Re: Forensics v. Photoshop

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Me, Sep 19, 2012.

  1. Me

    Me Guest

    On 19/09/2012 10:52 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2012.09.18 18:38 , Me wrote:
    >> On 19/09/2012 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...sics-out-of-the-lab-and-into-the-marketplace/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp
    >>>
    >>> and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)
    >>>
    >>> (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )
    >>>

    >> Hmmm - so it can't prove that the image content /has/ been tampered
    >> with, and neither can it prove that the image file /hasn't/ been
    >> tampered with. What does it claim to do again?

    >
    > Raise doubts. It's claim is to look at how images are made (signature)
    > by the camera. If there is a doubt it will be raised. A change to an
    > image in PS would not pass that.
    >

    You don't need to manipulate an image to deliberately not show the "truth".
    We need (untampered) video, then you're safe to believe what your eyes
    show you:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v2xnl6LwJE
     
    Me, Sep 19, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Me

    Peter Jason Guest

    On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:24:29 +1200, Me
    <> wrote:

    >On 19/09/2012 10:52 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
    >> On 2012.09.18 18:38 , Me wrote:
    >>> On 19/09/2012 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...sics-out-of-the-lab-and-into-the-marketplace/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp
    >>>>
    >>>> and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)
    >>>>
    >>>> (It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )
    >>>>
    >>> Hmmm - so it can't prove that the image content /has/ been tampered
    >>> with, and neither can it prove that the image file /hasn't/ been
    >>> tampered with. What does it claim to do again?

    >>
    >> Raise doubts. It's claim is to look at how images are made (signature)
    >> by the camera. If there is a doubt it will be raised. A change to an
    >> image in PS would not pass that.
    >>

    >You don't need to manipulate an image to deliberately not show the "truth".
    >We need (untampered) video, then you're safe to believe what your eyes
    >show you:
    >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v2xnl6LwJE



    Surely the truth is that someone has invented an
    anti-gravity screen!
     
    Peter Jason, Sep 19, 2012
    #2
    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. BleepingComputer.com

    Article: Windows Forensics: Have I been Hacked?

    BleepingComputer.com, Feb 22, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    468
    Paul - xxx
    Feb 22, 2004
  2. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "Computer and Intrusion Forensics", George Mohay et al

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Jul 15, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,059
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Jul 15, 2003
  3. Lord Shaolin
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    391
    Bill Sanderson
    Oct 27, 2003
  4. Martin Brown

    Re: Forensics v. Photoshop

    Martin Brown, Sep 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    283
    nospam
    Sep 19, 2012
  5. Martin Brown

    Re: Forensics v. Photoshop

    Martin Brown, Sep 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    294
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Sep 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page