Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Interpol Unscrambles Doctored Photo In Manhunt 370

jackpot777 writes in with an AP story out of Paris reporting that Interpol has distributed photos of a man suspected of sexually exploiting children. The images were recovered from pictures taken off the Internet in which the man's face had been blurred using something like Photoshop's Filter > Distort > Twirl tool. German police were able to recover recognizable images of the man, whose identity and nationality are not known. Interpol would not discuss the techniques used to recover the images. jackpot777 writes: "It does show one interesting facet of internet privacy that has also been noted with topics ranging from reading blurred check numbers in images to Google's plan to blur out license plate and face data for Street View. And that is: blurring is not the same as completely obscuring. As computers become more adept at extrapolating data of different types, your identity isn't safe unless you completely cover all those identifying features."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interpol Unscrambles Doctored Photo In Manhunt

Comments Filter:
  • Pictures (Score:5, Informative)

    by avij ( 105924 ) * on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:40AM (#20908823) Homepage
    The pictures [interpol.int] can be seen on Interpol's site.
  • by alx5000 ( 896642 ) <alx5000&alx5000,net> on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:42AM (#20908831) Homepage
    Amazing, indeed [imageshack.us]
  • by packeteer ( 566398 ) <packeteer@@@subdimension...com> on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:43AM (#20908841)
    From the interpol web page it says:

    These pictures have been produced by specialists from Germany's federal police force, the Bundeskriminalamt, working from originals found on the Internet, which had been digitally altered to disguise the man's face.
  • by avij ( 105924 ) * on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:44AM (#20908847) Homepage
    .. can be read here [google.com].
  • by acb ( 2797 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:44AM (#20908849) Homepage
    Surely Interpol's top-secret image-unblurring technology is just a matter of applying the Twirl effect in the opposite direction at the same location, and perhaps applying some image-enhancement plug-ins to the resulting area? I doubt it's anything one couldn't do with off-the-shelf software.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:57AM (#20908939)
      The AP article did mention that AP were able to produce an almost recognizable image using commercially available photo editing software but not a good as the one Interpol had produced.

      Wild ass guess ahead...

      Interpol geeks probably ran some tests to determine approximately how much twirl was applied to the original image and then created a 24bit image slightly larger than the twirled area assigning a unique 24 bit value to each pixel and then applied the same amount of twirl.

      They could then look at the twirled test image and come up with a mapping of twirled pixels to untwirled pixels. This information could be used to "untwirl" the original image by grabbing the pixels at the twirled coordinates and moving them back to where the mapping says they probably originated.

      Of course there would be some pixels lost and extra pixels created during the original twirling but chances are the original image could be approximated fairly well by interpolating between the recovered pixels. You'd not get a picture perfect result but something somewhat blurry as can be seen in the recovered pixels.

      Of course they might have done something more mathematical but if I was going to try this myself I'd probably just give the method I described above a shot first and see if I came up with something looking like a face.
      • by somersault ( 912633 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @05:09AM (#20909033) Homepage Journal
        Yep, I don't see what other way there is to do it rather than just reverse the process :P It's funny seeing some people say it's 'amazing', and also it's a dumbass way to try to disguise something. I don't think the summary is accurate in thinking that blurring can be undone to the same extent as to get a license plate back or whatever.. it would be possible to get a bit of detail back if there wasn't too much blurring being done, but say you applied a very heavy gaussian blur to a section of a picture, everything would basically get mashed into one colour..
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          In an unbounded picture with infinite intensity resolution, the point spread function of a good old fashioned blur does not destroy information. Then you can recover the image through a process called deconvolution. In the real world, information is lost at the image boundaries and due to requantization, plus you don't know the PSF. If the blur does not cover the whole image and there's only a small number of likely PSFs (as would be the case if the blur was produced in one of the popular image editing prog
          • by WillAdams ( 45638 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @06:34AM (#20909427) Homepage
            That's why when I need to obscure a face (when working on images for a medical journal) I use the mosaic filter after running a heavy gausian blur --- leaves something recognizable as a face, but w/ too little information to reconstruct even a postage stamp (~10 x 16 pixels).

            William

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by jamesshuang ( 598784 )
              Why not just use the simplest one - a black box? Information can't be extrapolated from something that doesn't exist. Also, I doubt you'd have problems with recognition - if anyone sees a body, neck, and a black box, I doubt they'll think you have decapitated people running around...
            • by Mr Z ( 6791 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @08:43AM (#20910621) Homepage Journal

              Another fun technique is to just paste something plausible there—like another face, or pieces of other faces—before blurring. I often do the same thing when blurring out numbers. You might be able to get away with a plasma fractal with appropriate skin tones.

              I figure it gives the hacks something to get excited about until they realize it really is gibberish. :-)

              --Joe
            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @08:52AM (#20910721) Homepage Journal
              Your method is not entirely foolproof. The problem is that someone can repeat the steps you took and compare the results. They could photograph a person in the same pose, apply the same or very similar filters and if the results match, there is a good chance the source images were also quite similar.

              A similar technique was used to guess blurred out numbers on cheques, passports, car number plates etc. Simply run through all possible combinations of letters and numbers, applying a mosaic each time until the mosaics match.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Stradivarius ( 7490 )
          Actually you can do the same sort of operation to unblur a license plate. In fact that was a lab exercise in one of my college signal processing courses :-) The main concern I'd see with the license plate problem would be ensuring your camera sampled the data fast enough to meet the Nyquist criterion. But if you did, you'd have all the information content in the image you'd need.

          The degree of blurring isn't really the issue, unless you start to lose information due to quantization losses. Short of that,
          • by richlv ( 778496 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @06:56AM (#20909545)

            If you really want to obscure something in a non-reversible way, remove the data from the image (overwrite it with a black box or something).

            if you are from a government, remove the data from an image with the alpha channel and don't uncheck "save color values from transparent pixels" (in gimp).
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by FuzzyDaddy ( 584528 )
            (they're simple linear shift-invariant filters, and you're not losing information in that process)

            Which points to the difference between the computational and physical worlds. If I blur an image by, say, projecting it through a lens on a piece of film, I reduce the amplitude of the high spatial frequency components. As you say, this isn't a lossy process. The difference in the physical world, there's noise added at every step, and the physical blurring reduces the signal to noise in the higher spatial

        • by sqldr ( 838964 )
          Next they'll be doing them as slide puzzles.
      • Interpol geeks probably ran some tests to determine approximately how much twirl was applied to the original image and then created a 24bit image slightly larger than the twirled area assigning a unique 24 bit value to each pixel and then applied the same amount of twirl.
        unforuntately that probablly won't work because there is almost certainly interpolation going on.

        so you need to run lots of test images to try and calculate how much influence each pixel in the untwirled image has on each pixel in the twirl
    • by drspliff ( 652992 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @05:22AM (#20909093)
      I've just tried this using Photoshop's twirl plugin, and with a little tinkering arout I could get a fairly good descrambled picture in only 10 minutes.

      With more time and higher quality images, I'm sure it wouldn't be any trouble at all, it just needed the initial insight to use the "swirl in opposite direction" idea.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lord Crc ( 151920 )
      Surely Interpol's top-secret image-unblurring technology is just a matter of applying the Twirl effect in the opposite direction at the same location

      I'm fairly certain they used deconvolution [wikipedia.org].
    • by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @07:43AM (#20909959) Homepage
      Yes, for the average /.er this is absolutely trivial :
      the idiot used a filter that just moved the data around in predictable way (in circles), and the police did transpose the data in the opposite direction and got the picture back. The picture was not blurred at all (in the mathematical sense of lowering the resolution).

      Interpol bragged about it not because of some obscure technical feat. They bragged about as a PR stunt, in order to take advantage of the " CSI effect [wikipedia.org] ".

      Joe 6 pack, has recently started to understand that incredibly big zooms, with some magical "picture enhancement effects" that keeps incredible amount of details - as done by Deckart in Blade Runner, or regularly featured on CSI - can't be actually achieved in real life. Because everyone is criticizing those shows for the lack of realism in their zooming achievement.

      But now Interpol pulls this PR stunt, where they show how they managed to recover the identity of the maniac. Now people every where are starting to think "Oh may god ! They actually have the technology ! They can "enhance" pictures and get the faces back !". The goal of Interpol was to instill fear in would-be criminal who would hope to stay anonymous with some photoshop tricks tricks. Maybe this wasn't the only stuff that was openly criticized in CSI but that was secretly doable by the real police. Now cue-in some armchair conspiracy theorists, who could pretend that the whole criticizing of "unrealistic police TV-shows" was a government conspiracy to cover up technology that actually exist (additional points earned if technology is of alien origin), or they could say that government has put a backdoor inside Photoshop that does keep the blurred faces saved in steganography (bonus point for using buzzword).

      They are creating a climate of FUD, in the hope to deter would-be criminals.
  • by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:49AM (#20908881) Homepage
    A twirl is essentially shifting pixels around an image, and is designed to keep as much information as possible.

    A blur on the other hand, especially a gaussian blur, will mix pixels together in such a way that any recovered image will be one of many possible outcomes.

    Then again, removing information, by pixellating for example, would be best.
    • by ultrasound ( 472511 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:53AM (#20908911)
      Surely the most effective filter would be a GIMP mask?
    • Next time remember to use the "mosaic" filter....

    • by KlaymenDK ( 713149 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @05:13AM (#20909055) Journal
      Pixellation is only effective if done really, really coarsely ... so you might as well just opt for the classic black bar to begin with.

      The link about cheques in the summary tells more (if it's that old article I think it is).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Then again, removing information, by pixellating for example, would be best.

      Even better would be to not rape little kids in the first place.
    • As others have pointed out here, a blur, especially a gaussian blur, is mathematically trivial to undo. The only difficulties come from the fact that the blur an image editing program applies isn't a true gaussian - because of rounding and the fact that the picture plane isn't infinite.
    • by DrXym ( 126579 )
      Then again, removing information, by pixellating for example, would be best.

      I doubt it is. I recall an article some time ago that showed you could guess words that had been pixellated by statistically analysing what the result looked like. While the same may not be strictly true of a human face, I would not be surprised if they could work out your general features, hair colour, eye colour, and facial features. Enough to produce an artists impression.

      It seems if you really want to hide what you look like

  • by clickclickdrone ( 964164 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:50AM (#20908883)
    >Interpol would not discuss the techniques
    I showed this to my PS using friend and he shurgged, said 'Just do a radial blur in the opposite direction' and 30 seconds later had a picture about 80-90% as good as the one they're waving about as being the result of some super secret methodology.
    It does strike me as a bit stupid explaining it all - now crims will just use better techniques for blurring themselves out. The media, law enforcement agencies are doing this more and more and it's insane - "we just had an idea for a terrorist attack that might happen and here it is in full", "This is foresnic evidence that allowed us to catch the crim" and so on.
    • by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @05:57AM (#20909255)
      I showed this to my PS using friend and he shurgged, said 'Just do a radial blur in the opposite direction' and 30 seconds later had a picture about 80-90% as good as the one they're waving about as being the result of some super secret methodology.
      It does strike me as a bit stupid explaining it all - now crims will just use better techniques for blurring themselves out. The media, law enforcement agencies are doing this more and more and it's insane - "we just had an idea for a terrorist attack that might happen and here it is in full", "This is foresnic evidence that allowed us to catch the crim" and so on.


      Yup, they spun it (pun intended) into cheap PR. The problem is, it's not that they are super smart, it's that the criminal was super stupid.

      And it'll make anyone with basic image processing skills question their overall expertise if they'd brag about untwirl.

      That said, the average folk will definitely be impressed. I knew a guy who inverted his photo in attempt to protect his identity (no, he didn't molest children). Imagine his shock when I took the inverted photo, inverted it again arriving at the original.

      To him I'm probably some sorta super genius who used sophisticated data restoration hack. To a guy with basic knowledge, it's nothing worth noting.

