Digital Camera Image Verification 255
Polo writes "While reading dpreview, I noticed that among several new products, Canon has announced a Digital Image Verification Kit to prove that an image taken by a particular camera has not been modified. It's disturbing to think about the conditions that would allow digital images to be accepted in a courtroom. I guess one defense would be to figure out how to 'verify' a photo of shark attack..."
Windows only? (Score:3, Insightful)
Suddenly, this throws out the validity of anyone who owned a Mac or was using FreeBSD as their primary desktop operating system.
won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
2. modify picture
3. regenarate image verification data
4. profit?
Canon (Score:3, Insightful)
To everyone out there: you are an idiot if you buy a camera that does not support CompactFlash. You'll end up paying twice as much for the media.
In other good Canon news, they've announced that they'll be releasing 20 new digicams this year. Hail to the king, baby!
Courtroom. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask the photographer, under oath, "is this representative of what you saw?".
If it was, he says so.
It's really the same as with any other evidence that can be tampered with. If someone testifies under oath that it is what it is then there's no difference between a digital image and any (many?) other types of evidence.
juries know images can be faked (Score:5, Insightful)
These digital picture verifiers are nice but not the end of the question. A validation from one of these machines is just some more evidence that the picture is real. It's not conclusive and shouldn't be taken as so. In fact, the evidence of validation from one of these machines might not even be allowed into court if they're extremely unreliable. Daubert to the rescue.
Re:Canon (Score:5, Insightful)
We have that interesting problem at work (Insurance Agency, which is half the reason this article caught my eye) -- we need digicams to do photo inspections of property or automobiles. All of our CSR workstations have CompactFlash readers. Half the new digicams out there don't use CF anymore -- which automatically takes them off my shopping list when I need to get new cameras.
I'd also add to your statement that you are an idiot if you buy a camera that doesn't take standard AA (or AAA) batteries. We also have several sets of NI-MH batts and chargers -- I refuse to buy a digicam with propriety batteries. I can't count how much money and aggravation the standard formats of CF and AA NI-MH batts have saved me -- both on a business and personal level.
What a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Note to self: run the signing software *after* altering the image. If the image was alrady signed, display it, take screenshot, alter the image, and re-run the signing software.
Re:won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Canon (Score:3, Insightful)
Compact Flash is old and it is big and bulky.
Quoted from this [kodak.com] site.
I'd hardly call 8.5cm x 5.4cm x 0.5cm "big and bulky". If you start using the Type III cards they are a whole .55cm thicker. That's too big? And what's wrong with "old" as long as it still works and the standard is updated for new technology?
Re:Canon (Score:3, Insightful)
Nikon supports CompactFlash only in their high-end cameras. I'm not sure why they don't support it in their low-end cameras. Probably some sort of kick-backs from selling a camera that supports the more expensive media. There's always collusion when ignorant consumers are involved.
Someone tell me what I'm missing. From PriceWatch.com [pricewatch.com], we get the following for a 512MB media card (many of the proprietary don't go larger than this):
$95 - CompactFlash
$138 - Memory Stick
$141 - MMC/SD
$165 - xD
$199 - ATA
As geeks, it is our duty to inform people from being stupid [yahoo.com] and buying cameras that don't support cheap, open standards. Why is SD so popular if it is 50% more expensive?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Canon (Score:2, Insightful)
None of the high end digital SLR cameras use NiMH batteries. Regular NiMH batteries run out of juice way too quickly. Using the Canon lithium ion packs you can get hundreds of shots with 1 battery. Also, unlike NiMH, lithiums don't lose like 10% of their charge daily.
it's targetted to a specific market (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm thinking this is for Canon to target the camera at a specific market where legal evidenciary issues come into play: crime scenes, insurance, autopsy, etc. This is likely not to be a feature that will appear for most consumer products.
What it really shows is more about how the professional film camera market is facing realistic competition from digital cameras.
Re:What a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-issue, that is, until someone cracks the memory card, or discovers that the camera's signing software is defective, etc.
Re:won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
A Fake! Go get me the original and I'll prove it! (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's say someone tries to use a doctored digital photo as evidence. They eliminate the original md5 with the aforementioned screenshot trick, and then recreate it. The photo is contested on the grounds it is a fake. To prove it, they go off and get their wonderous DVK-E2 kit, and then they get their md5. The test works just fine, so they know the md5 has been altered, so they go and ask for the original image. And so where is the original image? Do they have it? No, of course not, because it went on a little stroll down memory lane and landed without a sound in the fastness of
Have we accomplished anything here?
Re:It's called MD5 (?) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a joke (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Windows only? (Score:3, Insightful)