wniren@pyrtech (Walter Nirenberg) (02/15/90)
Hi. My friend is a 2nd year law student and she is working on a fascinating project with which she needs a little help. Basically, she is investigating the impact of recent computer graphics technology advances on the use of video and photographs as courtroom evidence. As many of you may know, it has been possible over the past few years to manipulate photographs and videos at a bit-level using new generations of graphics computers. The results are that you can completely alter what these media display. A somewhat recent example is a past National Geographic magazine where the editors actually moved some scenery closer together on the cover photo to make everything fit in the small space available. This was done using some expensive computer equipment which digitized the picture enabling them to manipulate the photo so well that the modifications were completely undetectable. To take this further, the equipment to do this type of work has been very expensive in the past. Now, with machines like the Amiga and the Atari ST, anyone with a few thousand dollars can do this kind of work. Photos and videos are still admissable as courtroom evidence in most situations. However, with these new "advances", can we trust these forms any more? Think of the impact..a criminal could possibly be let loose based on a photo showing someone else perpetrating the crime. Newspapers and TV networks could change what the public sees. We're talking about a tremendous potential for "disinformation" to quote our wonderful government (by the way, isn't that a fancy word to mean "to lie"?). So. What we need is information of a technical and intellectual nature pertaining to this topic. Is there software available for these inexpensive machines to enable average people to do this? Has anyone seen examples of this kind of manipulation? etc. Thanks in advance and please cc replies to my mail address: wniren@pyrtech.pyramid.com Walter Nirenberg, Pyramid Technology, (415)335-8730
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (02/15/90)
In article <102034@pyramid.pyramid.com> wniren@pyrtech (Walter Nirenberg) writes: >...the impact of recent computer >graphics technology advances on the use of video and photographs as >courtroom evidence. As many of you may know, it has been possible >over the past few years to manipulate photographs and videos at >a bit-level using new generations of graphics computers. The results >are that you can completely alter what these media display. >Is there software available for these inexpensive machines to enable average >people to do this? Has anyone seen examples of this kind of manipulation? Well, we have a relatively expensive Pixar graphics machine ($40,000) that produces pictures so lifelike that it's uncanny. Note that I said "produces", not "alters." These pictures are NOT photographs, but are completely computer-generated. So, not only can pictures be altered, but also they can be CREATED FROM SCRATCH. I own a Commodore Amiga, and indeed it is possible to retouch photos on screen. Right now, the screen resolution of the Amiga (approx. 750 x 480 pixels in 4096 simultaneous colors) can display stunning pictures, but I don't know how you would get an altered screen picture back onto a photograph. You could photograph the screen, but that might result in a great loss of quality compared to the original photo. Perhaps there is a better-quality way to do this. >We're talking about a tremendous potential for "disinformation"... If you think about it, this isn't much different from the situation that exists anyway. If you bring a piece of evidence into a courtroom, it could be completely fake REGARDLESS of its medium. Documents can be forged, alibis invented, fingerprints faked, guns substituted for other guns, etc. In addition, it has long been possible to "stage" photographs. So, I see the real problem is one of educating your jurors and other judicial personnel in what fakery is possible. A photograph of my shooting the president is not proof -- just evidence. And it is up to the judicial system to accept or reject that evidence. On the other hand, people tend to believe with their eyes more than with any other of their senses. I could see that fake photographs could sway a jury toward the wrong decision. People have been saying for years that technology is racing ahead faster than the software industry and the legal industry can handle it. Well, it's true. But forewarned is forearmed. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett - Systems Administrator, Computer Science Department | | The Johns Hopkins University, 34th and Charles Sts., Baltimore, MD 21218 | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
Dave_Ninjajr_Flory@cup.portal.com (02/16/90)
Sure it can be done. The problem is no different from a witness who lies, tho' Any photo, video, etc. is only as reliable as the jury thinks the presenter is. If they believe him/her when s/he says the picture/video is an accurate presentation of the facts, then they believe the video. If they believe the other attorney who says it was changed, then the video is worthless even if it is accurate. D.FLORY - GEnie dave_ninjajr_flory@portal.cup.com You don't get to be a grey haired Ninja rider by riding like a fool!! The bodies of those who did are familiar to me.......
