How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?

Davoud:
For what "nefarious purposes" do you think people might use your EXIF?

A. Beck:
What if, say, I posted to LinkedIn, my photo, taken from my living
room.

Would I really want the entire world to know exactly where I live?

Mr. Beck, you really, /really/ need to get off the Internet. It's got
you frightened to death.

Davoud --

9472,-76.6592944,715m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:56:22 +0000 (UTC)
Lewis wrote:

Okay, so one time? In band camp? A. Beck. was
all, like:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:05:10 -0400, Davoud wrote:

For what "nefarious purposes" do you think people might use your
EXIF?

What if, say, I posted to LinkedIn, my photo, taken from my living
room.

Would I really want the entire world to know exactly where I live?

What is your point?

Yes, your digital cameras record exif data. Yes, if you share that
data with others they can see the efix data. if this bothers you,
DON'T share that data.

You've been told many many methods to strip the efix data. Pick one.

This has been another fun game of Why don't you - Yes, but...

--
Wildman GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:56:22 +0000, Lewis wrote:

You've been told many many methods to strip the efix data. Pick one.

The question was never *how* to strip EXIF data (that's easy).
I habitually stripped EXIF data well before I ever posted the question.

How to remove exif data:
================================================== ==
$ sudo apt-get install imagemagick

$ convert -strip pic.jpg pic_sansexif.jpg

$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; convert -strop $i $i; done
================================================== ==
$ sudo apt-get install exiftool libimage-exiftool-perl

$ exiftool -all= foo.jpg

$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; exiftool -all= "$i"; done
================================================== ==
$ sudo apt-get install jhead

$ jhead -purejpg *.jpg

$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; jhead -purejpg $i; done
================================================== ==
I don't know how to remove EXIF with exiftran (do you?).

$ sudo apt-get install exiftran
================================================== ==
(I'm not sure the sytax to use the "rm" option to remove EXIF data)

$ sudo apt-get install exiv2

$ exiv2 -rm pic.jpg pic.jpg ???
================================================== ==

In article , says...

Martin Brown:
You have to assume that any metadata like EXIF or text you post into the
internet will be scanned by malevolent agents now or in the future.

Who are these malevolent agents? Why would they care that I made this
photograph of a butterfly
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15335834362/in/photostream at
my home at 39°04'40.61" N 76° 39' 33.46" W? Is that information useful
to ISIS? CIA? NSA? FBI? All three agencies are nearby, and they all
know where I live. So?

On 2014.10.28, 19:42 , Davoud wrote:

to ISIS? CIA? NSA? FBI? All three agencies are nearby, and they all
know where I live. So?

While 99.9999% of the information collected is useless, there is
something in there useful to someone regarding someone else.

That 0.00001 % is the Paydirt.

It is so cheap to collect the data and so cheap to keep the data that it
is 'profitable' in the long term. (Profitable may mean money wise,
tactically, politically ...) And it's only getting easier and cheaper.

--
Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.”
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.”
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA

On 2014-10-30, Don Bruder wrote:
In article , "PAS"
wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"PAS" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
Actually, you're the one who's wrong. The words "You grant..." and
"...right to use..." are all thats required to legally allow them (Any

Well, not quite. It depends on the words around those phrases as to what
it is you grant them. For example you could simply grant them the right
to store your photos on their computer and the right to make backups of
that storage. Or you could grant them the exclusive right to sell your
photos, and right to use could equally be modified.

"them", be it Facebook, SmugMug, Flickr, or whomever) to do *ANYTHING
THEY WANT* with whatever image you hand them. While they may (and in the

No it gives them the rights that you enumerate. If you grant them the
right to do anything, then yes, they have the right to do anything.

case of SmugMug, it looks as though they do) go on to try to "explain"
what they're planning to do, that explanation *IS NOT* a restriction on
what they *MAY* do, should they decide they want to.

Well, that may or may not be true. Since it is they that impose the
agreement, a court will in general interpret it in the most restrictive
way for them, since they were the ones that would have had the
opportunity to spell out the details. Those examples are somewhat
restrictive.

Put another way, when you upload an image to some site with a user
agreement that contains similarly worded terms that don't *SPECIFICALLY*
prohibit them doing pick a something with your image, then you've just
handed them the rights to do anything they might care to do with it.

Not really. It is to an extent up to them to specify what their
agreement covers. But it is true that many are pretty broad.


*ANYTHING*. If you don't like that fact, don't upload an image to them.
That's really your only option, since no for-profit outfit is going to
(or more accurately, their lawyers won't *LET* them) close the door on
any possibility of exploiting anything they can get their hands on to
make a buck off it.


On the other hand, it's *POSSIBLE* that someone with deep enough pockets
may some day manage to bring a case that blows such crap out of the
water - A while back, a precedent was set that effectively shot holes in
so-called "shrink-wrap licensing" - Licenses that basically say "by
opening the package, you agree to whatever we damn well please, and if
you don't like that, tough ****". Website TOS statements are a form of
of SWL, at least in my non-lawyerly opinion. The problem is this: Do
*YOU* have what's needed (in terms of time, money, lawyers, etc, etc,
etc) to chase this to a conclusion that stops websites form doing such
things?

On 10/29/2014 2:14 AM, A. Beck. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:17:34 +0000, Sandman wrote:

Again, this isn't "intensly personal information" if it
requires tons of assumptions.

What if I posted an ad in Craigslist, and a lovely lady
sends me a picture, which she took from her living room.

Now, I know where she lives.

That's pretty personal.


If the photo was a response to your ad, eventually you would have to
know where she lived.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

What if I posted an ad in Craigslist, and a lovely lady
sends me a picture, which she took from her living room.

Now, I know where she lives.

That's pretty personal.

If the photo was a response to your ad, eventually you would have to
know where she lived.

only for the person buying the item, not everyone.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:22:10 -0400, PeterN wrote:

If the photo was a response to your ad, eventually you would have to
know where she lived.

Not really. We could meet at a Starbucks.

But, I'm working on removing all EXIF information from all photos
as we speak ...

On 2014-10-30, PAS wrote:
"Lewis" wrote in message
...
Okay, so one time? In band camp? PAS was all,
like:
"Don Bruder" wrote in message
...
In article , "PAS"

wrote:


When you grant a right to someone, the stated reasons are meaningless,
the RIGHT has been granted.

For example, consider these two statements:

"A durable power of attorney is granted to ____ from ___. In order to
complete financial instruments and execute loan paperwork fro loan
#8912341 a power of attorney is required."

"A limited power of attorney is granted to ____ from ___ for the sole
purpose of completing financial instruments and executing loan
paperwork for the loan #8912341 describe herein."

The first one allows the "granted to" to do *anything* on your behalf,
including marry you to a third person (or divorce you from your
spouse),
sell or buy property in your name, enter into any and all contracts,
and
even plead guilty to a crime.

To a non-lawyer, they seem to say the same thing.

Are you a lawyer?

SmugMug sets the terms of use that a customer agrees to, what court
would allow them to expand on what they specifically state you are
licensing them to do which is display your images on their site and
nothing more than that?

It is true that either examples or reasons do not necessarily limit the
rights granted. But it could well be used by the courts to limit those
rights if that example was written by the party that set the terms of
the contract. However, terms could be used which make it clear that the
example itself does not limit the breadth of the rights granted.
But that could be dependent of the specific judge.