Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Computers, Court, and Fingerprints

Posted by timothy on from the but-you-said-the-camera-doesn't-lie dept.

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?"

2 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. I saw this on tv by LennyDotCom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  2. Re:"Enhanced" evidence by CaseyB · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.