trial, the chain of possession on evidence must be sound. You must be able to demonstrate who has had the evidence, and what they might have done to it.
Think of this as a tamperproof RCS for photographs: You have proof of who has touched the evidence, and what they've done to it.
Re:Use a real verb (Score:4, Funny)
get it? google?
haa haa ha ha ah never mind
Re:Use a real verb (Score:2, Funny)
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin, to Hobbes
Re:Use a real verb (Score:2)
Photoshop is a trademarked proper noun, not a verb
Any noun can be verbed.
Re:I fully support DRM cameras (Score:2)
*giggle* My, you're a such a silly little troll! Teehee!
Re:I fully support DRM cameras (Score:2)
How the hell did you get modded up?
Travis
Re:I fully support DRM cameras (Score:2)
Gee, it would be kind of flattering actually. I think lavender would nicely offset my big, black beard.
Re:I fully support DRM cameras (Score:2)
That's a different argument entirely - it's saying that the "wrong" act was taking the pictures, when previously the "wrong" act was distributing them. If people want to take naked pictures of each other, that's their business and no-one else's.
If you'd said "... would prevent taking pictures of naked women unless they truly consented ..." or something, I might not have disagreed with you (possibly I would have pointed out how difficult that would be to judge).
Are you serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
What you're proposing is that there should be a technological to what is, at it's heart, a moral problem. If you're looking at this from a moral/religous standpoint (and it sounds to me like you are) then you must recognize that you haven't solved anyting by taking away the option to engage in this sort of immoral behaviour (I'm assuming, for the sake of the discussion, that audit trails would, in fact, stop this sort of breach of trust from occouring - though in all honesty I think that's a deeply flawed assumption). Certainly the specific behaviour might have been prevented, but the underlying issues which allow someone to ignore or abuse their spouses trust, etc. still exist and have, in fact, been completely ignored. In the end all you'll end up doing is changing the specifics of the situation, but breaches of trust and sexual compulsion will continue. No amount of DRM can address the reasons that someone seeks out bad behaviour.
Of course, as I mentioned, DRM and/or audit trails won't do much to stop the unauthorized publication of such photos. It certaily won't stop one spouse from coercing/manipulating/etc. another to take the photos in the first place. In no way will it account for those who initially think the photos are a good idea but later change their minds. And finally, it's complete bunk to even begin to think that an audit trail will force anyone to "confront thheir odious addiction", and it certainly won't save any marriages.
The bottom line is that if a husband thinks so little of his wife and their relationship that he would violate her trust in sunch a way simply because he wouldn't get caught then the marriage is in serious trouble regardless. Technology is amazing stuff, but it's neither the cause of, nor the solution to each and every modern problem. I think people forget that too often.
Re:Is Photoshopping a word??? (Score:3, Funny)