Computers, Court, and Fingerprints

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?"

Comments

First of all

[TimeReliesOnLadyLuck]

Fingerprinting doesn't hold up in court as often as people think, according to the washington Post.

Re:First of all

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, people have gone to jail on fingerprint evidence, no matter what is said in the Post.

"Enhanced" evidence

[russotto]

They've tried this with audio before, notably in the Waco cases. The court rejected it then. Hopefully they will keep rejecting it. Such digital enhancement might be useful for getting leads, but the result isn't evidence; it's just a computer-assisted guess.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[sacherjj]

Can't you look at the enhanced and unenhanced and verify that it is the same print? To me, enhancement can be considered part of the collecting, sort of like a filter that may exist in an audio recorder. If new ridges were not drawn, is this truly "doctoring" the print? I agree that it is a slippery slope and the determination has to be the level of enhancement. Can it still be considered a cleaned up version of the original, or did the enhancement add new ridges, etc. to the print?

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[Jason Earl]

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

[antis0c]

Hmm, you can't really use it to get leads either. Any evidence that comes from inadmissable evidence is inadmissable itself.

For example, say I illegally search a house. I find a note, the note has the name of someone involved in the crime I'm investigating. I go find the guy with that name, he confesses.

His confession, the fact we know him, and the note itself are all inadmissable because it was the fruit of an illegal search. However, we're human, the court can't erase that from memory. So we know 'who' did it, but now we have to go link them another way. That of course is a simple example and not legal fact. Thats why they pay lawyers tons of money.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[c.derby]

But what if your digitally enhanced lead reinforces your notion that you're going after the right guy? Then you can look for something that you can actually get a warrant for. That way all your evidence is legal and it didn't come from the enhanced object.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, not quite.

In your cause so long as the confession was not coerced it is not inadmissable. Fruit of the poison tree does not necessarily apply to externally generated evidence linked to illegaly obtained evidence.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[Planesdragon]

Hmm, you can't really use it to get leads either. Any evidence that comes from inadmissable evidence is inadmissable itself.

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

[CaseyB]

Such digital enhancement might be useful for getting leads, but the result isn't evidence; it's just a computer-assisted guess.

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

[antis0c]

Yeah, like I said it's a little more complicated than my example. It's really up to the judge what is an isn't admissable.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[URSpider]

Such digital enhancement might be useful for getting leads, but the result isn't evidence; it's just a computer-assisted guess.

Why not? That's like saying if I use DNA sequencing to find the identity of a criminal, it's just a chemically-assisted guess. Or, using a microphone to detect and record a distant conversation is just an electronically-assisted guess. The data is still there in the photo, it's just not visible to the human eye. What IS unfortunate is that they use Photoshop for this analysis. If they used a respected scientific image processing program like NIH Image, which doesn't have any pixel editing or distorting capabilities, I bet no one would bat an eye.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[aero6dof]

I don't think your argument applies to this issue. Why would enhancing a fingerprint change a legally obtained fingerprint to one that was illegal?

Lets say police legally obtained a fingerprint and DNA evidence on a rape case. If an enhanced fingerprint leads them to a known address of the individual then I would think that you have a perfectly reasonable basis to demand a DNA sample of the suspect to see if they compare.

If the original un-enhanced evidence was illegally obtained the enhancement isn't going to change the state of it the other way either.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[GlassHeart]

the result isn't evidence; it's just a computer-assisted guess.

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

[terrymr]

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.

Yes they are - but on the other hand there have been many miscarriages of justice because the jury thought the forensic scientist was giving them hard facts rather than just his opinion. Circumstatial evidence of any kind is open to more than one explanation.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[Alsee]

but the result isn't evidence; it's just a computer-assisted guess.

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

[1u3hr]

Hmm, you can't really use it to get leads either. Any evidence that comes from inadmissable evidence is inadmissable itself.

No. Any evidence that comes from illegally obtained evidence poisons anything derived from that. Much of the evidence gathered by investigators would not be admissable in court, but gives a clue as to where to look for admissible evidence. Even asking a psychic for a clue would be fine, if it lead to finding, say, the murder weapon, though of course the psychic's testimony would not be evidence at all.

(No, I don't believe in psychics.)

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[Reziac]

So what about *printing* the digital image, then applying standard photographic techniques to bring out details? Yeah, I know there's a problem with DPI compared to film, but at least it would be a sort of proof of concept. As you say, there's no reason that the digital tools can't be standardized.

The real question, IMO, is the audit trail and whether someone might have dropped a few pixels in there manually while they were applying the filter. The solution being to blackbox the standarized enhancement process, tho you've still got to keep track of who has access to the file before and after processing.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

At that point I don't care if the image was "enhanced" by a chimpanzee twiddling an etch-a-sketch.

I sure would ... because I'd take that chimpanzee on the road and make a million dollars!

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[GwaiJai]

No, because in a dark room, you are manipulating light, using light-sensitive chemicals on special paper. the resolution is incredibly higher.

With a digital image, it's a representation, in pixels, of the light captured by the ccd. so, the quality of the image is limited by the resolution of the ccd.

even if it's a scan of the picture, once again, the resolution is limited, so "dodge and burn" amounts to sifting for evidence with a backhoe.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[kalos]

When I worked for the clerk's office in Charlotte County FL they stored the inmates fingerprints that the Sherrif's office took in tiff format. It was standard operating proceudre for us to house the fingerprints, mug shots, and images of any tattoos/scars for each incident along with all the underlying data from said incident.

It originally went before the local district court and passed quite easily if I remember correctly. The judges love having access to all the records via a laptop as the defendant stands before them.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[Kanagawa]

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.

At least with fingerprint analysis, the goal is to identify and match artifacts of two images -- one taken under controlled circumstances, the other recovered. My experience with signal enhancement algorithms is limited, but spurious artifacts are a problem with many of them. "Applying a contrast filter" sounds simple and straightforward. But, what if there's a bug in the algorithm? What if a new algorithm is found that's faster, but produces more artifacts?

So, perhaps a good question is: What constitutes a "forensic" algorithm? Which algorithms have forensic utility and which do not? What methods do we use to test and evaluate them? With physical processes, these questions seem easier to answer. The algorithms are natural, e.g, luminosity of blood under a certain light source. But, if they weren't how would we know they're accurate? If a computer "enhances" a picture of a blood stain, how do we know it can tell the difference between katsup and blood? We wouldn't know until we'd tested it heavily.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[WNight]

This is like saying that records are exact duplicates of the original music because they're analog. Even if the recording process was perfect, the materials aren't and can't hold exactly the shape intended.

The photograph is limited by the (fairly large) size of the light-sensitive grains in the film.

I'd trust digital processes more because you can keep all in-between steps and use only documented sharpening routines, etc. Both sides could go back to the same digitally signed original and follow the steps themselves. With optical processes you trade your distrust of digital for completely untraceable analog steps. Who knows what was done to the picture? Nobody can ever repeat an analog step exactly the second time so you can't ever get the same result from the negative. Was it because it was intentionally added, or because there was just a small mistake during one of the processes?

Using digital is fine if you scan the negative at a high enough resolution to capture the film grain (and thus be assured of capturing all detail) or if you shoot at a resolution that provides more detail on resolution charts than the analog film which would be used.

Re:"Enhanced" evidence

[Fat Casper]

I would think that you have a perfectly reasonable basis to demand a DNA sample of the suspect to see if they compare.

How do police demand something? They get a court order. You're not going to get a judge to grant an order based on evidence that he won't allow to be presented in his court. The inadmissability of evidence doesn't change based on what you want the court to let you do.

Of course, it is a legitimate lead. They can interview the hell out of anyone willing to be interviewed. Until the cops come up with something real, however, you got nothin'!

NO WAY

[QuantumRiff]

I don't want them tracing those nude pictures of my 17 year old girlfriend back to me... I prefer to just put them out on gnutella for all to see anonymously! ;)

Re:NO WAY

[mickwd]

Well I hope she wasn't enhanced digitally.....

Little vague?

[MortisUmbra]

I am not sure I 100% understand the question posed, perhaps a bit more concise news post would convey why the heck I would want to click that link?

THis does absolutely nothing

[Anonymous Butthead]

Wait... so they can crack the encryption?
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

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is flawless, any form of encryption can be cracked.... all you need is time.

That is not true.

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[Tuidjy]

That is absolutely true. The question is
'How much time?' For some encryption technics,
using state of the art math, it would take
longer than the lifetime of our Galaxy.

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[outlier]

I think what they're actually talking about is digitally signing the original or computing some type of checksum to maintain an auditable chain of custody and to track versions of the data.

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

[Reality Master 101]

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

[pboulang]

This is just saying that there should be a method of tracking. They would be able to say from a position of authority that something had or hadn't been modified.

What is being talked about in the article is not tampering per se, but merely a method of enhancing. If a cop can't see a perp because of glare, can't he wear sunglasses? And if an image is too dark, can't he change the contrast? The DMR mentioned would be a safeguard that tracked any change made to evidence, so that later you can be SURE (to a large extent) that tampering was not done.

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be pedantic: If it were mathematically impossible to crack a one time pad encrypted document, then it would be equally mathematically impossible to decrypt the document, and thus useless.

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[Twirlip of the Mists]

What? That's the dumbest comment I've read all day. Let's define "crack" in this context: to decrypt without access to the necessary key(s). A message encrypted with a one-time pad is decrypted with the same one-time pad by the recipient. It is not possible to decrypt the message without the one-time pad except through simple brute force: i.e., trying all possible combinations of transforms over the length of the message. This method will, of course, produce a very large number of readable messages, only one of which is the correct one. So yes, "cracking" a message encrypted with a one-time pad is, for all purposes, impossible.

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[Reality Master 101]

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

[Tuidjy]

And who is playing word games now?

One time pads do not qualify as encription. Or,
here is an unbreakable 'encription' scheme.
I want to convey one of two messages: 'Go'
or 'Stop'. Before hand, we agree that if I
say 'Adam' it means 'Go', and if I say 'Eve',
it means 'Stop'. Of course, we will use the
convention only once. Here you are, completely
unbreakable encription.

One-time pads require that your key is as long
as the message. Hello?

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[Reality Master 101]

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

[Eccles]

Wrong. One time pads cannot be cracked. It is mathematically impossible.

Sure they can; just get your hands on the pad.

One time pads deal with the encryption problem by splitting up the message, and assuming part of it (the exchange of the pads) is secure. But how do you exchange the pads securely?

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[endoboy]

what the heck--I'll take a chance at showing my ignorance..... why does this need DRM software at all???

Couldn't you establish firm chain of custody by using a digital camera that only wrote to write-once media (e.g.--CDROM)?? Essentially a variant on the Sony Mavica floppy design, but with a CD instead...

take all the pictures you want, write them to a serialized blank CD, and track the CD. You then have a verifiable original that you can upload to a PC for enhancement, but which cannot itself be modified.

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[Jaysyn]

Sony already makes a Mavica that uses a (special 184MB) CD-R. It's been out for at least 2 years.

Jaysyn

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[Tassach]

Your Adam/Eve scenerio is a CODE, not a CYPHER (which is what we typically mean when we say "Encryption"). Codes have a limited vocabulary, bounded by a pre-defined codebook (which you trivially illustrated.) A cypher obfuscates any arbitrary message algorithmically via a key. A one-time pad is merely a cypher with a key length equal to the message length.

Codes are most definately breakable. If the code book is compromised, it's broken. If you use the same codewords over time, it is subject to analysis. If your codewords map 1:1 to words a natural language, it's breakable. If your actions can be correlated to the message, it can be broken. And so forth. A code is only 100% secure if the codebooks remain secret and it is only used once. "Climb Mount Nitaka" only works once as a code for "Attack Base PearlHarbor". Having used this, using "Climb Mount Fuji" as code for "Attack Base Midway" is really stupid; the opposition might not know exactly WHERE you are going to strike, but they know an attack is emminent. If you sent a previous message "Visit Mount Fuji" to mean "Photograph Base Midway", and I correlated that message with a recon flight over midway, now I know exactly where the attack is coming.

Re:THis does absolutely nothing

[kesuki]

There is nothing special about 180-210MB (21-24 minute) 80 MM CD-r. They're industry standard. you can buy a 10 pack at wal-mart.
But yes, DRM isn't needed, all that they need is to make absolutely sure that when 'images' are enhanced that the original remains available and untouched.
Manipulating pictures with filters should never ever be the sole piece of evidence in a case. It should be just one of many pieces that leave no room for doubt.

of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering what I have seen come out of halfway professional graphics people with Photoshop I wouldn't trust any digital photograph as absolute proof, especially if someone admits to having run it thru Photoshop|the Gimp|whatever.

