Sentinel
Premium
join:2001-02-07
Florida
| reply to swhx7
Re: Digital camera a security risk?
I would say that TO ME this is not a very big deal except for two things...
1. The thumbnail issue. IF (and this is a big if because I haven't ran across it yet) you have a camera that takes big thumbnails that can be enlarged, then it is bad because if you crop a picture or cover something in a picture someone could possibly still see the original image. I think this is a valid concern from a security perspective as I think has been shown.
However most cameras take very small thumbnails and as such those thumbnails get very very pixilated when enlarged. So much so that there is no detail what so ever. But still it may be enough to show information or detail that you may not wish to show.
2. There seems to be a lot of *unknown* data in there that no one, so far, has been able to definitively show what it is. While I don't think that any of that code is important you never know. I don't like unknown quantities 
However I feel that if you could read that code it would probably image or camera information.
Now with regards to #1 above, if a program like PhotoShop or similar could reconstruct the original image in original size before any manipulation of the image was done, from that code or thumbnail then that could be a big problem. But from my informal tests with other image software I don't see any way to do that. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to AB
It's not a concern for me in regard to any situation I've been in. If it were a concern, I would just strip the EXIF data.
These are possibilities to be aware of. It could be valuable information for bloggers in repressive countries, for example. |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| reply to swhx7
said by swhx7  :said by AB :Well, that's even more info. I still see nothing there that would particularly help me personally identify anyone, though. What's that "makernote"? Many or most cameras put the serial number in the EXIF data. With the serial number, it would not be easy for an individual to find out about the camera owner, but law enforcement, other government agencies or some good PIs could. The buyer could be identified if it was registered with the serial number on a warranty card; or if the model, sale date and store are known and the store recorded serial numbers of its stock and the buyer paid with a card; or if the investigator has a photo known to be from the same camera or the same person; rebate records; extended warranty registrations; store video; etc.. Some of this is marginal, but at a minimum photos from the same camera could be matched up. If that's truly a concern to you, I recommend you swing by the grocery store. Tinfoil is usually around aisle 4.
I'm an Alcoa man, myself.
said by AB :. . Certain data seems somewhat useless or pointless to attempt to prevent someone from having. It's too easy to get, and it hardly matters anyway. There is data that needs strong protection, data that needs a modicum of protection, and data that you might prefer to protect in the best of all possible worlds, but it ain't gonna happen in this real world we live in. . . . . . don't thrust at windmills. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Bob1234
said by AB :Well, that's even more info. I still see nothing there that would particularly help me personally identify anyone, though.
What's that "makernote"?
Many or most cameras put the serial number in the EXIF data. With the serial number, it would not be easy for an individual to find out about the camera owner, but law enforcement, other government agencies or some good PIs could.
The buyer could be identified if it was registered with the serial number on a warranty card; or if the model, sale date and store are known and the store recorded serial numbers of its stock and the buyer paid with a card; or if the investigator has a photo known to be from the same camera or the same person; rebate records; extended warranty registrations; store video; etc.. Some of this is marginal, but at a minimum photos from the same camera could be matched up. |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| reply to ChrisJack
said by ChrisJack :Just because the picture doesn't contain information useful to you or I, doesn't mean it isn't damning to someone else. For example, in this picture, she may have said that she wasn't out with what's his name and edited the picture to just her. . . . Well . . could you blame her? |
|
ChrisJack
Premium
join:2006-03-31
32542-1337
clubs:
| reply to AB
Just because the picture doesn't contain information useful to you or I, doesn't mean it isn't damning to someone else.
For example, in this picture, she may have said that she wasn't out with what's his name and edited the picture to just her.
just my thought...
~~Chris |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| reply to ChrisJack
said by ChrisJack :..Exifer had this to show... Well, that's even more info. I still see nothing there that would particularly help me personally identify anyone, though.
I could give you all the tech specs of my computer, and you know that I'm using it right now and have an idea of approximately where I might be using it from.
That would be more personal-type info than in that photo, yet you still don't know who I am or are able to steal any truly personal info from me.
Certain data seems somewhat useless or pointless to attempt to prevent someone from having. It's too easy to get, and it hardly matters anyway.
There is data that needs strong protection, data that needs a modicum of protection, and data that you might prefer to protect in the best of all possible worlds, but it ain't gonna happen in this real world we live in.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, don't fail to see the forest for the trees, don't thrust at windmills.
