Slashdot Mirror


Forensic Analysis Reveals Al-Qaeda's Image Doctoring

WerewolfOfVulcan writes "Wired reports that researcher Neal Krawetz revealed some very interesting things about the Al-Qaeda images broadcast in the mass media. Analysis shows that they're heavily manipulated, a discussion meant to illustrate a new technique that can spot forgery in digital media. 'Krawetz was ... able to determine that the writing on the banner behind al-Zawahiri's head was added to the image afterward. In the second picture above showing the results of the error level analysis, the light clusters on the image indicate areas of the image that were added or changed. The subtitles and logos in the upper right and lower left corners ... were all added at the same time, while the banner writing was added at a different time, likely around the same time that al-Zawahiri was added, Krawetz says.'"

65 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. so... by zulater · · Score: 5, Funny

    at least there is someone else as bad as me at Photoshop!

  2. This looks shopped... by ansomatica · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can tell from some of the pixels and having seen quite a few shops in my time.

    --
    -==-
    1. Re:This looks shopped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      A WINNER IS YOU

  3. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I already hold an FFL (Federal Firearms License), but I don't look forward to applying for an FPL (Federal Photoshop License).

    1. Re:Great by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just make one up with Photoshop.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. msm by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think it has been pretty well documented in the blogging community that many of the images that the main stream media picks up and propogates are heavily altered, faked, or come from completely different events than what they claim to depict. This is not just with al-quaeda, but governments and any group that has an agenda and is media savvy - foreign or domestic.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:msm by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, Photoshop has made it impossible to trust anything you see. Video is still kind of difficult to alter like these photos were, but it's certainly possible for someone with the resources of a government of international organization behind them.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:msm by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Funny
      This is not just with al-quaeda, but governments and any group that has an agenda and is media savvy - foreign or domestic.

      I always wondered why there wasn't some video showing Bin Laden (and all of the big shots with Al Qaeda) eating bacon while jerking off to Barbie Dolls and getting it up the ass.

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    3. Re:msm by samkass · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even before Photoshop, inappropriate use of stock footage or using visual scenes of the wrong event was pretty common and made for more exciting news. I remember in the late 80's reports of a student riot in South Korea... my father was there at the time. There may have been a few disgruntled students there at the time, but his pictures are completely different (no violence or anything.) Turns out the news companies heard about a student protest and just looked for random footage of asian students rioting and put it on the air when talking about the situation.

      Of course, Final Cut Studio and Photoshop make it even easier, but the news has always been more about entertainment than information.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    4. Re:msm by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But these particular images appear to be doctored to enhance the message or provide a visually appealing background. They're probably doctored by the source. Therefore the doctored versions are what the original creators intended to express. So there's no reason for us to ignore these videos.

      If these were altered in a way that seemed to drastically change the message then it would be a different story.

    5. Re:msm by Applekid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even over the last 10 years video alterations have been getting more and more sophisticated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAFp4CaeDqU

      While the video is clearly tongue-in-cheek and advertising driven, it's slightly disturbing the novices who cut their teeth on this stuff and evolve their skills in the advertising world could go out and "find" video of just about anything they wanted to engineer in the media. Who would be able to stop them?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    6. Re:msm by ccandreva · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they are showing video of them in a fancy office, that implies their movement is doing well.

      If in fact they are in a cave somewhere in front of a black sheet, then the message is a big fat lie.

    7. Re:msm by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting
      There are many reasons for doctoring photos. The point of these isn't to "confuse the enemy", but to "boost morale of the troops", by showing their leaders as so successful that they can sit out in the open, in a living room somewhere, and lead a normal life in the face of the insignificant U.S. forces. While in reality, they're cowering in bunkers or caves, or perhaps hiding in Pakistan or Iran.