Re:of course not

[Bonker]

Amen to that. One of the more common requests I get as a digital artist is to digitally add or subtract someone from group photos. I've grown fairly adept at the compositing tasks (most people can't tell the original from the fake), but I've seen people who are absolutely *perfect*. This stuff fools a trained eye easily. Juries, who are usually not trained eyes, would have no chance of being able to tell fake from original, especially of something abstract like fingerprints. Juries should never be presented with evidence that has been digitally edited

Re:of course not

[TurdTapper]

I agree halfway. There is a lot of trust when someone takes evidence from a Crime Scene Investigator. When a CSI presents something that they worked on by themselves in a lab, the jury has to take it that they knew what they were doing and didn't alter anything.

What is the difference between Photoshop'ed images and showing me two DNA samples match. Due to the fact that I don't have any kind of training on matching DNA, how do I know they did it right or that even the ones they are showing me are identical? I wouldn't, but since they are CSI then they have a level of credibility to them. The same thing would go for Photoshop'ed images if it was done by a CSI.

Juries aren't usually trained for for a LOT that is presented in court cases. (DNA, fingerprints, imaging, etc) But they still take the evidence that is presented as it is.

Re:of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep... it's the presentation of the evidence (and the explanation, and the examination of the presenter, and the cross-examination of the presenter). For example: in the OJ case, the gloves were entered as evidence. The defense challenged the validity of the evidence, and the jury appeared to be swayed. Similarly, in cases with "enhanced" digital images of crime scene investigations, it's the jury's responsibility to question the integrity of the person who made the enhancement, and it's the defense's responsibility to attempt to cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence by casting doubt on either the person who made the enhancement, or by casting doubt on the process that was used to make the enhancement. This type of legal maneuvering can be seen in all the fights over breathalizers (when was the breathalizer used in this trial last verified by an independent auditor?), radar guns, dna evidence, etc.

The glove didn't fit

[CrazyDwarf]

I've always wondered about cases where digital evidence was envolved. We have no way of knowing if the files are tampered with or otherwise altered, and I really doubt they'd let us compare (in this case with actual fingerprints.)
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

[Anonymous Coward]

My take on what happened with David Westerfield was that he was a p0rn-addict. He liked to download p0rn, lots of p0rn off of the 'net. Probably had bots which got everything from alt.binaries.pictures.*.

He had so much porn, some of it ended up being child porn. I don't think David downloaded or sought this stuff himself; this is just an example of the police being overzealous in building up a case agasint him.

I do think his addiction to pornongraphy did contribute to his motives to kill the girl (yes, I think he did it); he probably felt he had a "right" to sleep with the girl's mother, and when she said know, he retalitated by killing her daughter.

Net result: everyone got fucked over; David is going to be killed; the mother is now looked upon in the republician San Diego community as a slut; one of the mother's friends was fired because she testified that she smoked marijuana; and the girl is forever gone from us.

Re:The glove didn't fit

[JoeBuck]

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

[evilviper]

I've always wondered about cases where digital evidence was envolved. We have no way of knowing if the files are tampered with or otherwise altered

*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.

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.

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

[LennyDotCom]

I saw this on the discovery channnel I think they showed how all the cop did was enhance the image with photoshop. All he did was apply a custum filter to enhance the image he didn't add anything to it or change it just brought out what was there by filtering out the background. I was very obvious if you saw the show that it should be perfectly legal .

Re:I saw this on tv

[Anonymous Coward]

CUSTOM filter... you said it...

Re:I saw this on tv

[LennyDotCom]

Yes I knew somebody would mention that but his filter was just to neutralize the background. In the show he was getting a fingureprint off a sheet or some kind of fabric all the filter did was match the fabric pattern and remove it leaving just the fingure print. If he added to it it would be a different story but deleting what you don't want and leaving what is left isn't tampering with the accual fingerprint

Re:I saw this on tv

[Anonymous Coward]

There exists the very real ability to tamper with evidence when it exists only as a series of bits. We need some means of ensuring that the data has not been seriously tampered with before we should allow these images to be admitted into evidence.

Re:I saw this on tv

[eggz128]

The question remains: How much of the original finger print was altered when the 'background' was removed? How exactly does the filter decide what is background noise and what is not?

It seems to me fingerprint evidence is as much about what isn't there as what is.

Re:I saw this on tv

[LennyDotCom]

accually I can't rember the details but another poster does a better job of explaining it the technic is really just dodge and burn where they only lighten or darken the image so they lighten up the background and darken the print If you saw the show yopu would agree that there was no doctoring the print

Re:I saw this on tv

[Ibag]

I don't think that the question is whether this should be legal. The question is if evidence gathered in this way should be admissable in court. While this isn't the same as the cops taking evidence from your house without a warrent, you do have to worry about the accuracy of the technique and whether it should be allowed in court. They mention in the article about going in and digitally removing "interference" like weaves of fibre. Who is to say that the removal technique is good enough to recover the fingerprint exactly? What if the removal process adds/subtracts features from the fingerprint itself to the point that it appears to be a match but might not be?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree that altering contrast would enhance the fingerprint, BUT it would eventually fail, and sooner or later some smart lawyer would crush the prosececution by saying "in the case 2344234-3, the people of michigan vs. john doe, it was showed that digitally enhanced evidence doesn't hold in court" and thus ban the whole thing from courtroom for good...

it would be better to present the original as the evidence, and enhance it in courtroom in front of the jury and defense. they could (and should) question the filters/technique applied and jury could decide for themselves if that particular case is acceptable or not.

Re:I saw this on tv

[dnoyeb]

I saw the show, and no it should not be perfectly legal. The resultant image will be different based upon how the user conducts his technique. That means its more art than science.

Its not prosecution or defence quality evidence. Only investigative.

Re:I saw this on tv

[WowTIP]

Yes, but if the filter was designed to alter the fingerprint (which imo is hard to impossible to do), the result will be the same in the courtroom as in the cops lab. They couldn't use funky Photoshop tools at it though.

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.

Re:I saw this on tv

[Anonymous Coward]

All he did was apply a custum filter to enhance the image he didn't add anything to it or change it just brought out what was there by filtering out the background.

Custom filter huh?? Was it named, Change to "John Doe" finger print?? I bet it was. If you are naive enough to trust something on television at it's word, you deserve your fingerprints digitally altered.

Re:I saw this on tv

[Planesdragon]

Who is to say that the removal technique is good enough to recover the fingerprint exactly?

The Judge and Jury, actually.

What if the removal process adds/subtracts features from the fingerprint itself to the point that it appears to be a match but might not be?

Then the defense can raise that theory at trial.

If you're concerned about this, do what any hacker does upon sighting a problem. Learn as much about it and demonstrate a way to break the unbreakable--and then broadcast the results as loudly as possible. You might get fame, or maybe just a small "expert witness" paycheck.

Re:I saw this on tv

[BattleTroll]

Right.... Then you shouldn't mind if I write a "custom filter" the just happens to morph the bloody fingerprint found on the glove near Nicole Brown's body to match your fingerprint. O.J. will finally have justice and you can maintain your naivety as they cart you down to the execution chamber.

Re:I saw this on tv

[IceDiver]

I saw this on the discovery channnel I think they showed how all the cop did was enhance the image with photoshop. All he did was apply a custum filter to enhance the image he didn't add anything to it or change it just brought out what was there by filtering out the background. I was very obvious if you saw the show that it should be perfectly legal.

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

[5KVGhost]

That's right. The kind of enhancement they're talking about is apparently just a bit of unsharp masking and contrast adjustment. The same sort of stuff many digital photographers do routinely. And if they were doing it in a darkroom with a film negative no one would even raise the issue.

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.

Re:I saw this on tv

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what you suggest is harder because there is a paper trail and chains of authority one would have to go thru to replace evidence etc if it was already in the evidence locker, otherwise you are probably correct.

Re:I saw this on tv

[Cyno]

We should just assume you're guilty until proven innocent. That way we don't have to spend all this money on image filtering software OR put up with criminals constantly professing their innocense. God Bless America!

Re:I saw this on tv

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say you are right and it's just a custom filter being applied to an image. Then I have ask, why it's being done in PhotoShop. A simple non-interactive binary could apply the filter, without affording the opportunity for human error or fudging.

Furthermore, there is no way a filter can create information. The only way washing a filter over the image can help is by wacking the noise level. Now, let's say that's the case, if you had the right way to really do the statistics and a good matching algorithm. The noise can then be accounted for *CORRECTLY*. There is very little that pisses me off more than people doing image manipulation based on "it looks better" criteria and calling it science or analysis. As soon as you say "looks better" then you've just tossed out any possibility that I can believe your analysis.

Re:I saw this on tv

[terrymr]

Even a side by side comparison in court of the original and the enhanced print would convice most people however in this case the original print is missing in action which is probably why the defense is raising an objection at this point.

There seems to be a lack of credibility where you claim you found a print at the scene but then can't / won't produce the item bearing that print in court.

Re:I saw this on tv

[drinkypoo]

Right, and in the same vein, this is why we need DRM cameras for law enforcement use. It would be best if all cameras had it for the purposes of random people taking admissable photos but it makes no sense for a digital photo to be admissable evidence at this time, so it would be a neat feature.

"Here is the original DRM-protected photograph..."

Re:I saw this on tv

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think the odds are of the cop having something with the suspect's print on him at the time when the scene is investigated? And the odds of the cop investigating without others present, or having access to the evidence afterwards while nobody's around? Seems to me that it'd be a lot easier to just 'retouch' something the wrong way, and much less likely to get caught doing it.

Re:I saw this on tv

[ebyrob]

I saw the show, and no it should not be perfectly legal. The resultant image will be different based upon how the user conducts his technique. That means its more art than science.

So engineering is an art form eh? Assign 20 developers to write a large program with a given set of requirements. You won't find two solutions alike, unless someone cheated. Science is all about reproducibility, not "identical results". Even an undergraduate student of science should know that no two expirements will ever produce the same raw data... The goal of science is to "understand" or "accurately predict" those results with the "simplest" theories possible in a repeatable fashion.

A better measure of reproducibility in this case should be who is matched and with what degree of certainty after applying the technique on a given set of "test" prints. If different technicians generally end up with the same matches, then it is "good science" regardless if the intermediate steps differ.

Re:I saw this on tv

[outsider007]

of course this will only work if this slashdotter had the means and motive to kill Nicole Brown.

Re:I saw this on tv

[Reziac]

Well, that depends. The customized filter could be rigged to only enhance certain traits that are known to be part of, but NOT EXCLUSIVE TO, say, fingerprint ridges. So you run the image thru the filter and suddenly, because the existing data fell into the trigger range, pixels get enhanced that shouldn't have been.

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

[dnoyeb]

Yes, but in engineering the solution is not the answer. The solution produces the answer. So their could be many solutions that arrive at the same answer.

Here this tool produces different answers. The results should be beyond a resonable doubt (this is criminal law), and I don't think they will be.

woah!

[RyLaN]

I could to that!! Get a print of my enemy, photoshop it and presto, we've got a conviction! Do the judges have any idea what can be done with Photoshop in the hands of someone who has used it before?

Re:woah!

[carpe_noctem]

As far as the general public goes, they generally tend to over-dramatize the amount of "evil" that technology is responsible for. That being said, I'm sure that judges and legal panel have been made *well aware* about the true nature and uses of this technology before it is able to be used in a court of law.

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. ;)

Re:Cleveland Browns

[Anonymous Coward]

How simple-minded you are, sir...

E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!

DRM is like the SUV

[aengblom]

DRM is like an SUV... it isn't by definition a bad thing. Only current implementations.

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

[L. VeGas]

Photoshop the fingerprints so the ridges and whorls are real big.

Like double D's or so.

Sure...

[Grip3n]

...just as long as they don't go effect happy and start making lens flares and drop shadows and start saying "l00k 47 my 31337 gr4ph1x" during court room proceedings.

Re:Sure...

[medscaper]

and start saying "l00k 47 my 31337 gr4ph1x" during court room proceedings.

Not to be picky...bet...erm...how does one say this without sounding like a nerd in court?

I mean, "But, your Honor, l00k 47 my 31337 gr4ph1x!" writes sorta cool, but, "Your Honor, look at my elite graphics!" just sounds...well...

Maybe, "Your honor, please have entered into the record the following words, in this order, with...Oh, never mind. Can I sit at that thing for a sec?"

(Or, if you're an SNL fan, just this : "MOVE.")

Enhanced...

[Wyatt Earp]

No way.

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.

Re:Enhanced...

[GigsVT]

Even with a "secure" digital camera, there will be wiggle-room to screw with pixels.

Under your argument, digital evidence would never be admissible in court. I follow the forensics list on SF, and there are definitely well defined ways that digital evidence can make it into a trial.

Without going into too much detail, it basically involves massive amounts of documentation about each little step you did when handling the data or media containing the data, and making sure that you can prove that nothing you did to the data altered it. In other words, an audit trail, like the article proposes. The DRM thing was stupid sensationalism, this has nothing to do with DRM.