      To see how blur can restore detail not visible to the naked eye, check out Focus Magic [focusmagic.com]. Not as easy as untwirl, but gives you an idea. This is because the blur distribution (usually gaussian if digital, or linear with cameras) gives away the possible origin position of the pixels.

      If you pixelize however, with big enough square, you lose real resolution and that's much harder to restore anything interesting out of (it's not like in movies, with the unlimited extrapolation techniques, as we all know).

      Other gotchas: covering with black rectangle but leaving it only 1-2% transparent. Looks solid, but data can be recovered.

      And a very common other method: people keep leaving their name and camera model in the meta info of the image. Easy to check out via right-click>Properties in Windows.

      PS: it was "twirl", not "radial blur" btw.
    • by shilly ( 142940 )
      The police said that they the cost of revealing they can do this was worth paying given the potential prize of tracking this guy down. They made a trade-off.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:51AM (#20908895) Homepage
    As computers become more adept at extrapolating data of different types, your identity isn't safe unless you completely cover all those identifying features.

    Yes, or you could just stop molesting children and photographing it.
    • by 15Bit ( 940730 )
      Sadly they will CONTINUE molesting children and STOP photographing it. It pushes against my freedom of information beliefs, but in cases like this i can see the argument for not telling the world how you solved the crime...
      • by SamP2 ( 1097897 )
        People who are not idiots (well assuming there are any non-idiots that molest children in the first place) won't be dumb enough to record it on camera to begin with.

        The idiots will keep doing it regardless.

        Status quo.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Sadly they will CONTINUE molesting children and STOP photographing it. It pushes against my freedom of information beliefs...

        Oh dear. I don't think I need to mention how that could be unintentionally misread.
    • The best solution (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Dan East ( 318230 )
      How about if they stop molesting children. Period. I doubt it makes much difference to a 4 year old whether or not photography is involved while they are being sexually assaulted.

      Dan East
    • by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
      --As computers become more adept at extrapolating data of different types, your identity isn't safe unless you completely cover all those identifying features. --

      Yes, or you could just stop molesting children and photographing it.


      And before you know, you've become part of the "think of the children / if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" crowd.

      But of course, if we try to protect our identity, we must molest children.
  • by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @04:54AM (#20908919) Journal
    true, blurring isn't the same as obscuring. That said, a twirl/swirl filter isn't a blur filter either. A twirl/swirl filter relocates pixels from position A to position B. The original pixels are still largely there, you just have to move them back from B to A. That's what Interpol did here - kudos to them for figuring that out. But a blur filter doesn't just relocate pixels - it blends a bunch together. Now don't get me wrong - there's certainly deconvolution methods to reduce blur - especially motion blur - ( one example software: http://www.focusmagic.com/ [focusmagic.com] ) but you're not going to be able to just take any heavily non-motion blurred image and get a supersharp result back. Other techniques, such as pixelization, are even worse to restore - you may as well not try.

    -That- having been said.. yes, obscuring does tend to be better.. as long as it's a proper obscuring and not some half-hearted attempt by a news station where an interviewer / whatever has said to want to be inrecognizable, and then you just get a dark silhouette of the person where you can 1. still make out the silhouette, 2. their voice goes unaltered, 3. bump up the brightness enough and you can even make out a face or, in the case of yea olde license plate, a black bar that is supposed to 'track' the license plate properly, but the person applying the bar is a lazy-ass tracker and it 'swims' over the plate, revealing tiny bits of the bottom/top on certain frames - not too much guesswork involved to figure out the proper license plate, as even with multiple possibilities, only one is likely to match the type/color of the car when looked up on the interwebs.

    Now then... Let the "what if somebody photoshopped somebody else's head on there first, then applied the filter, now some poor innocent sap is framed!" replies begin.
    • by Splab ( 574204 )
      I can't help but think people using blur/twirl/distort is somewhat trying to get caught, I mean if I wanted to make sure no one was able to see my face I would cut the information out of the picture - mark it, delete - it goes black and there is no way back.
      • Maybe you want to be able to prove that's it's you in the photo. What the police have done has proved that the swirl isn't a one-way function - but if you thought it was you might want to produce the original photo and show someone that it was really your face.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      you're not going to be able to just take any heavily non-motion blurred image and get a supersharp result back.

