Slashdot Mirror


Interpol Unscrambles Doctored Photo In Manhunt

jackpot777 writes in with an AP story out of Paris reporting that Interpol has distributed photos of a man suspected of sexually exploiting children. The images were recovered from pictures taken off the Internet in which the man's face had been blurred using something like Photoshop's Filter > Distort > Twirl tool. German police were able to recover recognizable images of the man, whose identity and nationality are not known. Interpol would not discuss the techniques used to recover the images. jackpot777 writes: "It does show one interesting facet of internet privacy that has also been noted with topics ranging from reading blurred check numbers in images to Google's plan to blur out license plate and face data for Street View. And that is: blurring is not the same as completely obscuring. As computers become more adept at extrapolating data of different types, your identity isn't safe unless you completely cover all those identifying features."

10 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Pictures by avij · · Score: 5, Informative

    The pictures can be seen on Interpol's site.

    --

    Follow your Euro bills at EBT
  2. Amazing technology by alx5000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Amazing, indeed

    --
    My 0.02 cents
    1. Re:Amazing technology by DaveCar · · Score: 5, Funny

      It doesn't work that well. They guy on the left looks all wonky and strange.

  3. Super-sekr1t unblurring techniques by acb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely Interpol's top-secret image-unblurring technology is just a matter of applying the Twirl effect in the opposite direction at the same location, and perhaps applying some image-enhancement plug-ins to the resulting area? I doubt it's anything one couldn't do with off-the-shelf software.

    1. Re:Super-sekr1t unblurring techniques by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The AP article did mention that AP were able to produce an almost recognizable image using commercially available photo editing software but not a good as the one Interpol had produced.

      Wild ass guess ahead...

      Interpol geeks probably ran some tests to determine approximately how much twirl was applied to the original image and then created a 24bit image slightly larger than the twirled area assigning a unique 24 bit value to each pixel and then applied the same amount of twirl.

      They could then look at the twirled test image and come up with a mapping of twirled pixels to untwirled pixels. This information could be used to "untwirl" the original image by grabbing the pixels at the twirled coordinates and moving them back to where the mapping says they probably originated.

      Of course there would be some pixels lost and extra pixels created during the original twirling but chances are the original image could be approximated fairly well by interpolating between the recovered pixels. You'd not get a picture perfect result but something somewhat blurry as can be seen in the recovered pixels.

      Of course they might have done something more mathematical but if I was going to try this myself I'd probably just give the method I described above a shot first and see if I came up with something looking like a face.

    2. Re:Super-sekr1t unblurring techniques by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Amazing! I tried it too. Did the twirl thing as far as it would go then used "undo" to reverse it and you really could not spot any difference AT ALL!

    3. Re:Super-sekr1t unblurring techniques by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's why when I need to obscure a face (when working on images for a medical journal) I use the mosaic filter after running a heavy gausian blur --- leaves something recognizable as a face, but w/ too little information to reconstruct even a postage stamp (~10 x 16 pixels).

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  4. Blurring different from twirling... by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 5, Informative

    A twirl is essentially shifting pixels around an image, and is designed to keep as much information as possible.

    A blur on the other hand, especially a gaussian blur, will mix pixels together in such a way that any recovered image will be one of many possible outcomes.

    Then again, removing information, by pixellating for example, would be best.

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:Blurring different from twirling... by ultrasound · · Score: 5, Funny

      Surely the most effective filter would be a GIMP mask?

  5. Re:Hardly Rocket Science by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I showed this to my PS using friend and he shurgged, said 'Just do a radial blur in the opposite direction' and 30 seconds later had a picture about 80-90% as good as the one they're waving about as being the result of some super secret methodology.
    It does strike me as a bit stupid explaining it all - now crims will just use better techniques for blurring themselves out. The media, law enforcement agencies are doing this more and more and it's insane - "we just had an idea for a terrorist attack that might happen and here it is in full", "This is foresnic evidence that allowed us to catch the crim" and so on.


    Yup, they spun it (pun intended) into cheap PR. The problem is, it's not that they are super smart, it's that the criminal was super stupid.

    And it'll make anyone with basic image processing skills question their overall expertise if they'd brag about untwirl.

    That said, the average folk will definitely be impressed. I knew a guy who inverted his photo in attempt to protect his identity (no, he didn't molest children). Imagine his shock when I took the inverted photo, inverted it again arriving at the original.

    To him I'm probably some sorta super genius who used sophisticated data restoration hack. To a guy with basic knowledge, it's nothing worth noting.

    To see how blur can restore detail not visible to the naked eye, check out Focus Magic. Not as easy as untwirl, but gives you an idea. This is because the blur distribution (usually gaussian if digital, or linear with cameras) gives away the possible origin position of the pixels.

    If you pixelize however, with big enough square, you lose real resolution and that's much harder to restore anything interesting out of (it's not like in movies, with the unlimited extrapolation techniques, as we all know).

    Other gotchas: covering with black rectangle but leaving it only 1-2% transparent. Looks solid, but data can be recovered.

    And a very common other method: people keep leaving their name and camera model in the meta info of the image. Easy to check out via right-click>Properties in Windows.

    PS: it was "twirl", not "radial blur" btw.