      Unfortunately, detecting the fakes isn't enough. The CIA could say "Hey, look, these are faked, you're following cowards" but that'd be dismissed simply due to the source. What really needs to happen is these forgery-detection tools need to get in the hands of the "faithful" so they can convince themselves that they're being led by cowardly stooges. (Not that they would, as the leaders would probably dismiss such tools as lies from the Great Satan.)

      --
      John
    8. Re:msm by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is very common. My dad worked for a power company and one of the local news organizations did a story on pollution. So after my dad talked about their scrubbers and other emissions controls (which he was very instrumental in putting in) the reporter decided that it wasn't sensationalist enough so he pulled a dirty trick. One of their power plants was right next to a steel mill so instead of the reporter doing his monologue with the power plant in the background, he and his camera man simply turned around and put the steel mill right next door in the background then proceeded to open up with "I'm here at .. generating station."

      He didn't technically lie; after all he was on the property of the generating station. But the images didn't reflect the nearly nonexistant exhaust of the powerplant (a little NOx which shows up brown on certain days) but instead reflected the constant fires and smoke billowing out of the steel mill. No photoshop required.

    9. Re:msm by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's so hard to believe?
      If they shot in front of a fixed color backdrop there are automated tools to overlay images (weather guy on the local news anyone?)
      Even if they didn't all a video is, is a series of still images shown in rapid succession.
      Sure it takes a while, but it is *very* doable.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    10. Re:msm by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "If they are showing video of them in a fancy office, that implies their movement is doing well."

      Slightly OT here, but it was probably also done to make them harder to track down. I remember a lot of hoohaw over a Bin Laden tape where there were distinct rocks in the background. One of the major news outlets was making a big deal about how the Gov't could tell where in the world that film was shot just by the geological features. My guess is the group got wise to it and doesn't shoot without a fake background anymore.

      (This isn't a rebuttal to what you're saying, just another reason they'd do it.)

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:msm by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Honestly, I find it hard to believe that these guys doctored their Videos. I could believe photos, but video? That's fairly advanced to make it look real. I'd be more inclined to believe Muslim political groups and al jazeera did the doctoring."

      It's not realy all that advanced. I was doing stuff like that 5 years ago with a cheap DV camera, a computer, and a $500 copy of AfterFX. Al-Qaeda wouldn't need very significant resources or time to doctor the video in the way the article shows. And, frankly, it'd be in their best interests to do so.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:msm by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't believe your view is the minority here. I don't understand why people find it easier to believe that the all-powerful Al-Qaeda videos are doctored by Osama and his crew than the videos are made by foreign agents who are fabricating the needed vindication for the decision to go to war and justification for continuing it.

      What is this, the Fox news forums?

      --
      I hate printers.
    13. Re:msm by br14n420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who would be able to stop them?

      A bullet? A jail term?

      I fail to see the issue.

    14. Re:msm by Znork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "by showing their leaders as so successful that they can sit out in the open, in a living room somewhere, and lead a normal life"

      Heh. When was the last time you saw Bush out in the open, leading a normal life? Our own western leaders are cowering in their versions of hideouts and bunkers, sometimes not even from an external enemy, but from their own population. Some will end up without any ability to ever travel outside the borders of their own country, in fear of running afoul of foreign warcrimes legislation.

      I enjoyed Frank Herberts idea from God Emperor of Dune, where the historical myth was that the emperor had to walk unprotected through an unchecked and unsearched crowd every year. If he survived he was a good ruler. Of course, that was faked and propaganda in the book as well, but the idea is alluring, although less useful in reality (as there unfortunately exist a whole bunch of other random reasons someone might off a person in power).

      Unfortunately, we're all lead by cowardly stooges. But even in the cases where the members of warring organizations realize that, they're reluctant to do anything about it. Even US generals appear afraid of denouncing their leadership until they're retired, and they dont have more than a job on the line, so why would you expect someone likely to get executed for dissent to point out such flaws?

    15. Re:msm by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But these particular images appear to be doctored to enhance the message or provide a visually appealing background. They're probably doctored by the source. Therefore the doctored versions are what the original creators intended to express. So there's no reason for us to ignore these videos.

      But you do need to identify the source.

    16. Re:msm by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand why people find it easier to believe that the all-powerful Al-Qaeda videos are doctored by Osama and his crew than the videos are made by foreign agents who are fabricating the needed vindication for the decision to go to war and justification for continuing it.

      Possibly because the whole Al-Qaeda as some global terrorist conspiracy is easier for them to accept than the idea that "Western" governments might contain a sizable quantity of power mad dishonest crooks.

  5. Done for their safety? by jsight · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was a report several years ago that the US had used the rock outcroppings behind Osama in one of his videos to attempt to locate him. I wonder if some of these modifications are made to make locating them more difficult?

    1. Re:Done for their safety? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, and this is just me speculating here, I think the person is shot in front of a plain background for 'security' reasons; the background (the room with the bookshelf is dropped in (rather than just distributing the video with the plain background) for PR.

      Having the background gives the impression of a more stable organization than a clearly handi-cammed video in front of a bedsheet would. Also, I don't know what the books are in the background, but there's probably some symbolism in them (and the cannon). It gives the thing an air of legitimacy that you just wouldn't have in front of a plain backdrop.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:Done for their safety? by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Funny

      If Osama has any sense of humor at all, in his next videos he will be standing in front of The Whitehouse, standing side-by-side with the Statue of Liberty, as a talking head on Mt. Rushmore, on a fake-studio set of a moon landing, etc.
      Come on, you can't be all 'kill-the-infidels' ALL the time?!

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:Done for their safety? by Kurrurrin · · Score: 5, Funny

      http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/forensics/

      Or maybe he did. Your google-fu is weak.

      --
      -Doug
  6. Fake photos and pixel experts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Best fun ever is to paste a URL to a photo among a whole load of self-professed photoshop experts, and get them to identify which bit has been changed.

    Hours of fun.

  7. well, Duh... by obergfellja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    who do you think has been using Photoshop? The US Gov has given so many lies and cover-ups over this damn war on terror, I would not be surprised if all lies started with image and video editing.

  8. Logical Fallacy by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The logical fallacy is "Al qaeda edited these videos" ... perhaps it should be stated as "Al qaeda videos have been edited" ... you have no idea WHO actually edited them.

    Not that I'm pointing fingers or anything. ahem (wag the dog)

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Logical Fallacy by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your logical fallacy is "Al qaeda videos have been edited"... perhaps it should be stated as "Videos, from a person (apparently) who claims that they are part of Al qaeda, appear to have been edited, according to someone else"

    2. Re:Logical Fallacy by veganboyjosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your logical fallacy is "Videos, from a person (apparently) who claims that they are part of Al qaeda, appear to have been edited, according to someone else"... perhaps it should be stated as "A collection of still images, presumably photographic in nature, from a being, presumably from this planet, known as a 'person', who claims that they are part of Al Qaeda, appear to have been edited, according to another being, presumably also from this planet, also known as a person.

  9. A doctored picture is worth a thousand lies by davidwr · · Score: 4, Funny

    The tricky part is knowing if it's been doctored.

    OB /.ism: In Soviet Russia, propaganda pictures manipulate YOU!

    Oh wait, that was the whole point :(.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  10. Just keeping up with the US press... by will_die · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who needs Al-Qaeda when we already have Reuters and the New York Times??

    1. Re:Just keeping up with the US press... by Starcom8826 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats right. Watch video with a stopwatch in hand. You'll see that they don't fall at 9.81 m/s^2.

    2. Re:Just keeping up with the US press... by dkf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Steel doesn't melt (~2700 degrees F) at temperatures reached by puddles of burning petroleum fuel (~1200 degrees F) You should be aware specifically that while it takes a great deal of heat to melt steel, it takes a lot less to soften it a lot. After all, without that particular feature there wouldn't have been blacksmiths producing steel going back thousands of years (or did you think that the Roman legionaries' gladius was made by casting molten steel?) and hence the fact that a jet-fuel fire softened the steel enough in a high-stress application to cause catastrophic failure is not especially surprising. This sort of thing is a problem in many other buildings made with reinforced concrete that have undergone fires, and is an effect that has been well-known for decades.