      Clearly you need to watch more episodes of CSI ^_^
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ockegheim ( 808089 )
      Yes, with focus blur, you have the same number of pixels as you would otherwise have, just mixed in a way that isn't immediately obvious. Though I suppose if the Hubble Space Telescope required corrective lenses [wikipedia.org], it mustn't be all that easy.
  • Just cut that part out of the image, and use some algorithm to fill in the blank space without depending on the original data in that area. Hey, if you are blocking out a license plate in that way, the algorithm could even fill in something that looks like a license plate but with some random characters instead of the original ones. It doesn't matter what the algorithm does, since the information you wanted to hide was completely removed before using that algorithm.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Honestly though, how many people think like that? Most people are not going to be aware of an organization's ability to de-obfuscate an image and will not take the appropriate steps to hide their identity. The only thing I worry about in this post is the lack of peer review in source code, I believe that if the government is going to use software that may have a negative impact on a person's life (not saying this guy is innocent, just in general) then the source needs to be freely available for peer revie
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Asic Eng ( 193332 )
        It's the judge's job to handle this, if the guy is found and brought to court. If the picture is a major piece of evidence he may order the source code (or the sequence of actions they executed in photoshop) to be examined. I suspect though that the picture would only be used as a way to track this person. As a starting point to gather more information, not as acutal evidence in court.
    • So, how about instead of blurring people's faces in Canada Google replace them all with someone's face. The Google founders seem like a good idea, but John Malkovich [imdb.com] would be even funnier.
  • by Gordonjcp ( 186804 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @05:06AM (#20909023) Homepage
    As computers become more adept at extrapolating data of different types, your identity isn't safe unless you completely cover all those identifying features.

    Uhm, no. As other posters have pointed out, all they did was reverse the distortion applied to the image - which in this case didn't really lose much information, just nudge it about. If you blur out someone's face, the detail can never be recovered. No, not even by the NSA. The information is lost. You *can* sharpen up edges and improve contrast, but if the information just plain isn't there any more there's not a lot you can do.

    Think about it this way. A digital image is just a string of numbers. If I take a string of numbers and apply a "filter" to it then I get (0.4, 3.0, 6.2, 3.4, 5.4, 5.8, 2.6). From that, can you work out what the original values were? Possibly, because my filter is very simple. However, you don't know how much precision has been lost, or what the initial values were, so it would be nigh-on impossible to work out the original values.

    Incidentally if anyone does work out the original sequence, I'd love to hear about it.
    • by ardor ( 673957 )
      You don't have to. Just extract the facial features (which are unique), and match them against a set of known photographs. Blurring does not remove them unless you blur a LOT. The only reliable way of hiding the identity remains the black bar in the actual pic (not just superimposed).
    • by bentcd ( 690786 )

      If you blur out someone's face, the detail can never be recovered. No, not even by the NSA. The information is lost. You *can* sharpen up edges and improve contrast, but if the information just plain isn't there any more there's not a lot you can do.

      If the result after blurring is in some way dependent upon the original image, then:
      1) If you have a list of suspects, you could apply the same algorithm to each of them and see which one best matches the picture.
      2) If you have a blurred-out video sequence, you have a lot of time data to work with. As the camera pans, or the person moves about, different pixels will get blurred in different ways and this will happen in a way that depends on the data of the original picture. Capture enough of these frames,

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 26199 ( 577806 ) *

      It's interesting to note that given enough precision a blur is fully reversable.

      In the frequency domain, a guassian blur reduces the amplitude of high frequencies; it doesn't drop them to zero. Simply multiply up again to get the original image.

      Now, in practice this doesn't work particularly well because the high frequencies end up with such low amplitude that quantization destroys them.

