Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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 .
http://Lenny.com
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.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.