Re: "evidence tampering"
Hi Judy Jessica Fridrich, the woman referred to in this wikipedia entry, is at the forefront of research in the digital image forgery field (also solving rubik's cube, which figures, I suppose) Don http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Fridrich ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 2:42 PM Subject: "evidence tampering" > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Camden Hardy wrote: > > > "...calls for works that specifically question the nature of visual > > documentation, including its definition, potentials, semiotic systems, and > > social resonances in a Post-Modern world." > > > I interpret this as saying, "so photography has the ability to distort the > > truth...now what are we, as photographers, going to do about it?" > > A book on this topic was published about 7 years ago, I think by Frank > Richie (or someone like that)... I have it around here somewhere, but it > struck me as more or less re-laboring the obvious & only partially true, > anyway. (Basically his point was that digital made trickery possible, but > IMO, as noted, 'twas ever thus, just not so easy.) > > However I have a question. There was a fair amount of police chicanery > with videotapes of arrests during the Republican National Convention in > NYC in 2004 -- actually quite amusing, if police lies and evidence > tampering strike one's funny bone. Independent videotapes were located > that showed the deleted parts, as reported at several points by the NY > Times. But then, sometime last year (I have the clip, just not in front of > me) the Times mentioned, almost in passing, that something like 400 (FOUR > HUNDRED !) police prosecutions had to be dropped because the tapes had > been found to be "improperly edited." (I think Mark would add "heh heh > heh.") > > I took that to mean, tampering had been detected again -- on the > videotape. My question, which I figure some of the digital mavens around > here would know, is, can you see by examining a jpeg (or digital camera > file) if that's been altered as apparently you can with video? > > I would assume if it's been saved in a different format, editing would > not be detectable. But if it were saved in the same jpeg format ???? > > (Just wondering, not planning anything.) > > Judy >
|