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?

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.

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: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.