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (02/16/90)
This is very easily done. It has been done for years.
You don't need a computer, in fact it is easier without one.
If you look hard you will find a book on the Soviet doctoring of
photographs. I saw a copy at Printer's Inc in Mtn. View.
But not since that time. The quality varies. Manipulation is
strictly a matter of cost: how much it is worth to you and how
much you are willing to pay. Remember, the hand is quicker than
the eye. I dare say you can completely stage a scene to fool even
the most fervent pro/con gun control fanatic. 8)
This message had no place in ba.general. Please keep it in the
amiga groups.
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
{ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
Do you expect anything BUT generalizations on the net?
[If it ain't source, it ain't software -- D. Tweten]bscott@pikes.Colorado.EDU (Ben M Scott) (02/16/90)
In article <4240@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.UUCP (Dan Barrett) writes: >In article <102034@pyramid.pyramid.com> wniren@pyrtech (Walter Nirenberg) writes: >>...the impact of recent computer >>graphics technology advances on the use of video and photographs as >>courtroom evidence. As many of you may know, it has been possible >>over the past few years to manipulate photographs and videos at >>a bit-level using new generations of graphics computers. The results > > I own a Commodore Amiga, and indeed it is possible to retouch photos >on screen. Right now, the screen resolution of the Amiga (approx. 750 x 480 >pixels in 4096 simultaneous colors) can display stunning pictures, but I >don't know how you would get an altered screen picture back onto a photograph. >You could photograph the screen, but that might result in a great loss of Use the Polaroid Palette, a high-quality color output device that converts screen output to film or possibly slides. About $2500, but good quality. Also, there are commercial houses which will do a similar job, many even can accept Amiga-Format disks or IFF files. A very very good picture, say a Dynamic Hires/SHAM/whatever that other format from ASDG is that also offers the same thing, COULD pass for a photograph. Especially if it was digitized carefully, or scanned. However, it would not stand up to expert scrutiny; if there was any suspicion that the photo was bogus the first real close examination would clearly show it to be computer generated or re-generated. There are VERY expensive systems that, coupled with relatively low-quality film, COULD theoretically make 'perfect' pictures, but you'd need full 32-bit color (4 billion shades) and at least 2048x2048 res and VERY VERY careful digitizing to really make an undetectable picture. And this is BEFORE changes; if you went around moving things and swapping faces, it'd be almost impossible. Videotape evidence, however, would be another story. Since individual video frames are of much lower quality (the imperfections average out at 30 FPS) than a photo, changes carefully made with a good genlock could probably go undetected. And though altering photos is an old trick, not so many would suspect the relatively new technology of videotape as being altered. THERE is the danger. . <<<<Infinite K>>>>
plouff@levers.enet.dec.com (02/16/90)
About two years ago _Whole Earth Review_ ran a fascinating article on this topic. They talked about using equipment just coming into use at commercial printers at the time, stuff costing $50K and up. But the high-end features then have been steadily working their way down toward today's affordable computers. -- Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass. plouff%kali.enet.dec@decwrl.dec.com Networking bibliography: _Islands in the Net_, by Bruce Sterling _The Matrix_, by John S. Quarterman
oliver@johnson.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) (02/17/90)
In article <102034@pyramid.pyramid.com> wniren@pyrtech (Walter Nirenberg) writes: > >Photos and videos are still admissable as courtroom evidence in most >situations. However, with these new "advances", can we trust these >forms any more? Think of the impact..a criminal could possibly be >let loose based on a photo showing someone else perpetrating the crime. >Newspapers and TV networks could change what the public sees. We're >talking about a tremendous potential for "disinformation" to quote >our wonderful government (by the way, isn't that a fancy word to mean >"to lie"?). > I am a forensic pathologist, and have acted as an expert witness in numerous trials. I almost always bring photos along with me, which counsel uses as evidence. As far as I know, photographic evidence that *I* am involved with, and all the photographic evidence that I have ever seen admitted from other scene investigators has always