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?"

8 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. "Enhanced" evidence by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:"Enhanced" evidence by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. 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
  3. Sure... by Grip3n · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...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.

    --
    To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
  4. This is NOT DRM by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.)

    --
    Search 2010 Gen Con events
  5. This is not how photographic evidence works by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative
    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

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  6. The real reason by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.