Digital photos for forensic evidence

Of course it is fiction. However, they do have specialists on their that try
to keep as much as possible in the real world. That is why they switched
from using digital cameras to film ones. They got a lot of flack for that.

I suspect in the next 10 to 15 years the technology will be available so
that digital cameras can't be used without having to jump through a whole
lot of hopes. One answer to this would be inexpensive single use memory
cards. The images can be read off of them, but they can't be erased,
formatted or altered on the memory card. You would basically use one card or
so for each case and these would be your negatives. Without the ability to
alter or erase the images they would be as good a negatives.

Robert

Alfred Molon wrote:
Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.
--
I thought that it wouldn't be too difficult to put a digital signature
into each photo, and you would need to tamper with the camera to try to
read the keys, if you wanted to fake a photo. If the method was smart
enough it would withstand some manipulation.

I read that printers print their serial numbers.


Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E500 resource - http://myolympus.org/E500/

I retired from the Essex UK Police a few years ago, and they were just
trialling Nikons for SOCO (Scenes of Crime Officer work) The system (as was
explained to me!) was that the camera was downloaded via special equipment
straight to CD rom, and the SOCO never even got to see the images!! until
they came back from independent processing.
Two points here, first the SOCO whilst they are a branch of the police
service, were not involved in the investigation in any other way, thereby
preserving a little independent credibility (I'm sure that CSI Miami would
not be allowed to get involved with suspects either except purely in a
forensic way)
And secondly, as pointed out in earlier threads, Everything introduced in
evidence in a criminal court, has to be produced by a witness who can swear
to its veracity, bear in mind that the best evidence is still regarded as
being direct evidence from an eye witness, presumably the same in the US?

Out of interest the Nikons were taken out of service as they were regarded
as not robust or reliable enough! this is a few years ago now and I don't
know what they were replaced with (from a personal point of view I hope it
was with Canons!!)

The system (as was explained to me!) was that the camera was downloaded
via special equipment straight to CD rom, and the SOCO never even got to
see the images!!

This sounds like the system used by a SOCO who visited my house a year or so
back. That's in Berkshire, England (Reading area).

I wondered the same thing (are digital images too easy to modify) when the
UK passport office accepted the self portrait which now adorns my passport.

Keith

In article ,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= wrote:
Alfred Molon writes:

Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.

Film photos can also be altered. The validity of a photo as evidence
is entirely down to the amount lawyer/judge/jury gullibility in each
case.



beg to differ.

As I understand it, a photo only gets to be considered as evidence if
the original photographer testifies that is as an accurate depiction
of reality, or someting to that effect. If someone photoshops a pic
and says it is real he would be commiting purjury.




--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Alfred Molon wrote:
Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.
I had a chat to a scene-of-crime investigating officer on this topic
recently. He was using a pentax 67 MF SLR and slide film to record
information about the crime scene. He said that the courts would accept
digital images, but they were considered not as reliable - someone
presenting a digital image would be subject to a lot more scrutiny than
someone presenting a slide, and if there was even the slightest hint of
modification, or that someone may have had the opportunity to tamper
with the image, the image would be considered inadmissible.

I have also spoken to police who have bought digital cameras to carry
with them. They said that in most cases they wouldn't even bother
submitting the images as evidence, as proving the legitimacy of the
image would be nigh on impossible. Instead they use them to keep their
memory fresh (bearing in mind that it can sometimes be a couple of years
before an issue goes to court). Likewise most of them carry digital
voice recorders - in many cases the recorded conversations are
inadmissible as evidence, but they help keep the officer's memory of the
situation fresh.

(Al Dykes) writes:

In article ,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= wrote:
Alfred Molon writes:

Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.

Film photos can also be altered. The validity of a photo as evidence
is entirely down to the amount lawyer/judge/jury gullibility in each
case.


beg to differ.

As I understand it, a photo only gets to be considered as evidence if
the original photographer testifies that is as an accurate depiction
of reality, or someting to that effect. If someone photoshops a pic
and says it is real he would be commiting purjury.

It still happens. Killing people is also illegal, but that too
happens.

--
Måns Rullgård

Al Dykes wrote:

If someone photoshops a pic and says it is real he would be commiting purjury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testilying

There is also the matter that unless said person was personally in
charge of the bits, he can say _nothing_ about whether an image has
been edited or not. Why not just call random strangers to testify?

There are extremely simple to implement, radically robust technological
solutions to all of these problems. But of course, the Law isn't
interested: that would make life more difficult for the government.

Graham Fountain wrote:

I have also spoken to police who have bought digital cameras to carry
with them. They said that in most cases they wouldn't even bother
submitting the images as evidence, as proving the legitimacy of the
image would be nigh on impossible. Instead they use them to keep their
memory fresh (bearing in mind that it can sometimes be a couple of years
before an issue goes to court). Likewise most of them carry digital
voice recorders - in many cases the recorded conversations are
inadmissible as evidence, but they help keep the officer's memory of the
situation fresh.

Also known as "tampering with evidence", the usual route the State
takes when in a bind. I mean, who can say what that recording was,
when it was made, context or other matters? And maybe the cop's
"memory refresh image" was carefully photoslopped to provide a false
memory years later in court? These are clearly trivial matters when a
successful prosecution is on the line!!!

Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= wrote:
Alfred Molon writes:

Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.
Film photos can also be altered. The validity of a photo as evidence
is entirely down to the amount lawyer/judge/jury gullibility in each
case.



beg to differ.

As I understand it, a photo only gets to be considered as evidence if
the original photographer testifies that is as an accurate depiction
of reality, or someting to that effect. If someone photoshops a pic
and says it is real he would be commiting purjury.




There is also a careful attention to 'chain of custody' just as in the
case of any kind of evidence.