been admitted only on the conditions that 1) It can be shown that the photo is a "true and accurate representation," of what was there, and 2) It has usefulness in explaining my or some other investigator's testimony, e.g. it is not admitted as evidence in and of itself. Your question is about problem (1). The way this is almost always done is for the person who took the photo to be on the stand and testify thay this is, indeed, a true and accurate representation. Thus, if I took the photo, then I would be the one who did the testifying that the photo is not tampered with. The tampering question is an old one for us folk who do autopsies, but the question was of tampering with the body rather than with the photo. For instance, let's say that John Doe has been shot in the stomach. John survives long enough to get to a hospital, where they open his abdomen to try and close off the bleeding arteries, but he dies anyway. Joe's body comes to the morgue with this itty-bitty hole in the belly, and a huge old surgical wound running right through it. Defense will often get any photographs of the wound ruled inadmissible because of the gross looking surgical wound -- the judge will rule that the jury will react viscerally (no pun intended) to the large wound, rather than intellectually to the evidence of the bullet wound. I have also had photos ruled out because there was too much free blood. The wound wasn't cleaned (I often take one shot uncleaned and one cleaned), and bloody wounds often look much larger than they are, expecially in photos. I have also had one ruled out because skin traction caused a knife wound to gape open, again making it appear larger, in some sense, than it really was. Thus, when I take a morgue shot, I often spend a lot of time carefully draping towels, arranging the body, etc. to hide any extraneous stuff in order to make my photos of the wound admissible. Then, when I get on the stand, I testify that the photo is a true and accurate representation, with the exception of whatever modifications I have made. I suspect that digitization problems will be handled the same way. Since photographic evidence is almost always admitted only as an "illustration" of personal testimony, it will ultimately be admissible to modify a photo to "clean up" extraneous stuff, as long as somebody is there to testify that the stuff appropriate to the case is true and accurate. Haggling over what consitutes "cleaning up" and what should be left in is something that counsel should get settled during disclosure. As far as the question of being able to sneak in a modified photo, this has always been a possibility and this is why 1) it is usually admitted only as "illustrative" evidence, and 2) there has to be someone there to hang for perjury. The precedents are pretty much there already. Now, the ease of proving perjury might be made very much more difficult. But that is a different question. Bill Oliver
dfrancis@dsoft.UUCP (Dennis Heffernan) (02/17/90)
In article <102034@pyramid.pyramid.com> wniren@pyrtech (Walter Nirenberg) writes: >Hi. My friend is a 2nd year law student and she is working on a >fascinating project with which she needs a little help. > >Basically, she is investigating the impact of recent computer >graphics technology advances on the use of video and photographs as >courtroom evidence. As many of you may know, it has been possible >over the past few years to manipulate photographs and videos at >a bit-level using new generations of graphics computers. The results >are that you can completely alter what these media display. As I see it, machines like the Amiga can't quite modify photographs that well- YET. The Mac II's with 32-bit QuickDraw have enough colors, but the resolution is still low. (As I understand it, the resolution of film is pretty high, on the order of thousands of pixels by thousands of pixels.) It won't be too much longer before low-end machines have this capability, though. That Video Transputer might be able to do the job now, though it isn't exactly "low-end" :-). When that happens, there is going to be a great big bloody mess in our courts, and the end result is going to be that photographs won't be admissible as evidence any more. I don't see how it can turn out any other way, since "forgeries" won't be detectable. And I have no idea what the courts will use to replace photographs... -- --dfh ...uunet!tronsbox!dsoft!dfrancis "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein
mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - Product Assurance) (02/23/90)