      The reason there is still a potential problem is that the 0-255 precision used on computers holds more information t

  • by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @05:11AM (#20909045)
    "As computers become more adept at extrapolating data of different types, your identity isn't safe unless you completely cover all those identifying features.""

    New laws were passed today, making it a felony to obscure, obfuscate, scramble, cover or otherwise purposely mask your identity by modifying a digital image for the purpose of avoiding identification by law enforcement agencies.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )
      Actually, I could see someone trying to make a case that that's either obstructing the police or attempting to pervert the course of justice, assuming that you were caught for whatever it was that you're accused of.

      Don't forget though that a number of things that are legal (eg carrying a crowbar while out and about) become illegal if you are engaged in a related crime (carrying that crowbar while breaking into a house becomes "going equipped").
  • The perfect setup (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How soon before someone Photoshops in the face of someone they don't like into KP, obscures it, then releases it knowing the cops will unobscure it and arrest him?

    When he claims "it wasn't me" will he be able to prove it? Sure, the cops are supposed to have the burden of proof but when it comes to bogeyman charges like terrorism and KP juries usually go with the prosecution regardless.
  • Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by SamP2 ( 1097897 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @05:37AM (#20909167)
    I wonder when I'll be able to buy the software that automatically unscrambles all the pixelated regions on my rather specific-content Japanese DVDs.
  • Dalton? (Score:2, Interesting)

    Am I the only one who thinks this guy looks a bit like Dalton McGuinty? [wikipedia.org] Given that we heard about his other habits [wikipedia.org] right before the last Ontario election.....
  • The Doctor? (Score:3, Funny)

    by FlopEJoe ( 784551 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @06:31AM (#20909411)
    See, I'm not a fan of the story arcs, "the Doctor is mistaken for a bad guy." For one, they never seem to go very far. Like that guy harassing Martha's mother in the middle of season three? I thought that was going to go somewhere and...

    Oh wait, this isn't about Doctor Who... never mind.

  • There will be some loss at edges, but this "twirl" looks like a completely reversible operation to me. I seriously hope criminals will keep being this stupid.

    Blurring is different, it removes inromation. In some cases blurring might just not remove enough information. For example (as one of the lonks in the story shows), blurring keeps the sum of black and white constant in an area. If you then have to distinguish between a sign with little black in it and one with a lot, that is still possible with blurrs.
  • It is patently ridiculous to imply there is some secret or sophisticated method to undoing the twirl effect as available in Photoshop. All one needs to do is find the bounds of the distortion (which, admitted, is a painful process of trial and error), then perform the distortion with an opposite value to the original. This particular effect is not intended to destroy any pixels, only relocate them, so restoration is intuitive. You can all try this at home: simply load an image, twirl it, then perform the

  • Manhunt? (Score:4, Funny)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @07:21AM (#20909729)
    Am I the only one disappointed to find out that this doesn't have anything to do with the Rockstar game?
  • by Jtheletter ( 686279 ) on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @07:43AM (#20909953)
    If this were an episode of CSI They could have simply drag-and-dropped the photo into their "automatically un-distort face in image" program, then zoomed in over the man's shoulder to read the artist's signature of a painting behind him. Then recognizing that these paintings are only sold from one obscure store in New York City, they drag-and-drop the photo into their "compare to every frame of every NYC ATM to this picture" program and found a frame of him standing conveniently in front of his license plate, which they could also zoom in to read the registration sticker text.

    Get with the times Interpol. Sheesh, CSI wouldn't even have had to use their "match a partial fingerprint I zoomed in 6000% to get off of a glass of water in a 72dpi jpeg to every known felon in the US in under 10 seconds during witty banter" program to solve this one!
  • by Minwee ( 522556 ) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Tuesday October 09, 2007 @09:29AM (#20911221) Homepage

    "Interpol Unscrambles Doctored Photo In Manhunt"

    "Interpol Unlocks Les Paul in Guitar Hero II"

    "Interpol Tracks Down Level -1 in Super Mario Bros."

    "Interpol Acquires 'Marathon Man' Achievement in Halo III"

    "Interpol Microwaves Weird Ed's Hamster in Maniac Mansion"

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...