Photographic evidence.

1: I think camera manufacturers have image verification software that can demonstrate that an image hasn’t been tampered with. (Might need specific cameras though...) Otherwise, I guess it’s about having a demonstrable chain of custody for the images.

2: “It’s been Photoshopped...” :D
 
You'd get an instant film camera.

The challenges you can come up with are many and varied.

Even if the authenticity of the picture being original isn't questioned you can try attacking the credibility of the claim of what the picture shows or claim the scene itself was doctored then photographed.

A famous hoax of was the Cottingley Fairies, photos were "real" but the fairies were cardboard. The effect was about the same then as it is today, a portion of the population being magnetically attracted to improbable claims. The girls kept up the claim of them being real for over 60 years just because it was too awkward to admit it with so many believers believing obsessively such as... Arthur Conan Doyle.
 
Witnesses - or some very high end setup that has 3rd party verification at every stage.

If you are good enough you can beat forensic software that looks for alterations, etc. (such software has a high level of ability to tell you an image has been altered but a low level of ability to tell you it definitely hasn't - specificity vs sensitivity and all that) or any firmware level metadata, etc.
 
Wasn’t there a case where someone went through a speed camera and ticket arrived with picture, he asked for a copy of the original and on that you couldn’t read his plate, enquiring the police stated they had used something like photoshop to enhance it which he successfully argued the evidence had been tampered with and the case and ticket was thrown out.
 
Rroff said:
Witnesses - or some very high end setup that has 3rd party verification at every stage.

If you are good enough you can beat forensic software that looks for alterations, etc. (such software has a high level of ability to tell you an image has been altered but a low level of ability to tell you it definitely hasn't - specificity vs sensitivity and all that) or any firmware level metadata, etc.
Click to expand...
Meta data can that be altered after the photos has been taken, Ie can you change the date?
I know you can change the time stamp on a phone by changing the date and time but that only works at the time the photo was taken
 
I doubt there is any way you could 100% prove a digital image was tampered with or not, you can literally go down and alter individual pixels and if your good enough i doubt it could be challenged.
Of course you would have to be really good with something like photoshop, but most aint so...
 
I shot images for insurance claims in years gone by, they have a reasonably strict set of rules that need to be adhered to. But yeah, any info on a digital image can be changed or altered pretty successfully.
 
In a few years video will also be like that, heck its getting close now with deapfakes and CGI but it wont be long before those are so good you would find impossible to prove or disapprove they were real.
 
You use software that verifies the image at the moment of capture, and can tell if it's been altered due to the coding that is generated from this original process.

That's what we do at work, and it's been good enough for worldwide forensic organisations and courts for decades :)
 
So it seems you can’t know the exact time and date on all videos and pics.

All pictures and videos I have taken on my phone and camera have the date it was taken.
I was given a video which was taken on phone and put on computer, the date and time on the pc was the date that it was put on pc it shows as “edited on” got me wondering how this works for evidence
 
red eye said:
So it seems you can’t know the exact time and date on all videos and pics.

All pictures and videos I have taken on my phone and camera have the date it was taken.
I was given a video which was taken on phone and put on computer, the date and time on the pc was the date that it was put on pc it shows as “edited on” got me wondering how this works for evidence
Click to expand...

I’d expect that a statement from the photographer “I took these photos at hh:mm on DD/MM/YYYY” would cover that off though.
 
On a basic level, having the raw helps. Not totally tamper proof I'm sure, but far more difficult than a JPG; I'm pretty good in Photoshop, but would have no idea there to start with a raw.

I know for non legal purposes like photography competitions the raw is asked for as proof of authenticity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom