Posted on 01/28/2011 10:15:15 AM PST by butterdezillion
A photo from a camera “may” have EXIF data.
I often use a program called “jhead” that effectively removes that data and more. A really good command OpenSource application.
If you know that the pictures are genuine, then there shouldn’t be anything to worry about.
The experts can tell quickly if they have been altered.
You Cannot prove a negative... so don’t try.
There’s no perfect way to be sure. MD5 keys can be duped with a different set, in cases even one that might pass as a dup image. It’s expensive and takes a lot of work or infrastructure, so it’s highly unlikely.
Nothing beats personal and a society’s regard for honesty and integrity and there is, in the end, no techno substitute.
Good to know.
MD5 Checksum is a method to make certain that files you are distributing are the very same as displayed on your site... This prevents others from downloading your stuff, altering it, and re-posting elsewhere, while attributing the altered work as if it were your own.
But as far as marking your stuff certifiably genuine in SOURCE: No. pdf contents and creation date can be manipulated, as can jpgs. If the file is electronic, it cannot be certified.
However, the original documents can be certified, as can original negatives (which you seem to have if you are scanning an original photo in order to make it a jpg). Any notary can attest to the condition of an original at the date it was before him, and that the electronic files are a reasonable facsimile of the originals... Originals can also be certified forensically.
Sealing the originals in front of the same notary proves the originals as being in a preserved state (if the notary's seal remains unbroken). Such proofs could be offered upon request, but that necessarily means that you are an identifiable individual (no anonymity for you).
If I took a photo and scanned it to be a jpeg would it show that there had been no tampering?
Scanning anything introduces anomalies - an original digital photo (camera produced the jpg), in it's original state (no watermark, no down-sizing for light-weight internet display) should be provided for inspection... It is generally accepted that professional photo-shoppers can detect changes in an original image.
In fact, a digital picture of a document is probably a better proof than a pdf, at least for internet purposes. But these are accepted generally, in spite of limitations:
** Original documents, whose provenance can be proven by witness and/or forensic examiners is the only method of 100% cert.
If I took a digital picture of a document, a straight-on view of the document, and uploaded that to my blog by using a card reader on my USB port, would the online image generally be considered an authentic image of that document? Would people be able to enlarge the document to see the detail on it?
I think so long as FactCheck and DailyKos certified the images as genuine, that would be good enough for an astonishingly large number of people, including nearly everyone in the MSM...
lol. I don’t think anybody wants me getting within 2 miles of anybody at Factcheck. Least of all anybody at Factcheck. lol.
It does make me wonder, though, whether video is any more trustworthy than still pics because it would be harder to manipulate. Any thoughts about that?
Bump for curiosity.
I’m no techie, so I have no idea. Even if JPEGs or videos are deemed 100% authentic, what’s to prevent someone from questioning whether the documents you are scanning/photographing/videoing are genuine? Why don’t you directly contact someone like Polarik who has real live experience with this stuff? Any process that passes muster with him would strike me as good enough etc.
General acceptance= Tentatively, yes. That depends quite a bit on how saucy the content is, and whether there are forces that would wish to discredit it (ala Rathergate).
Enlarge document= Yes. However:
The document (as a picture), in a full size, would be unwieldy for normal perusal. I would upload such a thing as a linked file, and produce another form (pdf, light weight pic, or simple transcription) for easy, non-critical use.
That way, those who are unbelievers have the source available for their not-so-gentle ministrations, but the more casual viewer is not hampered by trying to absorb the information from a gigantic picture-file.
Don't get me wrong - What you propose IS DOABLE, it just might not be as useful as what I describe above.
The original (the linked jpg) should be MD5'd so the source is verifiable once it hits distribution on the net.
If it was “saucy” (lol. That just strikes me funny) the best I could do is post a high-resolution photo and run an MD5 on it to make sure that anybody who gets a copy of it can check to make sure it’s what I posted. Is that right?
Do you have any opinion on whether a short video clip would be more credible?
The thing that’s so funny about this is I am so clueless on computers that anybody who knows me knows I don’t even have editing software on my computer and even if I did I wouldn’t be able to figure out how to open it, much less use it. lol.
If it was “saucy” (lol. That just strikes me funny) the best I could do is post a high-resolution photo and run an MD5 on it to make sure that anybody who gets a copy of it can check to make sure it’s what I posted. Is that right?
Do you have any opinion on whether a short video clip would be more credible?
The thing that’s so funny about this is I am so clueless on computers that anybody who knows me knows I don’t even have editing software on my computer and even if I did I wouldn’t be able to figure out how to open it, much less use it. lol.
Yes.
Do you have any opinion on whether a short video clip would be more credible?
In my informed (but not professional) opinion, no. I would rather have the high-res photo than a vid, because the examination thereof is simple to perform. But then, I am more capable in a jpg than a vid, so my opinion might be biased.
Manipulation after-the-fact is not your problem, providing your original is MD5'd (others will be unable to alter). Manipulation before-the-fact (purportedly by you, or upon the source document) would be easy to determine in the JPG (ala Obummer's COLB).
A well-lit, high-res, full color photo of the document on a hard-to-reproduce background (like a wood-grained desktop, or rumpled satin, as instances) is hard to beat.
Ultimately, that's more important than "proving" that your picture accurately represents the original document.
I’d be able to swear in court that they are what I was given and by whom I was given them. That person could provide evidence that they are authentic.
That person could provide evidence that they are authentic.Then that's the critical part of this.
Remember when the Dems tried to foist off the forged National Guard documents? The scanned photos posted on the web were accurate representations of the "originals", but since the original documents were forged, that didn't prove a thing.
Is your source someone who would have access to such documents, and is he willing to testify to their authenticity?
If not, then these documents are just propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.