In article <687@dsoft.UUCP> dfrancis@dsoft.UUCP (Dennis Heffernan) writes: >In article <102034@pyramid.pyramid.com> wniren@pyrtech (Walter Nirenberg) >writes: >>Hi. My friend is a 2nd year law student and she is working on a >>fascinating project with which she needs a little help. >> >>Basically, she is investigating the impact of recent computer >>graphics technology advances on the use of video and photographs as >>courtroom evidence. As many of you may know, it has been possible >>over the past few years to manipulate photographs and videos at >>a bit-level using new generations of graphics computers. The results >>are that you can completely alter what these media display. > > As I see it, machines like the Amiga can't quite modify photographs >that well- YET. The Mac II's with 32-bit QuickDraw have enough colors, but >the >resolution is still low. (As I understand it, the resolution of film is >pretty >high, on the order of thousands of pixels by thousands of pixels.) You are forgetting one thing. The quality and resolution of the output depends only on the PRINTER you are using. There are color printer capable of printing near-photographic quality prints- but they are in the $5000 to $15000 price range. There is software, also, on the Amiga that will allow you to view/ modify images much larger than the screen. So, if you happen to be able to afford the expensive hardware, you can do retouching to your heart's content. And yes, even on the Amiga. > --dfh ...uunet!tronsbox!dsoft!dfrancis -Mitchell
pochron@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (David Pochron) (02/24/90)
In article <687@dsoft.UUCP> dfrancis@dsoft.UUCP (Dennis Heffernan) writes: > > And I have no idea what the courts will use to replace photographs... Simple...holographic film! (What, you mean this hasn't been invented yet!?) ;-) > --dfh ...uunet!tronsbox!dsoft!dfrancis > "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition > from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein -- -- David M. Pochron | "Life's a blit, | and then you VBI." pochron@garfield.cs.wisc.edu |
urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (02/25/90)
In article <6237@eos.UUCP>, eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: > This is very easily done. It has been done for years. > You don't need a computer, in fact it is easier without one. > If you look hard you will find a book on the Soviet doctoring of > photographs. I saw a copy at Printer's Inc in Mtn. View. > But not since that time. The quality varies. Manipulation is > strictly a matter of cost: how much it is worth to you and how > much you are willing to pay. Remember, the hand is quicker than > the eye. I dare say you can completely stage a scene to fool even > I don;'t know who or how this thread started. But since it has, I'd like to add some comments. The Israelli government has used a video in which they start with a photograph supplied by the soviets, and purporting to be the id. picture of one Ivan the terrible a notoriously cruel and inhuman concentration camp guard. They then manipulate this image purporting to age it over some forty five (45) years, to finish up looking like the prisoner they have accused on the dock, Ivan Demjaniuk. This video has been admitted as evidence in the trial of Mr. Demjaniuk. In the light of what we have seen in at least one of the AMIGA demos where a persons face has been stretched in all directions. In the light of the current TV shaving commercial where the same is being done with the chin of the face on the screen. In the light of the common county fair crazy mirrors. How can this have been allowed by the Judges bench in the trial over the objections of the defence attorneys??? Do you think it is because the judges do not read USENET newsgroups? Or do you think they are blinded by the mysticism of results generated on a computer? Or does it simply fit in with the aims and policies of the government? Please all excuse this outburst of personal opinions. I take full responsibility for the above statements and sentiments expressed in them. This posting has not been approved by UNCECS nor any other organization through whose channels it may reach you. ----------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@unc.bitnet or urjlew@uncvm1.acs.unc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet) tel. (919)-962-6501
kosma%stc-sun@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma) (03/02/90)
From: David Pochron <pochron@cat27.cs.wisc.edu> Date: 23 Feb 90 19:07:12 GMT In article <687@dsoft.UUCP> dfrancis@dsoft.UUCP (Dennis Heffernan) writes: > > And I have no idea what the courts will use to replace photographs... Simple...holographic film! (What, you mean this hasn't been invented yet!?) ;-) actually, holographic file has been around for years; the problems tend to be related to lighting conditions, vibration, exposure duration, and lots of funky optical equipment required. but I think I know what you mean...the holographic SLR :-). monty kosma@??? who knows, with our network.