From: Charles on

"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EtJuZyHV3ycLFw0P(a)kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <hksu67$cds$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Charles
> <charlesschuler(a)comcast.net> writes
>>
>>"Douglas Johnson" <post(a)classtech.com> wrote in message
>>news:b303n5pvhuvass5npb27mnpcq21n35mi3t(a)4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>> So RAW files can probably be faked. You just have to be careful about
>>> it.
>>
>>I think they can and I think they will. My guess is that digital images,
>>both RAW and JPG, will be weak evidence (or inadmissible) in many courts
>>of
>>law.
>>
> Wrong guess. I have first hand experience that the digital images
> produced by speed cameras are exceedingly strong evidence in court! ;-)

LOL. I should have said "some digital images ...." I live in Naples, FL
and the new traffic cameras here are generating a nice income (for the
company that installed them and for Collier county). They are mostly
focusing (no pun) on right-turn on red violations (not coming to a
full-stop) and that is really pissing off many drivers here. I have to
agree as the many ugly crashes here are seldom due to right-turn on red
violations.

Anyway, back on subject. Dedicated cameras for security and or violation
detection are not what I was trying to get at.

Thanks for your post.


From: Charles on

"Scott W" <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f8308aa-0ab0-4731-86bc-5873b8d390de(a)m24g2000prn.googlegroups.com...



Well the list goes on and on, it would seem that there is no problem
with photos from digital cameras being used in court.

I predict many of them will be challenged in court. Who, what, when, where
and why ... Even for shots from the hands of a forensenic CSI, the defense
will be in a position to pose some chalenging questions. The fact that they
"can" be faked is going to play a major role.

Again, I'm not involved in any litigation and I am not a member of the legal
system. I just find it to be an interesting issue.

Have served jury duty several times and was amazed at how little details can
become major issues and destroy an argument.



From: Joe Makowiec on
On 10 Feb 2010 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Paul Furman wrote:

> Would it be possible to steal someone's jpg and create a fake raw
> file, assuming the original photog didn't shoot raw? You could fake
> the hot pixels for your own camera.

Jens Duttke, the author of PhotoME did a proof-of-concept:

http://www.photome.de/rawwriter_en.html

He notes:

Since this is only a proof of concept, an expert can still see,
that the image wasn't taken using a real FZ-30. There are many
indicators like noise, CAs, hot pixels, the limited color depth of
JPEG etc. to determine that this image wasn't created by a digital
camera.

But if I would investigate more time into this program, it would be
easily possible to add noise, CAs and hot pixels to the image, so
that even experts have problems to validate the image.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
From: Andrew Haley on
Michael Benveniste <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:44:53 -0600, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> It's no different from any physical evidence: counsel has to be able to
>> show that there is a proper chain of custody. Without that, the
>> evidence will be indamissible. This is so with film, too, and is not
>> different from the rule that you have to prove a chemical analysis has
>> not been tampered with.
>
> Not quite.
>
> A chain of custody _is_ necessary if one needs to prove something about
> the physical photograph itself in a criminal trial. Such might be the
> case, say, if possession of the photograph itself is illegal or when
> forensic evidence is recovered from the physical print.
>
> It's rarely necessary when a photographic is being admitted for the
> image it purports to represent. In fact, usually the photographer
> need not testify.
>
>> "In order to be admissible, a photograph must be shown to be an accurate
>> representation of the thing depicted as it appeared at the relevant
>> time. See United States v. Stierwalt, 16 F.3d 282, 286 (8th Cir. 1994)"
>
> That can be done, and usually is done through witness testimony. It's
> often as simple as:
>
> Q: Witness, I present this object to you and ask you to examine it.
> Does this photograph fairly and accurately portray the scene you
> observed at the location and the time in question?
> A: Yes.
> Q: Your Honor, move to admit.

Well, alright, I should have said you *only* have to be able to show
that the photograph is accurate, by some means or other. The point I
was trying to make is that there is no special rule of evidence that
will disallow digital photographs.

> Once admitted, of course, the opposing side is free to cross-examine
> and otherwise challenge the authenticity of a photograph. That then
> becomes an issue for the trier of fact to decide.

Right, so being able to show a chain of custody is potentially useful
if there is a possibility that a photograph has been tampered with.

Andrew.
From: Savageduck on
On 2010-02-12 07:36:10 -0800, Andrew Haley
<andrew29(a)littlepinkcloud.invalid> said:

> Michael Benveniste <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:44:53 -0600, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> It's no different from any physical evidence: counsel has to be able to
>>> show that there is a proper chain of custody. Without that, the
>>> evidence will be indamissible. This is so with film, too, and is not
>>> different from the rule that you have to prove a chemical analysis has
>>> not been tampered with.
>>
>> Not quite.
>>
>> A chain of custody _is_ necessary if one needs to prove something about
>> the physical photograph itself in a criminal trial. Such might be the
>> case, say, if possession of the photograph itself is illegal or when
>> forensic evidence is recovered from the physical print.
>>
>> It's rarely necessary when a photographic is being admitted for the
>> image it purports to represent. In fact, usually the photographer
>> need not testify.
>>
>>> "In order to be admissible, a photograph must be shown to be an accurate
>>> representation of the thing depicted as it appeared at the relevant
>>> time. See United States v. Stierwalt, 16 F.3d 282, 286 (8th Cir. 1994)"
>>
>> That can be done, and usually is done through witness testimony. It's
>> often as simple as:
>>
>> Q: Witness, I present this object to you and ask you to examine it.
>> Does this photograph fairly and accurately portray the scene you
>> observed at the location and the time in question?
>> A: Yes.
>> Q: Your Honor, move to admit.
>
> Well, alright, I should have said you *only* have to be able to show
> that the photograph is accurate, by some means or other. The point I
> was trying to make is that there is no special rule of evidence that
> will disallow digital photographs.

Correct.
However the problem regarding photographic evidence does not come from
digital photographs taken to record a crime scene, or for making a
forensic analysis. It comes when third party images are introduced as
evidence. The phone camera shot taken by a passer-by for example. These
are frequently presented for admission as evidence and are easily
challenged at many different levels. In these cases there is no chain
of evidence, there is no digital authentication, they are as valid as
hearsay.
Occasionally, as in the case of the current BART cop shooting trial
where there are multiple camera phone still and video images of the
shooting from different angles, from the train and in the station, they
are good evidence and unimpeachable.

>
>> Once admitted, of course, the opposing side is free to cross-examine
>> and otherwise challenge the authenticity of a photograph. That then
>> becomes an issue for the trier of fact to decide.
>
> Right, so being able to show a chain of custody is potentially useful
> if there is a possibility that a photograph has been tampered with.

Maintaining a chain of evidence for all physical evidence is more than
potentially useful, it is essential. Without establishing, or breaking
the chain of evidence, any physical evidence is subject to impeachment.

The opposing side is always free to challenge any evidence be it
photograph, blood splatter, DNA, etc. and a broken chain of evidence
for any item of evidence will open the window to claim tampering, or
contamination.

The other thing to consider is the art of the Court Room theater, where
sowing the seeds of doubt regarding a piece of evidence is sufficient
to influence a gullible jury, even if the evidence presented is
untampered with and valid.

--
Regards,

Savageduck