Digital Camera Image Verification

Polo writes "While reading dpreview, I noticed that among several new products, Canon has announced a Digital Image Verification Kit to prove that an image taken by a particular camera has not been modified. It's disturbing to think about the conditions that would allow digital images to be accepted in a courtroom. I guess one defense would be to figure out how to 'verify' a photo of shark attack..."

Comments

Windows only?

[Moderator]

The card reader connects to a computer USB port (only Windows 2000/XP compatible at the moment).

Suddenly, this throws out the validity of anyone who owned a Mac or was using FreeBSD as their primary desktop operating system.

Re:Windows only?

[redJag]

That's really not insightful. All this means is that, as of now, only Windows computers can *check* the validity of the picture in question. The computer you use has nothing to do with the pictures your camera takes.

won't work

[contrasutra]

It won't work. From everything I've seen, attempts to verify ANYTHING digital will be cracked within a week or three.

Re:won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? When was the digital signature function of GnuPG cracked?

Re:won't work

[Lehk228]

all it would take would be for someone to tear apart the camera and replace the image sensor with a USB cable so that the camera would sign the image going onto the card, then put the card into a different camera, unless the camera also wrote it's serial number to part of the image in a way that could not be hacked (yea right) this verification would be useless if someone really wanted to fake a digital image

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

1. take picture
2. modify picture
3. regenarate image verification data
4. profit?

Canon

[swordboy]

Canon is very cool - they are one of the only camera manufacturers that still supports the cheapest, non-proprietary form of flash media in all of their cameras - CompactFlash.

To everyone out there: you are an idiot if you buy a camera that does not support CompactFlash. You'll end up paying twice as much for the media.

In other good Canon news, they've announced that they'll be releasing 20 new digicams this year. Hail to the king, baby!

Re:Canon

[Shakrai]

To everyone out there: you are an idiot if you buy a camera that does not support CompactFlash. You'll end up paying twice as much for the media.

We have that interesting problem at work (Insurance Agency, which is half the reason this article caught my eye) -- we need digicams to do photo inspections of property or automobiles. All of our CSR workstations have CompactFlash readers. Half the new digicams out there don't use CF anymore -- which automatically takes them off my shopping list when I need to get new cameras.

I'd also add to your statement that you are an idiot if you buy a camera that doesn't take standard AA (or AAA) batteries. We also have several sets of NI-MH batts and chargers -- I refuse to buy a digicam with propriety batteries. I can't count how much money and aggravation the standard formats of CF and AA NI-MH batts have saved me -- both on a business and personal level.

Re:Canon

[Shakrai]

Compact Flash is old and it is big and bulky.

What is the difference between Type I, Type II, and Type III PC Cards?

* Type I - First standard defined by PC Card Association. Dimensions: 85.6 mm x 54.0 mm x 3.3 mm.

* Type II - Second standard form factor defined by PC Card Association. Dimensions: 85.6 mm x 54.0 mm x 5.0 mm. The KODAK Picture Card with Adapter fit into a Type II slot.

* Type III - Third standard form factor defined by PC Card Association. Dimensions: 85.6 mm x 54.0 mm x 10.5 mm. An example of this is the PCMCIA hard drive in a KODAK PROFESSIONAL DCS Digital Camera.

Quoted from this site.

I'd hardly call 8.5cm x 5.4cm x 0.5cm "big and bulky". If you start using the Type III cards they are a whole .55cm thicker. That's too big? And what's wrong with "old" as long as it still works and the standard is updated for new technology?

Re:Canon

[swordboy]

Don't forget Nikon.

Nikon supports CompactFlash only in their high-end cameras. I'm not sure why they don't support it in their low-end cameras. Probably some sort of kick-backs from selling a camera that supports the more expensive media. There's always collusion when ignorant consumers are involved.

Someone tell me what I'm missing. From PriceWatch.com, we get the following for a 512MB media card (many of the proprietary don't go larger than this):

$95 - CompactFlash
$138 - Memory Stick
$141 - MMC/SD
$165 - xD
$199 - ATA

As geeks, it is our duty to inform people from being stupid and buying cameras that don't support cheap, open standards. Why is SD so popular if it is 50% more expensive?

Re:Canon

[zfalcon]

I'd also add to your statement that you are an idiot if you buy a camera that doesn't take standard AA (or AAA) batteries. We also have several sets of NI-MH batts and chargers -- I refuse to buy a digicam with propriety batteries. I can't count how much money and aggravation the standard formats of CF and AA NI-MH batts have saved me -- both on a business and personal level.

None of the high end digital SLR cameras use NiMH batteries. Regular NiMH batteries run out of juice way too quickly. Using the Canon lithium ion packs you can get hundreds of shots with 1 battery. Also, unlike NiMH, lithiums don't lose like 10% of their charge daily.

Courtroom.

[dsb3]

There's nothing concerning about digital images in the courtroom.

Ask the photographer, under oath, "is this representative of what you saw?".

If it was, he says so.

It's really the same as with any other evidence that can be tampered with. If someone testifies under oath that it is what it is then there's no difference between a digital image and any (many?) other types of evidence.

juries know images can be faked

[kaltkalt]

any image, not just a digital one, can be changed, modified, or completely faked. Yes, digital technology makes it easier, but this is not a new phenomenon. Juries know (and should be told) that any image introduced into evidence might not be real and could have easily been altered by the other side. Depending on who took the image and the chain of possession, weighed against how believable the picture actually is, will determine how much weight the jury gives to a given photograph.

These digital picture verifiers are nice but not the end of the question. A validation from one of these machines is just some more evidence that the picture is real. It's not conclusive and shouldn't be taken as so. In fact, the evidence of validation from one of these machines might not even be allowed into court if they're extremely unreliable. Daubert to the rescue.

What a joke

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

When the appropriate function (Personal Function 31) on the EOS-1D Mark II or EOS-1Ds is activated, a code based on the image contents is generated and appended to the image. When the image is viewed, the data verification software determines the code for the image and compares it with the attached code. If the image contents have been manipulated in any way, the codes will not match and the image cannot be verified as the original.

Note to self: run the signing software *after* altering the image. If the image was alrady signed, display it, take screenshot, alter the image, and re-run the signing software.

Re:What a joke

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Non-issue if the camera does the signing with an embedded private key or if the "Secure Mobile" memory card prevents uploading hashed images from your computer.

Non-issue, that is, until someone cracks the memory card, or discovers that the camera's signing software is defective, etc.

Re:What a joke

[Joe Decker]

FYI, Personal Function 31 is a mode, the signing happens automatically after you take the picture if that mode is on, you can't just ask it to sign after the picture is taken.

Re:Run around

[MoonBuggy]

But seriously, you'd need a pretty good digicam/scanner for that not to be completely obvious

You would, but in a few years time when this technology has legal precident spending a few grand on modding a 'secure' camera to forge evidence in order to get away with millions sounds like a good investment.

it's targetted to a specific market

[sir_cello]

I'm thinking this is for Canon to target the camera at a specific market where legal evidenciary issues come into play: crime scenes, insurance, autopsy, etc. This is likely not to be a feature that will appear for most consumer products.

What it really shows is more about how the professional film camera market is facing realistic competition from digital cameras.

A Fake! Go get me the original and I'll prove it!

[psi42]

All this hinges on the testers having an _original_ copy of the image in addition to the supposedly modified version.

Let's say someone tries to use a doctored digital photo as evidence. They eliminate the original md5 with the aforementioned screenshot trick, and then recreate it. The photo is contested on the grounds it is a fake. To prove it, they go off and get their wonderous DVK-E2 kit, and then they get their md5. The test works just fine, so they know the md5 has been altered, so they go and ask for the original image. And so where is the original image? Do they have it? No, of course not, because it went on a little stroll down memory lane and landed without a sound in the fastness of /dev/null

Have we accomplished anything here?

Re:It's called MD5 (?)

[Directrix1]

What exactly would keep anyone (using film or digital) from taking a picture of a picture?