      If you're going to be a kook on the topic of the 9/11 collapse, don't use the melting point of steel as part of your argument as it is a factually weak link. It's less damaging to your overall case to ignore this part. :-)
      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    3. Re:Just keeping up with the US press... by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your explanation is pure fantasy.

      Compared to, say, a mass murder plot that would involve hundreds of people at least, and the knowledge of thousands in a government that can't even keep its foreign surveilance programs secret? Compared to a large structure, running 24 hours a day, with an army of building engineers and maintenance people, none of whom noticed people crawling around it placing explosives?

      The overall structure is weakened, but some points more than others.

      NO piece of that structure could stand for a moment without the whole structure being solid. I suppose that bridge in Minnesota, which only took seconds to fall, was also professionally destroyed by men in black working for Dick Cheney?

      The overall structure is weakened, but some points more than others.

      So what? NONE of the structure, minus the substantial parts weakend by heat and stress, are capable of supporting the mass above it. Not even close. I can hold up a 20 pound iron skillet in my kitchen using drinking straws, too. But if one or two buckle, the whole thing comes down. Inertia and gravity have a lot to do with how that plays out, and when you're dealing with colossal masses, and no lateral forces being exerted, down is where things go.

      It encounters resistance if the lower structure is still in place, and that resistance would cause the weight of the upper floors to tumble in other directions, just like a rock rolls down a mountain.

      Other than the fact that this is nothing at all, whatsoever, like that terrible analogy. A rock is a tiny fraction of the mass of the mountain it's rolling down. The mountain isn't made of thin vertical supports, and doesn't have something like the top third of it sitting on top of those thin supports as they buckle. The WTC tower didn't have some solid-rock RAMP (like the side of a mountain) sitting inside them to deflect huges masses from above. The inside of the tower is mostly air. The vertical beams were never designed to hold up accelerating, shock-pounding masses collapsing from above - they were desiged to bear static weight, with the entire structure present to do the job, and to flex ever so subtly in high winds. The mass of the tower above the first sections to buckle were stil holding together (laterally). That makes the "rock" on your "mountain" the same size as your mountain.

      Twice.

      Mysterious! Astounding! It's almost as if... they were built the same way, and suffered pretty much identical damage. And almost as if the tremendous energy involved in the collapse did things like displace big pieces of metal that went crashing across the way into:

      Then WTC7 collapsed for no apparent reason ("fire" my ass).

      Where vertical supports were devasted by lateral-moving wreckage from the tower next door, and little things like generator fuel tanks got nicely peppered by red-hot debris, sparking electrical equipment (including huge battery backups in data facilities in the building). Again: that buidling wasn't designed to stand with important pieces of its central supporting structure weakened. Of COURSE if fell in on itself. What would be amazing would be if it fell any other way.

      So, again: what's your actual agenda, that you're so anxious to cling to this little bit of nonsense? Is it REALLY worth perpetuating that kind of crap just so that your preferred politicians don't have to actually face up to the idealogies that drive the people that actually flew the planes into those structures? How are you on the moon landing, by the way? Loch Ness? Area 51's fleet of alien ships? So much ground to cover! I don't know how you get any sleep.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. Re:Software - Good thing. by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most forensic photography is digital these days and the resulting images run through verification software to prove that they are 'straight from the camera'.

    The SLRs I shoot are Canons and they provide the option of "Add Original Decision Data" in their settings. Combined with Canon's data verification kit any of the images I shoot can be demonstrated to be originals, with minimal in camera image processing.

    And anyone who thinks image alteration in the film world is too hard to undertake to swing a court case can't be taken seriously.