Give 10% of the effort for 95% of the benefit, as a Great Pontificator has recently said. 
Also don't tug on Superman's cape and don't forget to brush after meals. |
|
ChrisJack
Premium
join:2006-03-31
32542-1337
clubs:
| reply to AB
Ah, ok...Exifer had this to show...
~~Chris |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| reply to ChrisJack
said by ChrisJack :AB, what program did you use? Windows Explorer. |
|
ChrisJack
Premium
join:2006-03-31
32542-1337
clubs: | reply to AB
AB, what program did you use?
~~Chris |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| reply to ChrisJack
Lotta info on that thumbnail. Nothing that's especially in any way personally identifying, however.
Now, the photograph itself is a different story. |
|
ChrisJack
Premium
join:2006-03-31
32542-1337
clubs:
1 edit | reply to Bob1234
Trying to cut someone out, check out the thumbnail on this one »www.frogview.com/show1.php?file=3630
~~Chris
--
Shit Happens! It's what you do afterwards that counts! |
|
BandHeight
join:2004-08-30
Portland, TX
| reply to caffeinator
said by caffeinator :I have, and been threatened with suit for using a photoshopped photo of a model I had a release for and was promoting...but she didnt talk to her photog..he didnt approve and he had rights, not her. Was a mess. I do know. -CaFF Oh, my god. That was you.
Seriously, models releasing photos to web sites to promote themselves (which is what they are all about) happens quite often. However, I have never had to threaten to sue. In all such cases, I simply sent an e-mail to the web owner explaining ownership, and the images were immediately removed. I know this can't always be the case.
Often, my problem with these breaches is not necessarily the use of the photo itself for such purposes, but the lack of quality control. Most of this stuff gets scanned with crappy equipment, is Photoshopped by a color-blind monkey, and then compressed within an inch of its life before being posted. In some cases, I have offered to replace the "junked" image with one prepared by me. |
|
BandHeight
join:2004-08-30
Portland, TX
1 edit | reply to NetFixer
said by NetFixer :I suspect that you have never had to deal with people who take your copyrighted images, crop it slightly, perhaps adjust the contrast or color balance, remove imbedded copyright data and watermarks, and claim it to be their original work.  You suspect wrong, but that doesn't matter.
Your example suggests I could still recognize the image as my own, and as I said, in that case (the only case where it matters), I have better evidence than watermarks or embedded Exif data to prove the image is mine. I would never post a valuable image online (or otherwise release it) unless I was certain I could prove ownership in case of unauthorized use.
My whole point is that I don't rely on Exif data and such for the proof.
To address watermarking, which has more credence here than Exif data, I have used Digimarc, and while the actual watermarking technology works fine, the process used for identifying online instances of the images was less reliable than stumbling upon them myself. |
|
caffeinator
Coming soon to a cup near you..
Premium
join:2005-01-16
Spokane, WA
 ·WebBand
| reply to NetFixer
I have, and been threatened with suit for using a photoshopped photo of a model I had a release for and was promoting...but she didnt talk to her photog..he didnt approve and he had rights, not her.
Was a mess.
I do know.
-CaFF |
|
NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
Murfreesboro, TN
 ·Vonage
·AT&T Southeast
 ·Cingular Wireless
·AT&T CallVantage
1 edit | reply to BandHeight
said by BandHeight :I see your point about such a possibility, but I couldn't justify a direct accusation of criminality based on the OPs posts. The most obvious argument against your theory as absolute is that the image itself is, presumably, to be posted after all the junk the OP desires to be removed has been stripped / obfuscated (or modified). The image itself would be the best evidence that it belonged to the OP or whether it had been stolen from someone else, wouldn't it? And if he has modified the appearance of the image beyond any resemblance to the original, what copyright has been violated? I suspect that you have never had to deal with people who take your copyrighted images, crop it slightly, perhaps adjust the contrast or color balance, remove imbedded copyright data and watermarks, and claim it to be their original work.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
3 edits | reply to Bob1234
There can be reasons to conceal the origin of a photo, other than trying to get away with copyright infringement. For example, someone who photographed police brutality could be in danger or physical attack or arrest (on invented charges) if the photo was traced to him/her.
