Can digital photographs be used in a court of law?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Era, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. Era

    Era Guest

    I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?
    Era, Jun 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Era

    [BnH] Guest

    I did once for a case of car hitting the fence. No problem.

    =bob=


    "Era" <> wrote in message
    news:429d27c2$...
    >I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?
    [BnH], Jun 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Era commented courteously...

    > I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but
    > not digital ones?


    Here's another question best left to your favorite
    attorney friend.

    As to digital, most commonly available prints today are
    digitized from negs/slides anyway. Still, your point is
    valid. If UFO pictures can now be done in PS CS or PSP,
    why not fake pics for a criminal or civil trial - for
    either side?

    As always, it boils down to what the jury and/or judge
    will or won't believe from the testimony of witnesses, as
    augmented by graphics.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
    All Things Mopar, Jun 1, 2005
    #3
  4. Era

    Guest

    Era wrote:
    > I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?


    In France a digital picture can be accepted as an oral (not made under
    oath) testify, but it has NOT the power of a physical proof (as could
    have an original negative or slide).

    But, in the country of the http://www.stellaawards.com/ , I would think
    that anything could be possible??? ;o)))

    Greetings from France
    Nicolas
    , Jun 1, 2005
    #4
  5. On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:13:05 +1000, Era <> wrote:

    >I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?


    You've heard wrong.

    Here are some good articles on the subject.

    http://www.ndaa-apri.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_15_number_10_2002.html

    http://www.policecentral.com/wp-crimescene.htm

    What is important is the "Chain of evidence" be maintained.


    ********************************************************

    "The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
    singular, and unsatisfactory."

    Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
    to
    Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
    November 14, 1866
    John A. Stovall, Jun 1, 2005
    #5
  6. Era

    Jer Guest

    Era wrote:
    > I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?



    It depends on how qualified the opposing attorney is.

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'
    Jer, Jun 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Era

    Tony Guest

    Tony, Jun 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Era

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Era wrote:
    > I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?

    As long as the 'chain of custody' is maintained on the camera/card, then
    they should be admissible.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Jun 4, 2005
    #8
  9. >I did once for a case of car hitting the fence. No problem.

    Your testimony was admitted, and the photograph supported your sworn
    statements. That's distinct from a photograph being admitted without
    someone to testify as to its contents and origin and custody.

    If a party fakes a photograph, and it's found out, someone will face a
    perjury charge for it. The photograph is never "sworn in" as a
    witness, and it won't be shown to a jury in a criminal trial unless
    someone has sworn before the judge as to what it contains. No
    different for a photograph, a digital photograph, or a sketch on a
    cocktail napkin.

    Standards for evidence vary greatly among jurisdictions, and between
    civil and criminal courts.
    James Of Tucson, Jun 4, 2005
    #9
  10. Era

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Era <> wrote:
    >I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?


    A new feature of the Canon 20d is the ability to add an encryption key
    to a photograph to ensure that alterations are detected. They market
    it for police work.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jun 6, 2005
    #10
  11. Era

    Scotius Guest

    On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:13:05 +1000, Era <> wrote:

    >I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?


    That's because digital is so easily manipulatable, and has
    been for some time.
    It's been alleged that the "satellite photos" that US
    government representatives showed their Saudi counterparts in
    1990/1991 to get Saudi Arabia to back the invasion of Iraq showed
    Iraqi battle formations on the Saudi border, except that they weren't
    real.
    That was '91, and tech has come quite a way since.
    The Pentagon since at least the '90s could, if they wanted to,
    beam down video of your regular nightly newscaster saying whatever
    they want him to say. It would be someone reading a script who might
    not look or sound anything like him, but with computer technology, you
    see the guy you're accustomed to seeing saying whatever the mad
    generals want you to hear.
    Digital manipulation of digital video is quite easy; you do
    NOT trust digital under any circumstances.
    If I was watching someone on a video and I'm to make a
    judgement about whatever, I want it to be tape or film, and I'd prefer
    to see it as soon as possible, because even those can be messed with,
    although it's not nearly as easy.
    Tape you trust; digital you don't. It's simple.
    Scotius, Jul 12, 2010
    #11
  12. Scotius wrote:
    > On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:13:05 +1000, Era <> wrote:
    >
    >> I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?

    >
    > That's because digital is so easily manipulatable, and has
    > been for some time.
    > It's been alleged that the "satellite photos" that US
    > government representatives showed their Saudi counterparts in
    > 1990/1991 to get Saudi Arabia to back the invasion of Iraq showed
    > Iraqi battle formations on the Saudi border, except that they weren't
    > real.
    > That was '91, and tech has come quite a way since.
    > The Pentagon since at least the '90s could, if they wanted to,
    > beam down video of your regular nightly newscaster saying whatever
    > they want him to say. It would be someone reading a script who might
    > not look or sound anything like him, but with computer technology, you
    > see the guy you're accustomed to seeing saying whatever the mad
    > generals want you to hear.
    > Digital manipulation of digital video is quite easy; you do
    > NOT trust digital under any circumstances.
    > If I was watching someone on a video and I'm to make a
    > judgement about whatever, I want it to be tape or film, and I'd prefer
    > to see it as soon as possible, because even those can be messed with,
    > although it's not nearly as easy.
    > Tape you trust; digital you don't. It's simple.


    Get out the Reynolds wrap and have at it.

    And please don't plop already started threads into r.p.d.

    --
    lsmft
    John McWilliams, Jul 12, 2010
    #12
  13. Era

    Scotius Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:01:55 -0500, George Kerby
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >On 7/12/10 1:32 AM, in article
    >2010071123325636579-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2010-07-11 22:21:08 -0700, Scotius <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:13:05 +1000, Era <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?
    >>>
    >>> That's because digital is so easily manipulatable, and has
    >>> been for some time.
    >>> It's been alleged that the "satellite photos" that US
    >>> government representatives showed their Saudi counterparts in
    >>> 1990/1991 to get Saudi Arabia to back the invasion of Iraq showed
    >>> Iraqi battle formations on the Saudi border, except that they weren't
    >>> real.
    >>> That was '91, and tech has come quite a way since.
    >>> The Pentagon since at least the '90s could, if they wanted to,
    >>> beam down video of your regular nightly newscaster saying whatever
    >>> they want him to say. It would be someone reading a script who might
    >>> not look or sound anything like him, but with computer technology, you
    >>> see the guy you're accustomed to seeing saying whatever the mad
    >>> generals want you to hear.
    >>> Digital manipulation of digital video is quite easy; you do
    >>> NOT trust digital under any circumstances.
    >>> If I was watching someone on a video and I'm to make a
    >>> judgement about whatever, I want it to be tape or film, and I'd prefer
    >>> to see it as soon as possible, because even those can be messed with,
    >>> although it's not nearly as easy.
    >>> Tape you trust; digital you don't. It's simple.

    >>
    >> Why on earth did you bring this out of date 2005 thread back to life?
    >>

    >Our Troll is B-O-R-E-D and is again setting hooks...


    I'm not a troll/don't be a twit.
    Scotius, Jul 28, 2010
    #13
  14. Era

    Scotius Guest

    On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:06:59 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
    <> wrote:

    >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    >drugs began to take hold. I remember Scotius <> saying
    >something like:
    >
    >>That was '91, and tech has come quite a way since.
    >> The Pentagon since at least the '90s could, if they wanted to,
    >>beam down video of your regular nightly newscaster saying whatever
    >>they want him to say. It would be someone reading a script who might
    >>not look or sound anything like him, but with computer technology, you
    >>see the guy you're accustomed to seeing saying whatever the mad
    >>generals want you to hear.

    >
    >Paranoid bullshit.


    Not according to the people who put together the intelligence
    newsletter "For Your Eyes Only...", who are considered quite
    professional in their field. Parts of that newsletter are often
    reprinted in military/intelligence type magazines.
    But you can think what you like.
    Scotius, Jul 28, 2010
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian
    Replies:
    84
    Views:
    1,617
  2. TechNews

    TechNews: Appeals Court Denies Microsoft Petition

    TechNews, May 24, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    375
    TechNews
    May 24, 2004
  3. Rifleman
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    980
  4. AnonGoo
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    367
    AnonGoo
    May 5, 2007
  5. Aardvark

    Wikipedia information used as evidence in court.

    Aardvark, Jul 5, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    367
Loading...

Share This Page