Investigators use things like special ATA/SCSI controllers that can be set in hardware to be read-only, and things like that, to insure data integrity. There are already established practices in the forensics industry for handling data, and most investigators try not to stray from those so they don't open themselves up to getting asked a question during cross-examination they can't answer satisfactorily.

Digression:
Why is this important to the average sysadmin? Well, if your company is ever hacked in an extremely damaging way, something they may want to press charges or sue for later, you need to know how to handle it, and most people don't.

If your company is one where a little lost uptime costs a lot of money, you would do well to read a book or two on forensics and help your company draft guidelines to preserve the ability to sue or press charges in the event of a malicious and catestrophic loss. This is a relatively new field, but not so new that there aren't standards out there.

This is NOT DRM

[ChaosDiscord]

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

[vena]

thank you for pointing this out. it was a bit unnerving to see people calling this DRM. :) i have no mod points, so i figured i'd just thank you instead.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Reality Master 101]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I think some kind of auditable digital imagery is very important so that digital images can gain some level of authenticity.

I'd like to see this in both digital still and video cameras. I'd also like the major media outlets to use this kind of technology.

I know it's hackable and can be compromised, but as long as we can see evidence of the compromise in the camera, say, then that's all right I figure.

But all I can figure is that a camera would be able to "Sign" an image, and then verify that an image is signed by itself. The camera should have a tamper resistant signing or key mechanism.

It's not perfect, but it's got to be a lot better than what we have today.

I just go back to the lawsuit against NBC when they were blowing up Chevy trucks with rocket motors. They were "caught" because (among other things), you could see the exhaust of the model rocket motors on the video. Today, the public would have never seen that, and if the image were originally recorded digitally, we'd never know if the "master" (should it have been subpoenaed (sp?)) was authentic.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You're more right than ChaosDiscord was, but you're not 100% right either.

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

[dvdeug]

taking options away from users is a side-effect of most of the DRM schemes out there

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

[HiThere]

You may define DRM by it's purported purpose. I define it by it's obvious effects.

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

[Reality Master 101]

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

[JoeBuck]

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.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[rhavyn]

When big time television producers (or whatever he was) tell me that not watching commercials is breaking the implicit contract with the TV broadcaster but maybe it's "ok to get up and go to the bathroom during a commercial" I'm not going to believe that they are looking to do anything but make me pay for any and every use of the book/music/movie/tv show. Heck, to prove your point, show me one instance of the DMCA (because that was just to protect their copyrighted digital works) being used in a real copyright infrigement suit, not in a "they're using our stuff in a way we don't want them to" suit.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[szquirrel]

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.

What a load of industry bullshit. How did this drivel get modded Insightful?

Under copyright law I have certain rights in civil and criminal court. If I use my media in a way the publishers don't like, it is their responsibility to prove that what I did was wrong.

Under DRM schemes, anything not expressly permitted by the publisher is disallowed. Legal use is redefined to mean "whatever the publisher says is OK". Then additional laws are passed to make any DRM circumvention illegal.

Giving content creators more rights == taking rights away from users. One does not happen without the other.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[ChaosDiscord]

DRM is about taking options away from users.

DRM is about preserving the rights of content creators. Period.

If you assume that DRM's goal is to use technology to enforce copyright law, it's still about removing options from citizens. A key element of copyright law is removing options from citizens. The goal is to encourage the creation of creative works, but the actual action is to remove options. I no longer have the option to distribute copies of other people's works. In the absence of copyright law, I would still have the option. (Mind you, this restriction isn't necessarily bad. I also lack the (legal) option to deceive other people in financial matters, to take money from someone by force, or knowingly put other people in danger. I'm perfectly fine with society removing options for the larger good. I support copyright for this reason.) DRM fundamentally removes options. The options it removes may be illegal, but they do remain options.

However, let's revisit the assumption that DRM is tied to copyright. DRM certainly can have a place in situations where copyright is irrelevant. As an employee, my ability to redistribute certain internal documents may be limited by an NDA or other employement agreement (effectively protecting the document with trade secret law instead of copyright). DRM technology might be employed to ensure that I obey the agreement. If I were to get a job requiring security clearance, DRM might work to ensure that the electronic documents I handled remained secret or top secret. The goal is explicitly to remove options (illegal options, but still options).

All of this is why I chose "options" instead of "rights" or "fair use".

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.

Clearly untrue. Certainly some publishers would be fine with it. Perhaps even most publishers would be fine with such a system. But at least a handful are interested in using DRM to try and restrict fair use to increase profits. Why are various copy restriction flags being enabled on public domain works (here's one reference)? When you're crafting law or code, you have to consider those who will abuse the spirit of the law/code while strictly following the letter of the law/code. Why is the movie industry fighting to ensure that when Casablanca enters the public domain (2037ish), I'll be allowed to copy the movie, but not allowed the tools necessary to make that copy?

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Reality Master 101]

When big time television producers (or whatever he was) tell me that not watching commercials is breaking the implicit contract with the TV broadcaster

And exactly why is that wrong? Who do you think pays for the production of the show?

I don't know, maybe I'm weird, but I actually appreciate the advertisers paying for the shows that I watch. I must just be a corporate tool.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

MPAA doesn't want you to skip commercials on a DVD, even though that is fair use. MPAA doesn't want you even making an excerpt from a movie for a classroom exercise, even though that is fair use.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[dvdeug]

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.

I have a hard time imagining an instance where having the computer read it aloud, wouldn't be fair use. (You're not only going to do a public performance by reading a book, but you're going to do it through some crappy speech synth?) But Adobe eBook Reader has an option not to let you read it aloud. Since they currently restrict free use rights, it's obvious that the intent behind DRM extends to more than just copyright violations.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is about preserving the rights of content creators. Period.

No, it's about an industry wide power and money grab. Period.

The content creator of "Alice in Wonderland" has no rights left to preserve. He's dead! You can't even preserve him, let alone his expired copyright -- there's no body left to preserve. He's gone! His children are dead! His work has long since passed into the public domain!

And yet, "Alice in Wonderland" was placed under Digital Rights Management, so that Adobe could control it's distribution. Under the DCMA, it's illegal to write the software to remove the DRM to make use of this publicly owned work.

DRM is an attempt to steal the public domain from the public.

lying about these people's motivations just makes everyone looked[sic]like thieves

I agree, but to me, the "thieves" are the media cartels who are trying to steal the public domain.

The people have a right to public works; they've paid for them by giving the media corporations monopoly rights. [1] The people are being cheated, and it's not right!

--
AC

[1] Just about every private author's copyright falls into the hands of a publishing company or media corporation sooner or later. Even "Happy Birthday" is owned by a holding company.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[rhavyn]

Sorry, but if you think we should be sending people to jail for channel surfing during commercials then I really question the truth in your statement that you're for fair use.

What is wrong is advertising is an expense whereby you attempt to attract interest in your product or create brand recognition. If you have no interest in the ads being shown to you, that isn't your problem. By extension to your argument, people who don't read billboards on their drive to work or who show up late to a movie and miss the premovie adds should be thrown in jail too. In reality it just means that the ads are not effective. I dont know where this attitude that consumers are doing something wrong by not watching adds and buying products came from.

Hope you don't use any pop up add blockers.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Reality Master 101]

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Where did jail come into the discussion?

Second of all, billboards don't give back value, TV shows do.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Reality Master 101]

And yet, "Alice in Wonderland" was placed under Digital Rights Management, so that Adobe could control it's distribution.

You're not being logical here. Yes, AIW is in the public domain, but that doesn't mean you can't copyright particular expressions of it. For example, the words of the bible are public domain, but you can't just photocopy a particular publisher's version of it and hand it out. You could, however, scan the words and distribute that.

Just because Adobe chooses to control a particular version of AIW doesn't mean it ceases to be in the public domain. Just go out and get another copy of it if you want to.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Xenographic]

I would like to know of an algorithm that allows for the fair use of a work that does not allow someone to pirate it as well; unless you expect us to hunt down & request clearance every single time we want to make some fair use of a copyrighted work.

Frankly, the schemes are untenable because if I can see or hear it, I can copy it (until all devices that can do so are made unavailable, at least...) and if I can copy it a piece at a time from some algorithm, a bunch of us can copy the whole thing, eventually.

As such, these schemes simply won't work, unless you can violate any of the assumptions made above.

Re:This is NOT DRM

[bmetzler]

MPAA doesn't want you to skip commercials on a DVD, even though that is fair use.

It's fair use to skip a commercial? That's a new one. Usually fair use deals with using something, not not using it.

-Brent

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not being logical here.

Perhaps not, but I don't understand your objections. ;-)

Yes, AIW is in the public domain, but that doesn't mean you can't copyright particular expressions of it.

It's not like Adobe is re-writing the story of "Alice in Wonderland", they're just locking it down digitally. Then the government says I can't open that digital lock.

If I buy a locked box with a printed copy of the book "Alice in Wonderland" inside, I'm allowed to smash the box open to get at my book. With an E-book, I'm not allowed to do that.

For example, the words of the bible are public domain, but you can't just photocopy a particular publisher's version of it and hand it out.

If it's a version of the bible that lies in the public domain (not all do, see below), yes, you can in fact do just that. If I could legally get my hands on an original printing of the Gutenburg Bible, I could photocopy it all I wanted, though museum curators around the world would have a fit.

You could, however, scan the words and distribute that.

A scan is as much a copy as a photocopy, and just as illegal! You're right that it is often legally tricky to copy "The Bible", but not for the reasons I think you're stating.

The words to "The Bible" are often not in the public domain, because different translations are considered "derivative works". If the copyright hasn't expired on the particular translation you're working from, it's illegal to copy it, be it by scan or by photocopy, or by any other means.

There is only one version of "Alice in Wonderland", and that version lies in the public domain.

Just because Adobe chooses to control a particular version of AIW

I don't think they've written their own version of "Alice in Wonderland". As far as I know, they're locking away the original, public domain copy.

I'm afraid I don't understand this "particular version" distinction you seem to be making.

Are you claiming that the addition of DRM should automatically constitute a "derivative work" of the original? I disagree; to me, it's clear that it exists for perfectly functional purposes.

The law makes a distinction between functional and expressive creations for a very good reason. If it didn't, it would stiffle innovation on a staggering scale. For example, automakers could claim a free used parts monopoly, just by claiming that the shape of each part is also a metal sculpture, and hence protected for the full term of copyright law.

The problem with DRM is exactly the same; an unwanted, privately-held monopoly control over what the public can do with their own property.

Just go out and get another copy of it if you want to

I have two objections to this:

First, I shouldn't have to "get another copy" of a work in the public domain that I've already bought and paid for! It should be legal for me to access my content if I can find a way to do so.

Secondly, your suggestion assumes that there exists an unrestricted copy of the work in question. This is true for Alice in Wonderland, granted, but only because it wasn't originaly released under Digital Rights Management. If it had been, there would be no such unrestricted copy to access.

All the e-books that were only released under DRM will be locked down forever, unless the current state of law changes. A permanent monopoly is great for the content providers, but a theft from the public domain.

By the way, thank you for the polite and civil debate on Slashdot. It's nice to see! :-)
--
AC

Re:This is NOT DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Second of all, billboards don't give back value, TV shows do.

I assume that to be a sarcastic joke, or the world is truly rotten.

Commercials is nothing but brainwashing the masses into little sheep that consume what they want to make money on. They are neither informational nor do they have any value other than for the big corporations. I view them as one of the many things that are dumbing people down and making everything go downhill.

Until people realize that they are not getting anything out of it, least of all health and happiness, it will continue. YOU make the decision for yourself when you're fed up (I've made mine).

Re:This is NOT DRM

[HiThere]

I'm not surprised that they have ignored my complaints. This despite the fact that when writing to them I have observed courtesy and did not assert my definitions as truth.

In fact, in the replies to my letter I was basically lied to. My "representative" (small r, not my Representative) had already comitted herself to support for a law (since dropped), and was reported to be vigorously campaigning for it when she sent me a reply indicating, though not stating, that she would take my opinion into consideration while considering her vote. Turned out she'd taken campaign donations from sponsors of the bill. (Which was tabled, perhaps dropped, no thanks to her!)

"Proper" statement is "Say something this way when you are talking to those representatives of the state that insist on obsequeous behavior towards authority". Yeah. And I do. But I know better than to take their demands as any description of truth. Or justice.

I am ..... the LAW!

[mustangdavis]

This kind of technology sounds kinda scarey ... just like in the (horrible) movie, Judge Dread. Yes, the technology could help police and law enforcement to solve crimes that would otherwise possibl be unsolvible, BUT is it worth it? I see the opportunity for a very hatefull person to set up someone for a crime they didn't commit ... and for the evidence to be used against them in court! Yes, this does exist today, but atleast there is a CHANCE that the person falsifying the evidence COULD get caught. How could this person get caught if he is permitted to MAKE evidence?

Its a good idea, but this DEFINATELY leaves a resonable doubt as to whether the evidence is real and legit ... which could also be used AGAINST the prosecution in what would have otherwise been a solid case ....

Bottom line: too much risk for too little benifit.

Re:I am ..... the LAW!

[Zygote-IC-]

So, because there is a potential for misuse so we should all be scared of it?
Isn't there a potential for misuse in the current criminal justice system? Isn't there a potential that a crooked prosecutor, investigator to plant evidence at a crime scene and set up someone for a crime they didn't commit (and the first person that says OJ gets launched into the sun).
There's always a CHANCE that SOMETHING could HAPPEN. I could go outside and a meteor shaped like Bill Gates' head could squash me like a bug.
Lord knows I would rather have the REALITY of killers running around than the POSSIBILITY that something might happen.
Isn't this the same slashdot that constantly says don't slam a technology that could be used for good just because of it's potential for evil? Or does that rule only apply when it helps wanna-be hippie activists with their berets and ferrets?
On a side note, even mentioning that horrid film should get you at least five years in prison. Please send me a photo of your fingerprints so that I can set you up..

Re:I am ..... the LAW!

[Dusabre]

How is this capitalised mess 'insightful'? The police aren't asking for the power to 'make' evidence (They can make 'evidence' anyway if they want to break the law - traditional images and physical evidence can be and is tampered with). They want to use advanced filtering and enhancement techniques on digital images.

In principle these are not different to blowups, negative colour and other standard analogue photographic techniques that are already used in court in relation to photographic evidence.

If an audit trail is kept, I don't see a problem with using these techniques. Digital manipulation is a powerful tool that can be abused but as long as the source is kept pure, the manipulation can be exposed.

There is another problem with fingerprints though, the science behind fingerprinting has never really been proved. Do a google if you want to learn more.

Re:Use a real verb

[L. VeGas]

Just google a bit and you can see he's right.

get it? google?

haa haa ha ha ah never mind

Re:Use a real verb

[Anonymous Coward]

how come we all understood what the writer meant? you sure you can handle /. ?

God Bless the /. community

[unicorn]

So instead of discussing the merits of the particular story, lets try to segue into an argument about DRM.

HELLO!!! The DRM aspects mentioned in the digest, have NOTHING to do with where you were trying to take the discussion. Nothing at all.

Re:God Bless the /. community

[aengblom]

sorry unicorn. Sometimes I'm an idiot.

Re:God Bless the /. community

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes? I'd say all the time.

Useful... possibly

[rworne]

The only way this can be seen as useful is if the person who is "cleaning up" the fingerprint has no idea who the print belongs to and where the print came from. Considering all the prints the law enforcement must deal with, it would be hard to assume the print a tech is working on is for a high profile murder suspect or a car thief.

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

[EvilBudMan]

--The only way this can be seen as useful is if the person who is "cleaning up" the fingerprint has no idea who the print belongs to and where the print came from.--

Someone MOD that man up. That would be the only safeguard that would work.

Re:Useful... possibly

[cosyne]

The only way this can be seen as useful is if the person who is "cleaning up" the fingerprint has no idea who the print belongs to and where the print came from.

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.

Re:Useful... possibly

[ejsjrnc]

That is probably the best way to use the technology I've heard. Use a doubleblind system, the tech enhancing the print doesn't know who or what case the print is from, and encode into the software (Photoshop for Uncle Sam maybe?) no ability to add or detract from the original print, only change contrast, hues, color saturation, etc... in order to make the print easier to ID. NO paintbruch, rubber stamp, or any other cursor oriented tool to change the existing image.

Re:Useful... possibly

[rworne]

I did RTFA, and the one simple method I described would be all that I (personally) would require to get trust in the system. Is there was a system in place that ensures this is true? Is it truly anonymous from the tech's perspective?

Just because the person interviewed states he doesn't "create" fingerprints does not mean he cannot alter them, or "enhance" an existing print to more closely match a "wanted" print.

"Create" means making a new one to me, "enhance", "change" or "alter" is what he actually does. If he is totally blind to who and what case he is working with, he cannot get the print to match what the prosecutors/investigators are looking for. That way, the system is honest. All he can really do at that point is try to bring out the detain in the print in whatever form it is in. Adding detail as in changing a print would ruin it as evidence. Adding detail knowing the suspect's prints would be manufacturing evidence.

Re:Useful... possibly

[HiThere]

A real problem is "How do you tell one digital output from another?" I can imagine ways, and for most ways I can imagine, I can eventually imagine a way to defeat it. And are any of these approaches being proposed?

That the official tech didn't know what he was changing to or from is only one level of protection. Then you need to ensure that his copy of the file is the one that ends up in court, but computer files can look quite remarkably alike, unless quite careful precautions are taken.

Not Digital Rights Management!

[Cranky_92109]

This not DRM at all, what they want is a system whereby they can say that a digital photograph has not been altered. So yes, this is very important. Imagine you're on trial for a crime you did not commit yet the prosecuting team has altered a similar fingerprint (but not similar enough for conclusive evidence) to make it more like yours.

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!

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Re:Not Digital Rights Management!

[yelligsc]

I wish I hadnt wasnted my mod points this morning!

This is an exellent idea to allow you get to get back to the original. Once back to the origional, it is possible to reproduce the enhancements in a court, and let a jury decide if the enhacements should be allowed.

Nice post.

Re:Not Digital Rights Management!

[kreyg]

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.

Except... if you take a picture with a digital camera, Photoshop it, and then burn it into such a PROM from the computer (which should be trivial), you've only gained the illusion of authenticity.

Re:Not Digital Rights Management!

[Daniel_Staal]

Except... if you take a picture with a digital camera, Photoshop it, and then burn it into such a PROM from the computer (which should be trivial), you've only gained the illusion of authenticity.

Ok, put a private key on the camera, either from the factory or created at first click (by which time it has enough entropy). Sign the photo with that, and have the camera write the public key to the PROM. Now you can trace to the camera. (Ok, a very determined forger could probably extract the private key, but it wouldn't be easy. It would probably be easier to fake the evidence enouther way at that point.)

Is Photoshopping a word???

[codeguy007]

What is Photoshopping suppose to mean? I am sure they are not using Adobe Photoshop to clean up a finger print image.

Re:Is Photoshopping a word???

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're an idiot.

Photoshopping = "The act of using Photoshop (or some other graphics editng program) to modify a digital image"

Unofficially, that is. I doubt its in Webster's.

Re:Is Photoshopping a word???

[codeguy007]

I am capable of making up a word definition as well you coward. That doesn't make it a word.

Ain't (v) - meaning are not.

Re:Is Photoshopping a word???

[Anonymous Coward]

"Photoshop", "Photoshopping", "Photoshopped", "Photoshopper", and similar variations have all been used that way for years, especially among Mac users.

Re:Is Photoshopping a word???

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I'm pretty sure what makes it a word is having the other person or people understand it without explanation. Even if you don't know what Photoshop is or what one does with it, the meaning of "photoshopping" can certainly be glorked from context.

Re:Is Photoshopping a word???

[Dirtside]

Oh, please -- "photoshopping" is a perfectly cromulent word.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM Fingerprints you!

Actually, I kinda like this idea

[unfortunateson]

...and I'm far from liking DRM in most cases. But with digital images so easy to manipulate, I need a trackable, reliable image for: a) Insurance claims -- So the insurance company won't declare that I hacked the 60" plasma TV onto that blank wall, then claimed it was stolen b) Reliably submitting news/crimestopper photos, so that they can't be debunked c) Plagiarized photos can be tracked to their sources This isn't a panacea, and I would certainly want to be able to not mark some images. The audio environment currently has issues where you can't dup your own personal recordings -- this is wrong. But I should be able to fingerprint my own media, and declare its copyright.

don't be dazzled by the tech aspect

[porkface]

Current physical evidence collection and examination is as tamper prone as anything in the digital world, DRM or no DRM.

As a taxpayer I don't want to see them mess with DRM for cost reasons, until they start running up against criminals who are getting off because of its absence.

Furthermore, if a defense attorney razzles a jury with more tech than they can see through, I'd blame the prosecutor before I'd blame the lack of DRM.

Re:Cleveland Browns

[Anonymous Coward]

E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!

w00t philly! lameness filter cannot stop my mighty ASCII!!!

its art

[reitoei1971]

the real art of crime! this isnt forensics when the abilty to produce evidence depends on someone's skill with an image program. and the orginal duct tape vanishing? sounds odd to me.

Re:its art

[MntlChaos]

read the article. the print faded from the tape due to large amounts of tests being run

No.

[dacarr]

Fingerprints are unique per person. Any subtle change could incriminate the wrong person.

Re:No.

[gruntie]

While it has never been shown that any two individuals have the same fingerprints, it has not been proven from a scientific standpoint and probably never will be.

Gruntie

Re:Use a real verb

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there maybe a TV show that explains this and that we can Tivo? ;-)
Maybe I should just go Googling for it!

Relax, language is a dynamically evolving thing. English most of all due to its worldwide spread. Be glad it's not saddled with such archaic, tight-ass things as the Royal Academies of the Language in Spain and France.

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh give me a break.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to mod up this obvious offtopic troll?

Re:Use a real verb

[Anonymous Coward]

How Loserish of you to think that ANYONE cares about proper verbiage.

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[tempest303]

until then, DRM may be that only thing saving our marriages.

*giggle* My, you're a such a silly little troll! Teehee!

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut the fuck up, troll.

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully support pre-emptive education on both morals and ethics for all church members. For both husbands and wives. Think of it as double-wrapping.

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[voice_in_TO]

Ideally of course, the digital camera would have an AI that would prevent taking pictures of naked women, but until then, DRM may be that only thing saving our marriages.

Bluntly, most of the wives you speak of probably are better off not having their marriages saved.

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[Kallahar]

Uh, DRM wouldn't help that, I can give you the culprit right now: THE HUSBAND.

How the hell did you get modded up?

Travis

Sure my story won't be accepted so I am cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

An anonymous reader writes "Sugestions of stories for Cmdr Taco (only) to submit. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl -cfingerprint15dec15.story About Computers, Court, and Fingerprints... http://www.linuxworld.com/go.cgi?id=741533 About linux-centric christmas carols. http://www.robocoaster.com/ About robot rollercoasters... This one is cool please repost it Taco."

picture of photoshop.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I doctor the prints in photoshop first, then take a picture.. would that make it more admissable?

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhhhh.... maybe a little off-topic???

Addicted to Porn? I guess I'm addicted to FUN too (since I obviously like it too much, it's GOT to be bad/addicting/evil)

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[L. VeGas]

Can you imagine the shame of having a co-worker, or postal clerk, or supermarket butcher comment on how good you look in a negligee?

Gee, it would be kind of flattering actually. I think lavender would nicely offset my big, black beard.

Tween the image and voila, it's anyones fingerprin

[BoomerSooner]

Stupid really. Has anyone seen those videos where they tween one face to another?

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.

Because it was the paperboys

[Anonymous Coward]

The shoes fit and the blood in the truck was his and hers. Did you see the the yellow-ish color to the vehicle?
that was from the post-it notes identifying the hundreds of blood drops.
OJ was let off because they were scared of more riots a-la RodneyKing.

What a pile of crap.

Re:Because it was the paperboys

[Anonymous Coward]

OJ was let off because a bunch of ghetto ass fools were on the Jury.

Re:Because it was the paperboys

[Anonymous Coward]

OJ was let off because, in his youth, he was exceptionally good at moving an oblong inflated ball down a grass-covered field.

Let's not lose our sense of proportion, here.

Re:Because it was the paperboys

[blue trane]

OJ was let off because of centuries of lynching innocent black men for looking at white women.

Re:Because it was the paperboys

[jedidiah]

OJ Simpson was just yet another rich man who bought himself justice. The only reason that anyone considers this remotely controversial is the fact that he was rich BLACK man.

Unlike the average man of his background who would be subjected to an overworked, underinterested public defense attorney, OJ was able to hire himself competent demagogues.

Above and beyond all of that, he LAPD and DA acted with careless arrogance. They chose not to avoid the appearance of impropriety and rightly got NAILED for it.

If they can't handle the HR details, why should anyone believe that they can handle the forensic details?

How to stop this method from working in court...

[Brightest Light]

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:Use a real verb

[rickliner]

This concern has been expressed more eloquently by a young but wise voice:
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin, to Hobbes

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[BabyDave]

I was with you until I read this bit:

Ideally of course, the digital camera would have an AI that would prevent taking pictures of naked women, but until then, DRM may be that only thing saving our marriages.

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).

Who gives a fuck anyway ?

[Lord Hugh Toppingham]

Not me.

if the shoe fits

[neildogg]

Anything that can prove anything helpful to a case should be used. It lets people who are obviously guilty win cases. I don't think that EVERY digital enhancement should be used, just ones that you can prove are valid. Like, if in the court room, they scan a picture in and enhance it in front of the jurors... Or, just like forensics, a team in charge of such things. Don't pretend that you can't influence lots of different types of evidence.

Not the cameras, the subjects !

[stud9920]

The DRM should be not be on the cameras, but on the subject ! According to the LAMAA (Landscapes And Monuments Association of America), five billion pictures of copyrighted monuments and landscapes are illicitly taken each year. (actually it's three billion pictures, but some of them are printed on posters, and Monument Valley counts as two, being a monument AND a landscape).

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.

Canon 1Ds has digital signature capability

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out: http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/EOS1DS/

They have a smartcard based system available which is pretty cool and should be useful for forensics....

AT

Nonsense arguments

[Enzondio]

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. 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.

Heyer said that shows the software is not a scientific tool, but an unreliable art form that could be used to misrepresent reality or simply create things.

Just because it can be used as an "unreliable art form" (which is an amusing term in and of itself) doesn't mean it can't be used scientifically. Some other examples of multi-use devices come to mind, like say, oh I don't know the pencil maybe.

Granted, Photoshop (or any other digital enhancement tool) can be used to falsify evidence, however it can also be used to enhance existing evidence in a reliable fashion. To me this is not an issue of technology but one of process and procedure. It's not like before Photoshop it was impossible to fake evidence.

Any evidence can be tampered with

[stratjakt]

Thats why the term is 'reasonable doubt'. The DNA technician can lie. The blood can be planted. You can doctor an analog photo just as easily.

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.

Re:Any evidence can be tampered with

[el_chicano]

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.

So you would be the first to admit that your opinions are colored due to the way you earn your daily bread?

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.

Knowingly stating an lie in court is perjury. I am sure that if your DAs are compentent they could convince a judge that it is perjury.

Also, show me in the Constitution where it says that defendants are not entitled to the best defense they can afford. Or where it says that defendants are guilty until proven innocent. Or where it says it is OK for the cops and DAs to lie.

Police are constantly accused of lying, tampering with evidence, planting evidence, in stupid cases like misdemeanor posession of pot.

And cops never lie? Shit, in Houston, Texas the HPD busted down the door of a Mexican citizen and assassinated him in bed. Oh, he was a "drug dealer" but no drugs were ever found. That was a FATAL lie by the police.

If pot cases are "stupid" (and I agree with you there) then the stupid law needs to be changed. But just try to legalize pot and see all the right-wing pro-law-enforcement groups come out with the Big Lie against weed, led by the Doofus in Chief in the White House.

Don't you know that marijuana kills? Or when you buy weed you are supporting terrorism? The really sad part is the sheep, err citizens, willingly believe this crap!

Re:Use a real verb

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, that's the third comment you've posted in this thread already. AND NONE OF THEM WERE FUCKING FUNNY.

How is this different from film?

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason, people seem to think that digital photographs can be modified, but film (silver-based) photographs can't. Where'd this idea come from? Did you think words like "dodge" and "burn" were made up by Adobe for Photoshop? Photographers have been doing this in darkrooms for decades.

Presumably cops have some sort of procedure for making sure digital evidence isn't tampered with, just as I hope they have some procedure for making sure any other sort of evidence isn't tampered with.

A quick web search turns up this use of digital photography for forensics. Note the first thing they do is burn it to a CD which never leaves the office.

Every photo is "enhanced"

[acomj]

Even when you print negatives with a standard darkroom enlarger, you adjust contrast/ exposure / color. You can highlight details, darken/lighten areas etc. You can do alot with standard darkroom equipment.. (waterfalls down escalators etc.)
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.

[Frobnicator]

After READING THE ARTICLE the suggestion that using DRM or encryption doesn't make sense. They are modifying the image by running various filters and kernels over it, trying to enhance and draw out information. Additional protections of the file does nothing to protect the image integrety. What they are having a problem with is using the enhanced versions of the prints.

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..

[Dr. Awktagon]

some thoughts..

* 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

[Bruce Perens]

The potential to fake a photograph has existed since the earliest days of photography. The veracity of the photograph or other scientific evidence rests on the oath taken by the photographer and other technicians involved. They are not asking for DRM, but for a digital signature generated by the camera and attesting to the time and other circumstances of the photograph. Auditing the image-processing is possible, given certified software and a circumscribed list of permitted operations. Some form of "trusted computing" could be used to avoid trivial circumventions of the list of allowed operations.

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

[BWJones]

The potential to fake a photograph has existed since the earliest days of photography.

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 regarding the solution to DRM issues and certification of images.

I think its a good idea....

[Eric Damron]

Just look at how helpful Microsoft's faked.. I mean digitally enhanced evidence was to their case...

Professional point of view.

[JPhule]

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.

Re:Professional point of view.

[Anonymous Coward]

But I *was* just driving home from Grandma's house and got a little tired. Grandma's a drunk, too.

Re:Professional point of view.

[Happy go Lucky]

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.

"Shit, officer, I can't do that when I'm sober!" And thank YOU, sir, for saying that right into my microphone. Turn around, hands behind your back, puke on me and we're gonna have a problem...

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.

I went to a CBI (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) seminar which included this. They haven't had much problem yet with authenticating digital photos for court. So far, most of our judges seem to frown on spewing raw speculation and calling it a defense.

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.

Yep. Fingerprints are circumstantial and therefore they suck. All they prove is that Joe Schmuck the Ragman had touched a particular doorknob. (Combined with Joe's statement that he was never in the house, it's a beautiful thing)

Different sort of DRM

[Milo Fungus]

The DRM normally discussed at this forum is different from this. Windows Media-style DRM is for the purpose of protecting content from piracy (and fair use, in some cases). It's a way for a content provider to distribute his work to a large audience.

DRM on a digital camera is different. The camera is creating content, not just providing use of content. The same goes for Photoshop keeping logs of every manipulation. The only reason you would want this type of DRM is if you are concerned about the authenticity of content (like in law enforcement or scientific research). There is no motivation for digital camera makers to make DRM standard on their consumer devices. They don't have the RIAA/MPAA or anyone else demanding it.

Fully agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the sad thing is that we even have to resort to technological restrictions to stop things like this from happening. The immorality of nudity should be obvious to even the most die-hard atheist. In a perfect world, nudity would be restricted to very specific circumstances (i.e., showering in a locked, mirrorless room with no looking down allowed) and we would not have to worry about people partaking in horrific practices such as this.

Just goes to show how far society has slipped. I saw a recent poll that indicated that seven in ten men routinely "gratify themselves" to pornography of one form or another. That's fully seventy percent of American males. Disgusting.

No "off the shelf" applications

[mariox19]

Using something like Photoshop opens a wide door for abuse. If technology is going to be used to help uncover evidence (and it already is), then the power of that technology should be carefully circumscribed and open to public scrutiny.

Law enforcement should be using some special photoshop-like application, designed to allow only those "enhancements" that are deemed legal. (I'm sure that's on open question at this point.) A non-governmental, scientific organization should be responsible for coming up with standards: standards which would of course have to be voted into law.

Any application that implements this approved technology must be, without reservation, open source. People must be able to review what the application is actually capable of.

After that, the applicability and weight of such evidence will be accepted or rejected by a jury.

Are you serious?

[kabir]

At first I thought this was a humor post ("AI that would prevent taking pictures of naked women"?!? I mean really.) but then it occoured to me that you might actually be serious. So, for just a moment, I'll step back from inflamatory language ("sick-men", "villany") and silly ideas (the aforementioned AI) and try to address your comment.

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.

Zero Post ??

[HughsOnFirst]

That's funny, I posted a link to the appropriate info yesterday, here it is again

Here is a good article that covers a lot of this
The "Authenticity Crisis" In Real Evidence
Scientific Evidence Review
10.1.2001

You might also be interested in the KODAK Picture Authentication Module [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.

Broward County?

[zomB1kenoB]

Holy Shit!!! This is going on in BROWARD COUNTY FLORIDA!!! We're totally screwed now: Remember what they did to us in the 2000 election?
I'm burning off my fingerprints right now...

Re:Broward County?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I remember what they did to you in the 2000 election.

They let you go in and vote like everyone else in the entire country did.

What *you* did was go in there and conclusively demonstrate that *you* are too stupid to be bothered to take the time to understand the voting process before frantically trying to vote for anyone that was not Republican and making a great, bloody balls up of it.

Seriously...

[Eric Damron]

Okay seriously. The problem with digitally enhancing something is that depending on how you "enhance" it you can make it out to be almost anything.

For example: The "face on mars." Enhanced one way and it looks like a face, enhanced another and it's just an unimpressive hill.

A possible solution.

[Absurd Being]

Have the cops bring the original photo into court. Scan it in in front of the judge. Apply the sequence in order in the court. It will form a logical train then. The forensic examiner need only write down the filternames and settings. This method is time consuming, but should be fairly admissable.

Digital certification

[BWJones]

The real solution here is to create a national database for digital imagery of evidence through the FBI most likely. When you capture a digital image, that image is then sent to the central repository where the image is "fingerprinted" and registered. This way images can be certified as either original, enhanced, or tampered with when the issues come up in court.

Photoshop Vs. Law

[Malicious]

I Photoshop my Photo-radar tickets, superimposing the police officer's liscence plate in place of my own. I then take the edited ticket, to the Courts, and claim that this is not my liscence plate, and the charge is thrown out.
Photographic evidence, specifically such evidence, that has clearly had the oppertunity to be edited, should never be permissable.

Evidential material, or not?

[bagofbeans]

I use to deal with a company in UK who handled remore control and transmission of real time video from security cameras and similar.

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.

DRM != Audit Trails

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I think the government should be required to meet the same standard audit trails that they place on the pharmacuetical companies. For those of you who work in the pharma industry you will know what I am talking about.

I don't think the police have the resources to do that, but because it is so easy to manipulate data it should be a requirement.

you are not funny..

[Anonymous Coward]

duh

encryption != DRM

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Guys, encryption and DRM are not the same thing at all.

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.

Re:Use a real verb

[sardonica]

Lighten up already.

As a good buddy of mine used to say, "Any noun can be verbed." And it's true.

Besides, in Soviet Russia, noun verbs you!!

Re:Use a real verb

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm, why are you following him?

Lifting Prints with Photoshop?

[Anonym1ty]

Hmmm I'm sorry, but are they gunna call this technique... Photoshop-LIFTING

I'm sorry I couldn't help myself

But it's hard to say. I mean where does art and science mix. How much is influenced by the person "fixing" the print. I've used photo enhancing software -If used correctly I see nothing wrong with it... But there is a fuzzy line as to how far you can go with "fixing" something until it's not got anything to do with the original image.

Would DRM cameras be good for everyone?

[jat2]

Well, the idea of complete mutual accountability does seem to be an interesting social paradigm. Arthur C. Clarke and Steven Baxter discuss this in The Light of Other Days. I'd argue that we are in a transition period from an era of Big Media, where the means are in the hands of a few large media corporations to an era in which every individual has the same means. I think the latter is good because coruption and other wrongdoing would be mitigated moreso than today.

Yes to both questions

[bmetzler]

Law enforcement agencies need secure cameras because criminals are slimy and judges often side with criminals. If a criminal can claim that evidence should be thrown out because it wasn't secure, you bet the judge will side with him.

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

[dvdeug]

If a criminal can claim that evidence should be thrown out because it wasn't secure, you bet the judge will side with him.

Right. The public defender who writes The Law is a Ass 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

[el_chicano]

...If a criminal can claim that evidence should be thrown out because it wasn't secure, you bet the judge will side with him.

...Although I could compromise on the first one if the law would be strong enough to prevent evidence from being thrown out...

Doesn't anyone read the US Constitution anymore? It is intended to LIMIT the govenment's power and ENHANCE the people's power.

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?

Re:Yes to both questions

[bmetzler]

Doesn't anyone read the US Constitution anymore? It is intended to LIMIT the govenment's power and ENHANCE the people's power.

I read the constition. But the problem is that everytime I've heard someone use your statement people they have always been talking about limiting the goverment's power and enhancing the criminal's power. Their goal seems to be making is easy from the criminal to deprive me of my life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I have no problem limiting the government in area's that give me more freedom, but the Consitution's main purpose was to ensure me a good life here, sheltered from not only foreign criminals, but also criminals in this country.

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.

Maybe the reason for that is simply that there is more crime committed by minorities and the poor. That would make sense. I'd advise anyone having a problem being on death row to try this simple strategy. Don't use your race or financial status as an excuse to commit crimes.

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?

Maybe it's because White techies have worked to get where they are. All I hear from the "liberals" is whining about all this terribler repression people are suffering. Well, I'll inform everyone now, there is no repression of any people group. Everyone in the US has that same capability to be successful as everyone else. But for every 1 person that chooses to go earn their success there are probably 50 people who choose to whine because they don't want to put forth the effort.

Look around you, it is the Republicans that are taking rights away from you.

Ok, this I've got to hear. What rights have the Republicans taken away from me? What about the rights that Democrats have taken away from me? You didn't mention those. I find it pretty amazing. I don't know of one right that the Republicans have taken away, but yet I can list several off-hand that the Democrats have taken or want to take from us as US citizens. Right to bear arms, the right to not be killed cruelly, the right to live without heavy taxation.

-Brent

Re:Yes to both questions

[bmetzler]

There's no such guarentee with Photoshop -- you could load it into Photoshop, erase it, and draw a new fingerprint.

You must think that the justice system is full of idiots. I'm sure that this "new" fingerprint is going to hold up against the old fingerprint really well.

-Brent

Re:Yes to both questions

[dvdeug]

You must think that the justice system is full of idiots. I'm sure that this "new" fingerprint is going to hold up against the old fingerprint really well.

Erasing it was the extreme example, but one of the big problems with our justice system is "experts" spewing nonsense and juries buying it. If a fingerprint expert gives us an extremely-blurry before and a clear after, most juries are going to accept the change on his word, unless it's totally wrong. The jury is not likely to be packed with fingerprint experts; they won't know what was significant in the original and what was just noise. Is that swirl part of the original design, or did the object turn while the perp was holding it?

Re:Yes to both questions

[bmetzler]

The jury is not likely to be packed with fingerprint experts; they won't know what was significant in the original and what was just noise.

Defense lawyers generally don't roll over when confronted with things like that. I'd expect that before the trial was over, the jury would hear all about the possible problems.

-Brent

Re:Yes to both questions

[dvdeug]

Defense lawyers generally don't roll over when confronted with things like that. I'd expect that before the trial was over, the jury would hear all about the possible problems.

Well, gee, then we should just let anything in. Not everybody has O.J.'s defense lawyers, and even with the best defense lawyers, an "expert" can be a pretty condemning thing, no matter what a defense lawyer (sleezy scumbag defending murderers) says.

Crypto-fingerprinted JPGs

[jridley]

Kodak has had a mod available for their cameras for a long time; at least the DC290 used to have it, several years ago. The firmware embedded a crypto fingerprint in the EXIF header, and they had a piece of software you could run to read it back and verify that the JPG, exactly as written, was created on X date in Y camera with serial number Z. It was intended for just this use.

DRM?

[Audacious]

It doesn't (as far as I could see) mention DRM. It only talks about being able to follow who did what with the information.

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.

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

[limekiller4]

From the article:
"'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:

• right-click on the image.
• Image > Colors > Levels
• Tweak settings.
• Profit! (just kidding...)

Should it be held under the cold light of courtoom examination? Sure. Is it pseudoscience? Not on it's face.

Re:How to stop this method from working in court..

[LittleGuy]

Let's not get our collective panties into a bunch, people. 'Framing people' existed long before Vic Mackey picked up the local Yellow Pages to interrogate a suspect and Jack Bauer found another use for a bowling bag.

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.

Photoshoping is not one thing!

[Ryan C.]

This is not a black and white issue. There are an unlimited number of things you could do to an image in photoshop. To say that no amout of digital processing can be applied to an image would eliminate digital photography altoghether as evidence. All digital cameras apply some processing to the image (even in RAW mode). To say that all processing is OK is absurd (see the Weekly World News).

A good litmus test would be that processes that do not take input other than the whole original image would usually be OK. So something like an unsharp mask or gamma adjust would be OK but some of the other techniques described in the article would not since they take input from an operator to direct the process.

-Ryan C.

Insight

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some insight from a geek in the law enforcement field. The article dosen't make the purpose of the more hits program clear. Morehits documents every change to an image, from the time it is scanned or captured from a digital camera. If an image is doctored with anything other than the legitimage filters and contrast settings, erasing or airbrushing for example. At the trial, it can be determined exactly when the picture was entered, by who, and what has been done to it, and who has made the enhancements.

Threshold

[limekiller4]

I think this is a no-brainer. If law-enforcement wants this to be taken seriously as a tool (and I'm all for the theoretical good guys having better tools to make sure the bad guys stay out of the general populace despite what they'll tell you about us criminal-loving liberals), then all they need to do is demonstrate through double-blind trials that use of the tool does not lead to an increase in false-positives.

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.

Re:Use a real verb

[volpe]

Photoshop is a trademarked proper noun, not a verb

Any noun can be verbed.

Keep Film Cameras

[mbstone]

In the People v. O.J. Simpson case, Simpson's lawyers demanded the contact sheet from the police crime scene photos. They didn't get the contact sheet -- which conclusively reveals the order in which the photos where taken -- until the trial was nearly over:

THE COURT: The court will entertain a motion to shorten time. All right. Any other Brady issues we need to discuss?

MR. SCHECK: There is the matter of the contact sheets.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. SCHECK: The contact sheets.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: We believe, your Honor, that the testimony yesterday of the other--this week of Mr. Rokahr is extremely significant. It is significant because it establishes that the picture of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove occurred at night, not at 7:00 in the morning or about an hour and a half after daybreak. More significantly, it puts Detective Fuhrman in an area by the evidence at a time when he is unsupervised or unobserved, I should say, by others, and it is in complete contradiction not only with his testimony, but an apparent contradiction with the testimony of other officers. The pictures speak for themselves and are extremely powerful evidence.

Now, the problem that we've had in this case, as the court is well aware, is that we have been requesting, A, a photo log or a listing of the order and/or time that pictures were taken, or B, an opportunity--or contact sheets, or C, an opportunity to make contact sheets to the negatives. This was pursued in discovery in pretrial and it was pursued during the trial. Now, Miss Clark got up here yesterday and said that she was able to look at the photographs and see numbers on the face of the photograph and she herself had put together a stack of the photographs in order so that she knew the sequence. Well, that is something that Dr. Lee, Dr. Wolf, Dr. Baden, myself, the other lawyers on this team, could not do for a number of reasons. No. 1, there are different photographs--photographers in this case and the numbers--there were more than one, for example, picture no. 35. No. 2, as the court noted and Mr. Rokahr noted in some of these pictures, the--you can't see the number. And most important of all, your Honor, as the court noted itself yesterday, the best proof, the real proof as to what pictures were taken in what order are the numbers on the Kodak print. That is the real proof. That is the hard-core proof.

THE COURT: Frame number on the film.

MR. SCHECK: The frame number on the negatives. Now, the problem I have, and I mentioned it to Mr. Hodgman yesterday, is that Mr. Hodgman is the lawyer and then later Mr. Yochelson, who was designated to be dealing with discovery for the Defense. And this court is aware, and Mr. Hodgman has conceded candidly with this court, that they had no photo logs, they had no ordering of pictures, that they did not believe, until we discovered this contact sheet from Bodziak, that these contact sheets could be made from the negatives, that there was no ordering. I am very, very troubled by the fact that Miss Clark is telling this court yesterday that she had a list of photographs and an ordering. Well, if she had it and they were determined--they had determined--she had determined through conversations with photographers or detectives on this case, that she knew which pictures were taken in which order, then we are being misled because we are only dealing with Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Yochelson who know of no information in the District Attorney's office or in law enforcement that contain an ordering of the photographs.

Unenhanced fingerprints also unreliable

[spun]

This articleoriginally from the New York Times, has some interesting information about fingerprints. Even without photographic or electronic enhancement, fingerprint identification is being called into question. Most experts in the field are self-proclaimed and self trained. The field of fingerprint identification is completely unscientific.

Limited photoshop?

[gclef]

Why not just create a version of Photoshop that can only do things like contrast, burn, etc? Remove the tools that allow image modification entirely, and sell it to police forces as a way to get around this problem.

I see a software niche....

no thank you

[el_mindwarp]

that would be awful. just imagine how much tax money would be spend arguing wether the evidence is good or not...

might end up like that witch trial in monty python's quest for the holy grail... /mindw@rp

Enhancing Evidence

[cosyne]

Image transforms do not add information to an image, they just make it easier to see the information which is there (try using Photoshop Auto-level to make an image of bill clinton shaking hands with an alien). Using dodge and burn over an entire image or a large area of it will not let you change fingerprints, just make existing ones easier to see. However, if you go into photoshop and use a one pixel burn brush you could draw lines with it. This is why it's important that the person doing the image processing isn't also doing the fingerprint analysis. It's like medical imaging- the imaging tech generates a good image, the doctor decides what it means.

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 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

[Melantha_Bacchae]

First off, IANAL, and IANAForensic expert of any sort. I have used photoshop for years. And I've worked on software projects requiring government certification. These are my opinions.

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.

Lawyer calls technique pseudo-science?

[saider]

I believe that lawyers are the main proponents of pseudo-science (if it suits their cause). The lawyer calling enhancement pseudo-science is just good defense lawyering (generate doubt). There are plenty of respected scientists that use enhancement to do their jobs. Ask anyone in astronomy if they only look at the raw images.

All that needs to be done is to document exactly what filters or methods were applied. As long as the originals are maintained intact and anyone can reproduce the results, then it should be legal.

Getting up on the stand and saying "I enhanced it and got this" is unacceptable.

Re:Tween the image and voila, it's anyones fingerp

[Qrlx]

Of course, you don't need Photoshop to fabricate evidence. It's just another tool that can be used.

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"
Cornell News: Fingerprint Study
Latent Print Examination disagrees with most of what I say...Click the Ressam link...if you don't support fingerprint evidence, then you support terrorism!

Limited photoshop? Already exists...

[nortcele]

Why not just create a version of Photoshop that can only do things like contrast, burn, etc? Remove the tools that allow image modification entirely, and sell it to police forces as a way to get around this problem.

It is called Photoshop LT.

My favorite quote

[SeanAhern]

My favorite quote from the article:

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. 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.

Heyer said that shows the software is not a scientific tool, but an unreliable art form that could be used to misrepresent reality or simply create things.

Lemme see if I got this straight... Since photoshop can be used to fake photographs, that means that it can never be used as a scientific tool.

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 ?

[forged]

So I guess I must BMW to work every morning, and ask my customers not to Nokia me in the middle of the night. Clever !

Perhaps the verb you were looking for was to enhance ?

Re:Since when did a product name became a verb ?

[otis wildflower]

I'll print that out, xerox it and pass it around the office..

I wonder when Adobe will step in before they lose any trademark on Photoshop ?

(Too bad slash is filtering out cute HTML codes like , or ..)

Nonreputiation, accountability

[theonetruekeebler]

Anybody remember the OJ murder trial? One of the major tactics of the defense was to make it sound like every cop in L.A. county had handled---and fucked with---the evidence. In the hands of a lawyer, Photoshopping a picture to sharpen the contrast is "altering the evidence using sophisticated image-manipulation software". That doesn't sit well with a jury, good intentions or not.

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.

Creating Evidence

[drmofe]

Suppose that Joe Random Citizen follows a link on his Web browser to a site that contains illegal pictures which are automatically cached in Joe's browser.

Joe, horrified, deletes the cache.

Sometime later, when Joe's computer is in the tech workshop, a technician discovers the deleted files while trying to recover data froma crashed hard disk

The FBI or some such get called in, retrieve the deleted files and charge Joe with the possession of illegal material

Question: How is this different to the manufacture of fingerprint evidence cited in the article>?

Answer: No matter what evidence exists or has been manufactured or planted, the prosecution must still establish guilty intent (mens rea). Unfortunately, this little detail appears to have been lost in US courts

STF

Why not just use a mac-based system?

[clmensch]

A while back Apple posted an interesting business case for using Macs to archive forensic photographs. Here's the link: Digital Detectives in Wake County, NC

While using Macs isn't necessary for this, I think they have a good process using burned CD-ROM's. Interesting read...check it out!

How to make it credible

[blitz487]

Such enhancement could have credibility if there were a bunch of independent "enhancers" around the country. Two are selected by lottery, and the raw data sent to them. Each does their enhancement independently in a clean room environment, knowing nothing about the crime, suspect, etc.

The same system is used for "matching" the enhanced print with the suspect's print, using a double blind system similar to the way drug research is done.

Such a system would reduce both the probability of error and the possibility of bias, intentional and unintentional.

Copyright

[HermanZA]

Well, I have copyright on my finger prints. Sue the bastard. Up with the DMCA!

"Blind" Enhancement would be valid

[CuriousKangaroo]

If the police or agents or whoever performed the enhancement without access to any prints-on-file with which to compare (in a "blind" study), then it would seem to me to have more validity if the final processing turns out to match a real print.

If the officer was holding a real print of the suspect and simply performing filters on the bad print until it looked sort of similar, then that's no good.

Police-spec should be ok...

[otis wildflower]

... There's no need for a law to force all users to have DRM in their cameras, but a police-spec requirement for legal preclusion of tampering would be useful.