    --
    "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  12. Uh... "Forensic Analysis" my foot by blackdefiance · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So this program does what now? If I look at the images in the article, I'd interpret them as showing the dude's *beard* was added afterwards. That's some serious pixar-render-farm shit that I doubt they're doing in a cave in Pakistan.

    1. Re:Uh... "Forensic Analysis" my foot by Hays · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mod parent up.

      Take off your tin-foil hats long enough to ask how accurate this "forensic analysis" is. Has it been independently verified? Tested with known manipulated videos? The outputs of the forensic analysis don't even look reasonable for these segments.

      There has been some real (peer reviewed) research on detecting digital forgeries by Dr. Hany Farid and his lab at Dartmouth:
      http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~farid/research/tamper ing.html

    2. Re:Uh... "Forensic Analysis" my foot by SpinyNorman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I gotta say that it looks like it's just highlighting the areas of high spatial frequency (i.e. sharp lines), which is where you'd expect the differences to be if you save at a lower quality JPEG level and compare to the original (which is what the article says it's doing). The way JPEG compression works is by throwing away high frequency information away - the lower quality you choose the more is thrown away.

      Hi beard is showing up because it's a mass of fine lines (high freq. info), ditto the text.

  13. Surprise! by cyberjock1980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are we supposed to be shocked? The less 'real' information that is in the video, the less 'real' information that we can gather about them. Because now we're having to figure out which information is real and which information is fake. What about when the fake information isn't caught, and then taken as being real? We go on a wild goose chase wasting time and resources while they laugh at us. If they could CGI the whole thing and air it and it look realistic, they'd do it in a second. Next thing you know the CIA is looking for an imaginary mountain that only exists in the land of make believe.

    It is the entire goal of the terrorists to wear us down to the point where we can no longer maintain ourselves. That's all this game is about now. Just like how communism was defeated in the 80s. We wore down their resources till they couldn't keep up. They are using cheap and easy methods of doing things that costs us ALOT more money just to stay 1/2 a step ahead. Because we are a country and are bound by the ethics of war and Geneva conventions, we are totally screwed. The terrorists are an invisible enemy where they aren't accountable by any ethics. Can you really hold an invisible person accountable for their actions?

    Until the terrorists screw up BIGTIME(ie, nuclear bomb or VERY SIGNIFICANT DISASTER) this is gonna keep going. If the terrorists dropped a nuclear bomb or even a dirty bomb, the world would begin to unite against them alot more. At least, if the elected officials wanted to stay in office they'd have to take a proactive stance against this 'force' that just used a nuclear weapon. The public outcry from it alone would force this effect out of many countries.

    1. Re:Surprise! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe a lot of people would like to question you on your belief that America has acted ethically in the Middle East within the last decade or so.

      America never went to war with communism, it never beat communism, it went to war with Russia, communism much like terror isn't a real thing made of matter, you cannot shoot an ideal, only people who use that ideal to represent themselves (be it true or false).

      I'm sorry to say but you seem to act like these people are pure unrefined evil and just want to destroy America. They aren't some inhuman savage monster, they are people with ideals (no matter how corrupt YOU or I may see them) and they are standing up to America in the only way they can. You can bet if someone invaded America in 50 years time and America no longer had the military power to fight "the right way" *ahem* then they would use the exact same tactics and skills. Not to mention it was America who taught these groups to fight in the first place. They used these people and then dropped them like a bad habit, they aren't raving madmen as you portray them, but nor are they heroic freedom fighters either, they are people living their lives how they see best. Judge them how you wish, but don't forget they are human beings just like we are.

      --
      I like muppets.
    2. Re:Surprise! by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry to say but you seem to act like these people are pure unrefined evil and just want to destroy America. They aren't some inhuman savage monster, they are people with ideals (no matter how corrupt YOU or I may see them) and they are standing up to America in the only way they can.

      That's an appropriately lefty, liberal way to look at it, but I take issue with this point.

      Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. That wasn't about fighting back at America. That was about seizing power over an entire population. Yes, you could say that it was in the name of "ideals," but the truth is that people who seek power do it because they want the power, not the ideal.

      You see the same thing in Iraq right now, with the civil war. For a lot of the so-called insurgents, job #1 is not striking back at America. It's gaining control of Iraq. Will they go after the West after that? Probably. But to say that everything Arab extremists do in the Middle East is an understandable response to Western aggression is just silly.

      These are power games at work. The average citizens of Iraq are the ones caught in the middle. Yes, the U.S. has shamed itself in the region. But the Islamic agitators are no better.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  14. I don't think so .. by rs232 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "There was a report several years ago that the US had used the rock outcroppings behind Osama in one of his videos to attempt to locate him. I wonder if some of these modifications are made to make locating them more difficult?"

    He could have been taken when the CIA met with Bin Landin at the American Hospital two months before 9/11 or when the FBI met with Bin Landin in California in 1986.

    was: Re:Done for their safety?

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  15. Damn subtitles! by dark-br · · Score: 4, Funny

    So he doesn't have those subtitles in real life? Crap, that means the whole strategy to finding him will have to be changed once again!

  16. Proves what we already suspected? by fantomas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that this "global terrorist organisation" that George Bush and Tony Blair have imagined after watching too many James Bond movies is nothing more than a loosely connected rabble of disaffected extremists who've picked a brand name to make themselves seem bigger and more scary?

    Far from some Spielberg-like ILM production house operating in Dr. Evil's secret volcano (see, err, heck I've forgotten which Bond movie, the one with Little Nellie), actually the videos are knocked up by a couple of spotty radicalised teenagers in the backroom of an internet cafe in downtown Kabul. Who in return get to hang out with a bunch of extremists who tell them they are doing vital work, that Western civilisation is about to crumble into the sea as a result, let them fire off a few rounds from a couple of AK47s in the hills and tell them that they are part of the gang now. We just put up with London Underground taking the litter bins out and asking us to take our rubbish home with us.

    Forgive the cynicism but after the British authorities declared the country I'm in (the UK) to be on it's "most critical" alert status after a couple of idiots drove a flaming vehicle into a pillar in Glasgow airport, staggered out on fire and promptly got punched out by passers by and off duty coppers, the level of hype is starting to get wearing. We've just finished with 40 years of the IRA blowing up chunks of our country and killing rather a lot of people and nobody felt the need to issue "most critical" warnings then.

    1. Re:Proves what we already suspected? by Paladin144 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But, but... but... what if some ignorant American calls you a "conspiracy theorist" for being able to see through the lies? How will you sleep at night?!

      For anybody who doesn't know what fantomas is alluding to in the post above, I urge you to download and watch the excellent BBC program The Power of Nightmares. It turns out that if you actually look closely at al Qaeda the whole thing unravels. OBL and Zawahiri are a bunch of losers, complete phonies and probably employed by the CIA and/or MI6.

      Everybody knows Bin Laden worked for the CIA (through the Pakistani ISI proxy) during the 80's during the fight against the Soviets. Nobody seems to know when he stopped working for them. .... IF he stopped working for them.

  17. Re:is this image doctored? by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course it's doctored. Everyone knows that ceremony takes place at dawn. Sheesh. ;-)

  18. They also use outlook for email.... by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    During a video with Adam Gadahn I almost bust a gut laughing as a Microsoft Outlook email notification box popped up in the bottom right hand corner of the screen. I mean come on guys, you expect me to take you seriously but you use Outlook? Down with America, but we love the products their mega-corporations produce!

  19. Re:But Al-Qaeda doesn't exist... by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While it is true that Al-Qaeda was originally a US invention with little base in reality, many organizations has since adapted the name and the cause, creating a real version of the US invented nightmare. Bin Laden may not have anything to do with these organizations, and the organizations nothing to do with each other, but it is a global movement and cause now.

