Child pornographers be aware

[rpm]

http://myblogs.co.za/?p=121

 

[ajak]

I think that those sick F#CKS should be sterilized/castrated or sowed up.
Give them to me,i`f got a sharp knife and a long needle

 

[Gooku]

I think that those sick F#CKS should be sterilized/castrated or sowed up.

wish granted (by 7 dragon balls)


Gooku > Kamehameha ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~>Pedophiles ~ o/o


done !





:_)

 

[Prometheus]

So, they can't even properly enhance a digital photo, but think they can extract some random information from it. I don't think is going to hold up in any court.

 

[FacELesS.]

Printed papers can be traced aswell

Be afraid of your printer if you plan on doing something illegal. Many printers out on the market marks every paper that is printed by it with a certain code of pixels (mixed into the image printed) that is unique to the printer. If the printed pages are analyzed they can trace to whom last the printer was sold (if the paper trail is intact) and therefore possibly lead to the criminal.

 

[Prometheus]

Be afraid of your printer if you plan on doing something illegal. Many printers out on the market marks every paper that is printed by it with a certain code of pixels (mixed into the image printed) that is unique to the printer. If the printed pages are analyzed they can trace to whom last the printer was sold (if the paper trail is intact) and therefore possibly lead to the criminal.

You know. This is why all this **** sounded so familiar.

PCFormat March 2006
US Secret Service codes in printers cracked
A research team led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has just cracked the secret code that some colour laser printers hide in every document they produce. They found the codes on prints from a whole host of manufacturers, including the big-hitters like Canon, HP and Xerox. The code comes in the form of tiny yellow dots, less than one millimetre in diameter, and is typically reproduced on every page of a document.

The US Secret Service has come clean that the code is part of a deal they struck with major colour printer manufacturers in order to be able to track and identify counterfeiters. It is the first time, however, that we have been privy to the amount of information that is coded into these dots. EFF say that, once decoded, they were able to tell the time and date that the print was produced as well as the serial number of the printer itself.

Conspiracy theorists will be having a field day with this one and EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien may have started the ball rolling, saying that it shows how the government and private industry make backroom deals to weaken our privacy. The logical next question is: what other deals have been or are being made to ensure that our technology rats on us?

It is my logical assumption that the digital camera "discovery" is nothing more than camera manufacturers hiding secret information in the files they produce. They saw the implications of admitting that secret information was printed by the printers they manufactured so now they claim the code produced by digital cameras to be completely random. What a load of polony. The first court case over this will most likely be over privacy and not pornography.

 

[sparklehorse]

So, they can't even properly enhance a digital photo, but think they can extract some random information from it. I don't think is going to hold up in any court.

If the technique is proven to be reliable, then it should hold up in court. I'd be interested in some more details though. How easy will it be to fake another camera's 'fingerprint' or wipe it out by putting it through some filters. Is there a camera code strored in the exif info of a picture?

 

[Prometheus]

How easy will it be to fake another camera's 'fingerprint' or wipe it out by putting it through some filters. Is there a camera code strored in the exif info of a picture?

There is a camera code stored in the EXIF info, but I haven't seen any serial numbers there yet. The EXIF along with other creation data can easily be removed by numerous applications that reduces file sizes. If the "fingerprint" is actually what is referred to as a watermark then a very weak watermark can be completely wiped out by the JPEG compression itself. While a stronger watermark overcomes this it also degrades the picture quality and is therefor more visible to the naked eye.

Because the picture quality is in fact very good I do believe it to be a very weak watermark. A sharpening filter might accentuate the pixel changes. A smoothing filter should cancel them out however, after which a sharpening filter would then add information based on the picture and not the camera in use.

I suppose that whether or not the information is put there deliberately there will eventually be a filter designed specifically to remove it. Perhaps there's one already as real criminals always seem to find an antidote for a problem even before the problem exists.