Police already have legal requirements for speedo calibration in cruisers, and other standardization requirements.

I would support police digital enhancement, just as long as it was strictly monitored and reproducible: that is, a secure source image must be used and provided so opposing technical experts could reproduce any enhancement when provided the methodology by prosecutors.

Perhaps a standard opensource package or extension (Police GIMP perhaps?) could provide both the tools and auditing for digital forensic photography..

Re:Police-spec should be ok...

[Happy go Lucky]

.. There's no need for a law to force all users to have DRM in their cameras, but a police-spec requirement for legal preclusion of tampering would be useful.

How would you code something to prevent tampering? Admittedly, I'm a dumb-assed cop and no programmer, but I don't know how I could even define "tampering" in language that a compiler could understand.

Police already have legal requirements for speedo calibration in cruisers, and other standardization requirements.

Relatively few. Our policy (one city in Colorado-YMMV) on speedo calibration is to just let the factory do it. (On the Crown Victoria, the factory calibration is good forever so long as either the original tires stay on the car, or the replacements are the exact same size.)

Training requirements are theoretically standardized by state POST boards, but there's a LOT of variability there.

And about the only Federal standard we have (other than what the courts set) is the standards we meet in order to have NCIC access.

I would support police digital enhancement, just as long as it was strictly monitored and reproducible: that is, a secure source image must be used and provided so opposing technical experts could reproduce any enhancement when provided the methodology by prosecutors.

That's not that different from how we do it now. Any time I bring a photo into evidence, you can damn well bet that I can produce the negative for inspection/comparison on demand. Any image manipulation or enhancement needed, I can explain and walk the court through what I did and why I did it.

Unfortunately, without a negative, ultimately I'd have to ask the judge/jury to take my word for it. Our justice system is based on the fact that they're not supposed to do that. They're allowed to use their common sense (well, maybe he COULD have altered the negative with the super-secret machine brought down by the flying saucer aliens, but...) but they're also supposed to understand that "trust me" is just a polite way to say "fuck you."

It's that whole thing about an unaltered and unalterable negative which actually makes photography credible in court. Without it, we have a much harder time making our photos stick. I can start by testifying that the photo accurately represents the scene as I found it, but as long as there are people in this world with the ungodly stupidity to take Alan Dershowitz at face value, I have to plan on needing more than that.

Sometimes SUVs *ARE* necessary for people moving..

[Anonymous Coward]

I live (ie go to school at Michigan Tech) in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan. In the UP, at any point from late October to late MAY an SUV or truck is basically required for transportation. We get over 6 METERS of snow per year and little of that melts until April. Cars are useless here. Without a 4x4 SUV or truck, have fun in that ditch. In this case, a 4x4 SUV with a manual transmission is the best for safety, people-moving and the environment. (Why stick: sticks get better gas-milage. My 93 Explorer 4x4 with a stick pulls 20-24 mpg. My mother's 94 4x4 Explorer with an automatic gets a mere 15-18 mpg. 20-24 mpg beats out many cars, which makes an SUV an even better choice than these cars as you can transport just as many people but much more cargo.)

Data Mining, "Airframe" and more.

[aWalrus]

In the book "Airframe" by Michael Crichton there is one part where they have really blurred footage of an accident aboard a plane and the main character requests an enhanced version of it. The technician suggests some techniques that would be based on taking educated guesses, but she refuses and tells him to only perform totally computer based enhancements to it. They end up running the frames at high speed and taking "snapshots" of the composite result, which greatly enhances the details.

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:Data Mining, "Airframe" and more.

[ebyrob]

A computer works on the data and does not have prejudice for/against it.

Maybe not, but programs often work better on one set of data than another... In this way they can be just as random as poor "human subjectivity". To think that a process is better just because it is wholly deterministic is silly. Actually, worse than silly, it is one of the original assumptions made by many modern scientists.

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.

Interesting. "proving" something with data? Either that wasn't science or verificationism must not be dead after all... Regardless, different data mining techniques would each give a different "score" would they not? What should that difference be called if not a "bias"?

Re:Data Mining, "Airframe" and more.

[aWalrus]

programs often work better on one set of data than another... In this way they can be just as random as poor "human subjectivity".

No, they can't. An algorithm is not random. It is a process applied to data. This is just bullshit. Of course some algorithms will work better or worse on a particular set of data. If you can prove to a jury that the algorithm is not pulling an image out of its ass (which a human may), it is a valid point.

To think that a process is better just because it is wholly deterministic is silly

I'm not saying it is better in a general sense. I'm saying it is more trustworthy, repeatable and does not introduce external variables, which for this particular application, is better. An algorithm does not say "this line would look much better if I stretched it this way" whereas a human may. The algorithm does not care if the resulting image looks like shit.

Interesting. "proving" something with data? Either that wasn't science or verificationism must not be dead after all.

I think you're misusing the word, and Data Mining CAN prove that there exists a correlation or not in a set of data. For instance: a scientist may look at data for the foci of a disease in a country and see that there is roughly a correlation between locations of nuclear plants and the disease sprouts. He may then propose that there is a causal relationship. But after running the raw data through a data mining program, a much higher probability relationship may be found between temperature+water concentrations+disease (these three-tiered relationships are difficult for humans to find), showing that the former, seemingly correct deduction was just coincidental in nature.

Regardless, different data mining techniques would each give a different "score" would they not? What should that difference be called if not a "bias"?

Different data mining techniques are just different ways of analyzing a data set. They do not show statistically different results (they ALL agree on how much of each of the original data there is). Some of them are just better at finding certain kinds of patterns than others. It largely depends on the format of your raw data. If you have a point, make it. Processes don't think. They are not biased! is that clear?
--

Re:Data Mining, "Airframe" and more.

[ebyrob]

If you have a point, make it.

You seem to "trust" a deterministic algorithm to come up with a reliable and reasonable solution to some problem.

You seem to "distrust" a human being to come up with a reliable and reasonable solution to the same problem.

Does this mean in any problem set where a deterministic solution is viable and the answer "matters" the deterministic solution should always be chosen over a more human approach? If so, I'd have to wonder why humans still drive cars, fly airplanes and write algorithms.

Processes don't think. They are not biased! is that clear?

As a programmer, I assure you, I can write algorithms that show bias. Of course, you are correct that none of them think.

From www.m.w.com on bias:

3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

Re:Data Mining, "Airframe" and more.

[aWalrus]

I'd have to wonder why humans still drive cars, fly airplanes and write algorithms.

Because computers still can't do it. If you think you can drive better than a computer you should also try to run a semaphore network or perform one million mathematical operations in less that a minute. Accept it: Creativity (and writing algorithms) may be the realm of people, but determinism is something a bunch of chips with software are much better at.

As a programmer, I assure you, I can write algorithms that show bias. Of course, you are correct that none of them think.

As another programmer, I assure you, that would greatly surprise me. Of course you can write a program that selects one answer over the other for arbitrary reasons! and you know what? That's exactly what it will do! It won't decide to go the other way just because it feels like it. You can even put in a random decision, and it will take a random decision! Don't you think an analysis of the algorithm would reveal the intended outcome? That was the original point of this discussion. I'm not advocating the rise of the machines. But I sure couldn't be trusted with an image and expected to come up with a totally unbiased, objective enhancement of it. Good or bad, an algorithm that doesn't try to replace the original content of the image and instead works with it will do a more reliable, repeatable job than I, or anyone else for that matter, can do (please note again that I'm not talking about a better enhancement, rather a more objective one! (which is what would be needed to bring this in front of a jury)
--

Re:Data Mining, "Airframe" and more.

[ebyrob]

Men and algoritms both tend to be judged by their fruits. This line from the article was probably the best argument for tossing out the technique at this point:

"There are no proficiency tests, there are no independent studies to say that this works or that it's reliable," Heyer said.

The same arguement would be made about absolutely any automated system for doing the same thing. Computers don't drive cars. Not because they *can't* drive cars, but because they can't do it better, or even as well, as humans.

Any algorithm written by a human being on a platform made by human beings ought to be just as suspect as a human being. If the basic algorithm were public knowledge and seperate open source implementations were created all with the same results on different platforms, then perhaps hard analysis could be brought against it. But a single implementation especially in poorly understood binary is subject to no such analysis.

This ACM classic on trusting trust does a great job of explaining one major loophole. How hard do you think it would be for a malicious coder to insert an algorithm that biased all results away from a specific set of prints?

As to software bias...
deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates

What is a data mining technique if not a synthetic statistical estimate? Bias in an alogorithm doesn't have to be about purposely favoring (or disfavoring) one outcome. Choose 10 completely different methods (or algorithms) for solving a particular problem (spam filtering would be a good example). Each solution to the problem will have different results even for the same input data. I would tend to call that difference a "bias". This bias would exist even with the most "trusted" algorithms and computing platforms.

But I sure couldn't be trusted with an image and expected to come up with a totally unbiased, objective enhancement of it.

Actually, if you were given a "rough print" you'd never seen before and had no idea what it was going to be matched against and had instructions only to "enhance" it, you might come up with something a lot less biased than you might think. As the technician stated himself, if he knew what he was trying to match against, it would be a lot harder to create an unbiased enhancement.

I'm saying [an algorithm] is more trustworthy, repeatable and does not introduce external variables

The algorithm itself *is* an external variable. The bigger and more complex it is, the more external variables it introduces. I'd argue about trustworthy, but I doubt we agree on the definitions of words like "trust" and "truth".

Resolution?

In the sense that an alogirthm in the right circumstances can be better understood than a human, and that a single algorithm could process more fingerprints than a single human, you may be correct that an algorithm could be more appropriate in something approaching an ideal situation. On different fingers, it should be quite plain that a human is vastly more capable than any set of algorithms yet contrived.

As to "enhancing" fingerprints in general. I have faith that our legal system can fully bung up either method. Human directed or computer controlled.

Re:Data Mining, "Airframe" and more.

[aWalrus]

You raise very good points, and it has been a pleasure to keep this thread going. Thanks for helping me dismember this dead horse :-) (I think we went past beating it about three posts ago). Hope to read more from you in the future. At this point, I think we've reached a good level of agreement. Thanks for the insight.
--

OJ case is perfect precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole debate here is really about whether the "law enforcement" doing and analysing the picture or DNA taking can be trusted to (a) not outright lie and (b) do it right.

A major part of OJ's defense was the police were out to get him, and they were outright incompetent. Of course, the police fell right into OJ's defense trap-- their DNA's calculations were proven wrong (showing incompetence), and then their was the racism comments (showing the "out to get him") part.

Just like courts in the past have always ruled, a jurist should give more weight and trust to the "law enforcement" officials unless the defence can prove them to be lying or incompetent.

So, digital camera evidence should be accepted, since it is no different from DNA (very easy to contaminate the "criminal" sample with the "test" sample).

Reminds me of when I got out of a speeding ticket since the cop got my car color wrong. Of course in the 2 months before the hearing in front of the magistrate, he just read the color off the ticket which he mistakenly written in wrong. So I was able to show incompetence. And argued he might have just as mistakenly written in the speed number.

Encrypted cameras have another use..

[Myself]

Ever since I heard about Digita, the OS for digital cameras, I wanted to program something like this...

When the prosecutor subpoena'd photos from reporters, to identify people involved in the MSU Riots, the reporters obviously cried foul: Their independence is critical to the accurate gathering of news. If people see reporters as an arm of the law, coverage becomes skewed.

What if the camera could be loaded with a public key, and encrypt photos as they're taken, so that only the private key (back at the Editor's desk) could decrypt them? Perhaps keep a plaintext thumbnail in RAM for convenience, but make sure it vanishes if the card is removed or the camera's powered off.

It still doesn't prevent the judge from throwing the editor in jail for failing to turn over the private keys, but it adds a layer of complication, where the editor could simply lose the keys. Would that be destroying evidence? The encrypted photos still exist -- they're just unreadable.

Re:Encrypted cameras have another use..

[Superfarstucker]

there is really no way of tracking data along with any existing image format as you can strip the data from them very easily (jpgs etc) and they werent designed to do that, the only way this would work is if there is a *PROPRIETARY* file extension which has unknown inner workings for the sake of making it next to tamper proof and making it unreadable by anything but specific software designed to 'modify' the image in pre-approved ways..

Re:Tween the image and voila, it's anyones fingerp

[HiThere]

Fingerprinting is quite a reasonable approach. The problem is that they have quite loose standards as to what kind of match is sufficient. If they were only using it as a filter, to select who to investigate then the approach would be quite good. If they use it as primary evidence, then it's not so good at all (though still better than many choices).

N.B.: The same can be said about DNA evidence. Not only do the labs have a high error rate, they don't compare a sufficient number of match sites. (This MAY have been fixed since I last heard about it. The prices have dropped significantly.) If they only compare 10 sites, then that means that one out of (about) every two thousand people will match. (Assuming that they are checking for single nucleotide matchings, and even distribution of the traits. [Different presumptions would change this to around one out of every four thousand.) Now if you are screening suspects, this is pretty good. It will generally allow you to select one person to investigate more thoroughly. OTOH, if you are pulling people out of a database... there's likely to be a lot more than 4 thousand people in that database, and the culprit may not even be in there.

If they checked 20 sites... then the numbers start getting reasonable for primary evidence. If they check 30 sites, then it's a pretty good chance. (This is all assuming that they pick only sites that have high independant variability, of course.)

And there's no good reason not to use a pretty high number of sites. If you've got the DNA to test, you've probably got at least an entire chromosome.

Extremely slim chance

[Tenebrious1]

Any subtle change could incriminate the wrong person.

The chances are incredibly slim of that ever happening by accident. The chances that your fingerprint is mis-enhanced to say include a bifurcation, and that print matches someone in your neighborhood is almost zero. Maybe slightly higher that it matches someone in the world, but how many of those people would be fingerprinted and a possible suspect?

That's why fingerprints work because they have so many unique points, you only need to check a few of those points to get a positive match. Unless the enhancements are made deliberately, the chances of a misidentification are very, very small.

Re:Extremely slim chance

[dacarr]

That actually kind of was my point, on deliberate. Granted the odds are drastically against it, but think of it - from the perspective of a judge who may (not) know of technology (but has hopefully done their research), knowing that something has been altered, would you admit it as evidence?

Maybe this is me being a little paranoid about the encroachment of a day where technology is becoming more of a cradle-to-grave thing (and despite this I carry a Handspring Visor =) ). I could be wrong.

But apparently, not well enough...

[AzrealAO]

You said: Just because the person interviewed states he doesn't "create" fingerprints does not mean he cannot alter them, or "enhance" an existing print to more closely match a "wanted" print.

The Article said: "I don't think I could recreate a fingerprint," said Knoerlein, pointing out that he never sees the suspect's fingerprints.

Re:But apparently, not well enough...

[rworne]

I mentioned a way the system could work, nothing more. What the interviewee says in the article is only part of what I was claiming.

They mentioned a way in which they archive the original and the enhanced copy. Knoerlein mentions he never sees the suspect's prints and later they mention the same concern I have about altering prints.

I specifically asked for the tech not to know:
1. The case the fingerprint is from
2. The suspect's prints.

The article addresses issue #2, but not issue #1. The article also addresses problems like archiving the originals and enhanced versions.

It's important to do both #1 and #2 to avoid any hanky-panky in the system.

If the tech knows what case he is working on, or the investigators know, it is always possible for them to be influenced by investigators, or be tainted in other ways. Issue #1 is needed to keep the system honest from dishonest or overzealous criminal investigations.

TDC has nothing on Sam Waterson

[DudemanX]

Did no one else see the episode of Law & Order a few weeks back where the fingerprint tech was getting false positives on partial prints because the techs get to decide how many points qualifies as a match? Matching partial fingerprints is barely science even before we start adding digital mumbo jumbo. The digital manipulation of fingerprints just adds yet another unscientific layer to the process and should most definatly not be admissable as evidence. As many other posters have stated though, I too have no issues with using this technology during investigations to generate leads.

OT: your posting score

[aWalrus]

This is offtopic, but I took a look at your posting history and noticed that you started at 0 and just recently started getting Score:1 on your posts. How was that possible? I thought every logged in user had a default 1 score and 0 was for AC's. Could it be because you used "Troll" in your username? or was there a change in the Slashdot code to modify this behavior? anyone?
--

Re:OT: your posting score

[Anonymous Coward]

He got moderated down to -1 karma in his first few comments (the ones we can't see from the posting history). He then stayed there, with all of his posts starting at zero, until the first post we see at +1, which got an underrated mod. This upped his karma back to zero, meaning his posts started at +1 again. He's since been moderated up a speck more, but that doesn't matter.

Consider an mandatory embedded RF receiver...

[Unclaimed Mysteries]

Consider an mandatory embedded RF receiver in your (digital or film) camera that would prevent
you from taking a photo near certain government buildings if it was in range
of a particular transmitted signal. You could probably h4X0r and defeat the
circuit, but that could be made illegal justlikethat ($1 to e.e.)

Other organizations known for buying laws could easily arrange for their
"intellectual property" to be protected in this manner as well.

At that point, you are at risk of not even owning your camera, nor the
pictures you take. It's up to the individual to gauge the threat. Right now,
it seems far-fetched. But never forget that the Man wants total control of
everything you see, say, hear, and do.

OT time

[Qrlx]

Your sig says "Don't let them..."

The word is "immanentize." I seem to recall it has the root "manna," which we all know from playing Magic or Diablo II or what have you. I only know this because I became interested in that sig when I saw it months ago and decided to figure out what the hell you were talking about.

Re:OT time

[HiThere]

Actually, the word I was deriving from was imminent. The concept that I mean is "bring nearer more quickly". (Admittedly, the more quickly part isn't included in the form...but it's a part of what I meant.)

It's a joke, in a rather black mood.

Recall the central park jogger case....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the news right now, at least in NY. Police have the (perhaps faultless) tendency to find what they look for. Unfortunately this leads to tunnel vision -- when they believe that someone is guilty, they will make the crime fit the situation.

I'm not talking of outright law-breaking, either. But it is something that definately affects a case in subtle ways....

PhotoShopping?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean GIMPing? Or is that shopping for photos?

similar to a polygraph?

[jmorse]

Polyraphs are generally inadmissible as evidence in criminal cases. I believe this is because polygraphs are not widely accepted as science. The same case could be made here, I imagine.

Re:Cleveland Browns

[Anonymous Coward]

Will someone please ban Drew Carey's IP. Thanks in advance.

Inadmissible? Not so.

[MacAndrew]

Evidence gets "enhanced" all the time for clarity's sake. The court has wide discretion and the American preference is to let lots of evidence in provided it is not unfairly prejudicial, inflammatory, etc.

An example I recall was an effort to enhance the Rodney King beating video. It was shot at night and the operator didn't get the focus right for several seconds. One of the critical Q's I think was whether there were nightstick blows to the head, and by whom. I saw the before-and-after videos in a lecture by one of the prosecutors; unfortunately it just wasn't very helpful. But it was admissible.

I completely understand the concern about doctored or damaged evidence. Both happen, but not to the extent that all enhanced evidence should be excluded.

Not really DRM

[NorthWoodsman]

It sounds to me like it's more like CVS than anything, with signed files that keep track of revisions or enhancements. I really can't see how this could be a bad thing; It really lessens the potential for tampering of evidence.

Another article on digital forensics

[Danta]

Here is an Apple article on digital forensics from September.
It gives an insight into how digital technology w/o encryption/signing is being used today in forensics.

Where To Draw the Line

[suwain_2]

In my opinion, this isn't a case of "Should they be able to Photoshop fingerprints," but rather, "What type of modifications, and to what extent, are allowable?" I could draw entirely fictitious fingerprints in Photoshop; obviously, this would be an injustice if used as evidence. However, Photoshop is also great at salvaging bad photos -- with a bit of practice, I can 'feed' it a horrible underexposed image with a nasty green tone, and get a nearly-flawless image out. In my mind, this is no different than the adjustments people make in the darkroom -- if the forensics team used a film camera, and enhanced the contrast when developing them to make them look better, I bet no one would care in the least bit.

What I think might make more sense is if they were required to furnish both the originals and the 'post-Photoshop' version -- the defense could verify the work themselves if they wished. (If nothing else, they could probably find someone off the street to testify that, to him, he's not sure how they got the Photoshopped version, and that it doesn't look 'real'.

This might be enormously geeky, but if they really wanted to prove the integrity of the images, couldn't they bring in the computer and open up the Photoshop file, showing their work through the "History" window? You'd be able to show the result of "Open" (the original image), and then click on each thing you did to it to show the difference.

Trusted source, Open & repeatable operations

[xixax]

I was under the impression that some digital cameras already digitally signed images. This is what you would check in as evidence and what you need to take care over. And digital imagery in court is not new, my Prof. was using ehnanced Landsat MSS to argue irrigation breaches in court yeears ago.

Beyond faith in source data, I don't care what image processing operations are used because:
- I can trust that the source imaage is authentic
- The jury must be convinced that any image processing undertaken was reasonable
Hopefully the outcome is that basic enhancements (such as contrast stretching) is readily accepted, and more out-there techniques will need to be more persuasively argued. You would also hope tht the other side would attempt to replicate any operations that were suspect.

Xix.

Digital image certification

[xixax]

Regarding your link, nice idea, but that leaves the image unprotected until it is registered by someone I have never met. Either you trust the camera to sign the image, or you treat it like any other photographic evidence. There's no need to have a centralised repository signing my images when *I * can sign any digital file I produce.

Plus I can take additional non-digital precautions such as having wittnesses watch me put the media into a sealed envelope.

Of course getting people to safeguard their private keys is another matter entirely... :o)

Xix.

Er.. what?

[geeknik]

Wow.. these prints are real close.. if I increase the gamma 400 fold.. damn look at that.. that's gotta be his print.. I mean the parts you can see anyhow

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

[bratwiz]

I have a question... this whole debate has focused on whether or not it is possible to forge/alter a fingerprint.

The original topic was the police using DRM to take and store photos of the crime scene, fingerprints, physical evidence, etc.

The whole point of DRM is that everything is digitally "signed" so that forgery/tampering is supposedly impossible.

Okay, suppose I agree with that part...

Who keeps the digital key and how does one know whether or not the KEY that is presented in court to supposedly validate a particular image is the correct key, the original key, and/or that the key hasn't been forger, tampered with, or altered?

The whole DRM scheme depends on using an "ARBITRARILY-CHOSEN AUTHORITY" to authenticate and validate. The mechanism is "safe" because we "agree" (arbitrarily) that it is the "authority".

who took the photograph?

[guest12]

his fingerprint is alredy captured and compared internally to authorised users, else the shutter wont click, in drm cameras. Is this right?

The real reason

[commodoresloat]

Come on. The real reason they should not be able to Photoshop pictures of fingerprints is that they should have to use the gimp instead.

loserish?

[commodoresloat]

How Loserish of you to think that ANYONE cares about proper verbiage.

Yeah. It's proper adjectives we crave.

An analogy with hard evidence

[Reziac]

Let me try:

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.

They have the key, no need to crack anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

What assigns the key, and who is in control of the key.

In this case the cops don't even have to crack the encryption -- they have the key, either in the camera or they are keeping it themselves. It should be a matter of seconds before they either create a "watermark" or create a signiture.

You know, on CSI

[teamhasnoi]

they can make out a dude's face standing a mile away appear out of a grainy ATM video.

Just use those computers. Duh.

As for the DRM

[Mac Degger]

Why not just use WORM media? Solves most of the problems, I'd say. Then all the auditing trail needed would be a secure IDtag on the media itself and sign in/out sheets.

Common Sense

[dsgrntlxmply]

As a juror, I would like to see:

1. Digital signature combining identify of camera and operator, with date and time

2. An audit trail of the enhancement, showing exactly step-by-step the operations performed upon various areas of the picture, to produce the result brought into evidence, along with the identity of the operator

3. A demonstration of the progression of these operations applied to the original source material, resulting in the final image in evidence.

Re:I fully support DRM cameras

[Afty0r]

Ahhh, Mr Rightman, welcome back from Adequacy. Good to see you again.

Incidentally, if the above post were true, right now I'd be waxing lyrical about how the vast majority of people who were stupid enough to pose for such pics and then regret it, or were manipulated into doing so would very probably be from a religious background, where being manipulated is a daily duty, and regret isn't required, only absolution.

Re:Inadmissible? Not so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Manipulating the video of the King beating backfired, imo, because the defense was able to use the same video, edit, replay in slow motion etc., and concoct a version of events that was consistent with their presentation of the video footage. Had the prosecution put some of the honest cops on the stand in the Simi Valley trial, I don't believe the jury would have decided to acquit.

I have qualms about "enhanced" evidence. Particularily in cases where indigent defendants do not have adequate resources to challenge it.

Just for fun.

[ebyrob]

Here are links to a couple articles I found on google searching first for "scientific naturalism", then for "philosophical naturalism".

Scientific Naturalism
Philosophical Naturalism

Re:Use a real verb

[RedWolves2]

Well you have posted countless times in this thread Anonymous Coward and none of them are even close to being funny.

Re:Use a real verb

[RedWolves2]

I do the guy is funnier then hell

Last Post!

[alpg]

Oh, and this is another kernel in that great and venerable "BugFree(tm)"
series of kernels. So be not afraid of bugs, but go out in the streets
and deliver this message of joy to the masses.
-- Linus, in the announcement for 1.3.27

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...