  20. Re:Stego by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, the NSA has done significant steganographic analysis of the videos.
    They found the hidden subtext: 'BUY MORE OVALTINE'

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  21. Hanlon's Razor by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, I'd guess there's also a bit of a case of Hanlon's Razor: "Don't attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    There was this whine a long time ago on The Register, by an (ex) professional media photograph. Apparently his job was about to go the way of the dodo, because more and more newspapers were trying to cut costs by just buying images for almost nothing from either amateurs on the web, or from agencies selling thousands of photos for pennies. (And don't think those send photographers all over the globe to take photos after each and every event, because that would cost a lot more.)

    In other words: it's becoming little more than clip art. If you're writing an article about Baghdad, you find the cheapest picture claiming to be from Baghdad, and put it on the page. If you're writing about Al Qaeda, you do the same with a pic claiming to have anything to do with Al Qaeda. Etc.

    'Course, especially with pictures selected off Photocommunity and the like, for a couple of bucks, you never know what you're _really_ getting. It could be that someone photographed the demolition of an old mall in Elbonia and is hawking it as the aftermath of the tsunami in East Bumfuckistan. How would you know? (And probably a better question is: would they even care, if they knew?)

    Briefly, it doesn't have to be manipulation. Or if it is, it doesn't have to be by the newspaper. If a joker posted that image as proof of his l33t photoshop skills, or if such a photos-by-the-dozen agency took a shortcut and photoshopped a photo just so they could sell something about an event... well, chances are the newspaper staff wouldn't even know.

    I guess it's just what this general craze to reduce costs leads to. A lot of time the obvious way to reduce costs is to reduce quality. In this case, also add total lack of quality control, since they don't actually have someone there who could check if things are like in the photo. You can expect a lot of junk to go through undetected.

    And, btw, if you thought only the photos were fake, you'd be surprised how many of the _articles_ are bogus stuff written by a PR agency and disguised as news.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Hanlon's Razor by itchy92 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and is hawking it as the aftermath of the tsunami in East Bumfuckistan. How would you know?

      Well, that's easy: East Bumfuckistan isn't coastal. You're thinking of West Bumfuckistan.

      --
      Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
  22. Imbedded image encryption by testpoint · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is the feasibility of an encryption partnership between camera, flash memory and photo-editing companies?

    The basic idea would be to provide public-key encryption imbedded in the original image. Photos submitted for publication could then provide the original encryption key from either the camera or memory to verify authenticity. Altered photos would no longer match the encryption key.

  23. Re:Just wipe out the Exif? by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a good few:

    http://isis.poly.edu/~forensics/pubs/icme2007.pdf

    http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/Luk FriSPIE06_v9.pdf

    http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/dou ble.pdf

    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10206/32570/101109 TIFS2006873602.pdf?arnumber=101109TIFS2006873602

    The actual signatures can be retrieved from signal processing methods. I wouldn't have believed that each
    camera has its own unique signature (although I have noticed that one or two pixels will be fixed to a particular colour), and that this can be recovered even after JPEG compression.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. Re:Software - Good thing. by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You might also check out the research of Hany Farid, a CS researcher at Dartmouth who has come up with algorithms to detect if an image has been doctored.

  26. All the Images are Disinfo / PsyOps by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Created so that you hate Emmanuel Goldstein.

    They are the product of western "intelligence agencies" - which invented Al-CIAda for their own purposes, out of their own semi-retired ant-soviet "assets" in the late 90's.

    War on terror? Keep on paying for that war against yourself! Meanwhile ,your bridges collapse under your feet and your cities drown - and your phone is tapped.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:All the Images are Disinfo / PsyOps by Deskpoet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As I write this, your post has been modded down to -1, Troll. There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with moderation here on Slashdot. It's becoming almost worthless....