Edit: I'm not saying this applies to anyone in this thread, just that in principle there can be various reasons including good ones. |
|
Bob1234
@secureserver.net
| reply to Bob1234
NetFixer, it is true that I may not have a reputation on this forum as established as yours due to my anonymity, but I honestly see no grounds for such an accusation of copyright infringement based solely on my posts. Let me quote you:
"Did you read the post? Do you have an alternate explanation for why someone would be so concerned that someone else could tell that the image had been modified and/or be able to identify the original source of the image?"
First of all, my initial concern, as can be seen in my original post was related to potential vulnerabilities in my camera. At this point I knew nothing about metadata or any of the other information embedded in a picture; it was only through the input of DSLR members that I learned this and sought to explore the issue further. For some reason, you seem to believe that obfuscating the original method by which an image was created would lead to copyright infringement.
Do you even know the context in which I might post my images online, or even what images I might be posting? When you post online, do you want someone to know who you are? There is a reason we all use forum names, as opposed to our real names. What if I want to post a picture linked to my alias, but not to my real name? Am I now guilty of intellectual property theft?
Given your claim that you are "someone who earns part of his living from royalties and licensing fees", I find this particularly disturbing. Do you truly think that taking a copyrighted image and stripping out the means by which that image was created would make that image mine? Even if I reconstruct the picture pixel by pixel from scratch, that still would be theft. It isn't how the picture was created that makes it copyrighted, but the content in the picture itself. This is something you don't seem to understand. As BandHeight made clear, a file date or embedded camera-make tag isn't really sufficient proof.
By the way, there are many reasons why one might want to hide the fact that a picture has been edited. For example, a family photo that has been edited to better reflect the occasion or to fix some problems might cause significant embarassment in the wrong moments.
It is true that I am conscious of my security and privacy, but I don't see this as reason to accuse me of criminal activity. Very few issues are as simple as black and white these days. Before pronouncing me guilty, I suggest you first take a look at the other side of the coin. =) |
|
rosco
Premium
join:2003-11-10
USA
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to NetFixer
yes I read the post, several times actually, trying to see what immediatley sent you down the path of suspecting this guy was doing something illegal.
And I still see nothing to indicate that he is doing anything to rip anyone off.
It sounds to me like concern for identifiable information in pictures taken by Bob1234. |
|
BandHeight
join:2004-08-30
Portland, TX
| reply to NetFixer
said by NetFixer :As someone who earns part of his living from royalties and licensing fees, that post raises too many red flags for me to just ignore the dark side implications. I see your point about such a possibility, but I couldn't justify a direct accusation of criminality based on the OPs posts.
The most obvious argument against your theory as absolute is that the image itself is, presumably, to be posted after all the junk the OP desires to be removed has been stripped / obfuscated (or modified). The image itself would be the best evidence that it belonged to the OP or whether it had been stolen from someone else, wouldn't it? And if he has modified the appearance of the image beyond any resemblance to the original, what copyright has been violated?
Any images I have ever posted have been color-corrected or otherwise Photoshop'd, are usually compressed (it's not practical to post 200MB 6x7 images), and I am the only one with the original film image or RAW file. I don't care what metadata may or may not be in the online image, if a copyright violation is worth pursuing, you will want to have more proof of ownership in your possession than an embedded camera-make tag or file date.
And, in all cases where I have posted images, I always strip the metadata as a matter of course (unless it was specifically to demonstrate certain Exif properties, or I screwed up and something slipped out without the tags being removed). It's just something I do.
I realize the OP has gone beyond a simple interest in Exif data, but the same principles as outlined above apply. I think. Maybe he just wants to be sure that his posts to www.nophotoshop.com aren't revealed as having been manipulated, or he's concerned that his buddies at www.i_shoot_wildlife_with_a_canon_600L.com don't find out he's been shooting decoys with a Canon PowerShot.
--
By the way, I mentioned Exiftool in my earlier post as an alternative to Exifer, but I did not mention this GUI-frontend:
»freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/e···lgui.htm
I have not used the third-party GUI, so I can't vouch for it, but Exiftool is an outstanding tool, and the developer of the GUI says he had these goals in mind, which look good:
-view all metadata that ExifTool recognizes,
-ability to edit most frequently used Exif, IPTC and XMP metadata tags,
-have option to do some basic editing in batch.
|
|