      All of which is to say: you're absolutely right. Photoshop has been around and available to just about anyone for nearly 20 years. Beyond the fallacy of the image, why anyone would look at a print of any kind, regardless of source, and proclaim it to be "real" is beyond me. Here, the underlying premise is those Evil Arabs are doing it--while airbrushed photo ops here are glorious, real exchanges of meaning without a hint of "evil" to be seen. Yes, it's flag-waving at its finest, but worse, it shows how gullible people are today. And that you were modded so far down for recognizing this just shows how *angry* those gullible people are when their precious illusions are called into question.....

      --
      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
  27. Osama bin Laden has been shopping his pic by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Funny

    After weeks of analysis and consulting with experts I've found that all images of Osama bin Laden have been digitally altered to hide his identity. Here is what he really looks like.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  28. what's next? by jafac · · Score: 3, Funny

    LOLJIHADIS?

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  29. Maybe ... by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... they lifted his image from video of his stint guest hosting The View.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  30. Won't work by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It won't work. If just having the means to prove something were actually enough to convince the faithful... well, how do you explain the southern USA?

    It's not just a jab at the fine bible-thumping guys and gals down there, though. It happens the same everywhere. Europe had its own counter-enlightenment movement, waaaay back. As in, a couple of centuries back. That's really what happens when you assault someone's beliefs hard enough: he'll just switch to block-head mode.

    If it's truly a believer you don't just have to push hard enough until his defenses crumble and he goes, "omg, I've been blind for so long, I've seen the light now." It's more like the Dune shields: the harder you push, the more resistance you get. And if you're doing an all out fast assault, expect to meet a (mental) immovable wall. And more than a good dose of hostility. It'll get nowhere.

    You have to go slowly and nicely if you want to get anywhere.

    (The same applies to culture, to some extent, btw. If you try to change a culture at gun point, expect a lot of resistance, and when it changes it will be in the direction you don't expect. It's a bit like trying to twist a gyroscope.)

    Plus, humans generally can act... well, like small children. If they like you, they'll believe every word you say, and if they dislike you, they'll try to spite you and contradict you.

    The rise of fundamentalist islamism can be traced mostly to the above two factors. The middle east has been shafted _hard_ by the western powers and partially by Israel. So a lot of people rallied around those waving a "fuck the West!" banner. Add to that a lot of (perceived) sneering and outright hostility to their religion, and they'll just rally harder to defend it.

    It's just human nature, and the west did the same in similar situations.

    And the lack of dialog sure doesn't help either. Each time someone there actually tries to say what _is_ their problem, the west goes "la la la, I'm not hearing anything" or "they're probably rambling about their false god or something." It's the perfect recipe to keep the hostility going.

    At any rate, IMHO just adding more force to that already disastrous recipe won't do any good. You may think that just giving them more proof that you're right and they're wrong is just what's needed to finally make their mental defenses crumble, but see what I've said before: it's IMHO already at the point where increasing the pressure just increases the resistance.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  31. photoshopping vs videoshopping by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Video is still kind of difficult to alter like these photos were, but it's certainly possible for someone with the resources of a government of international organization behind them.

    Although I totally agree with you, I must point out government-level resources are not required to reasonably fake video. Remember the movie Kung Pow? Amazing work done in that film placing modern actors in an old kung-fu flick. The budget was only around $10 million USD, and that was for a complete movie. Imagine how little it would cost to get the same effects for a clip only a few minutes long? A professional studio is all you need to make something convincing enough to fool anyone other than video experts, probably any news studio could do it. Scary, really.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  32. err who says it was Al-Qaeda? by smash · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ... and not the CIA?

    For all we know, Al-Qaeda doesn't even exist, and the US government has filmed a bunch of gumbies in front of a green screen to put out the new terror video to remind you that you're supposed to be scared, and that the next new law that takes away your freedoms is really needed...

    Please... given the possible motives behind 9/11, the amount of dodgy claims that defy the laws of physics, etc... I'd be taking any news about terrorism fed to you with a big serving of salt.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.