One thing I’m concerned about is recording equipment leaving identifiable information without us knowing about it.

  • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Was it just EXIF information or was it something embedded in the pixels? If it’s just EXIF that’s something you can scrub from the file easily.

    • chgxvjh [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The Harry Potter thing was EXIF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/07/harry-potter-and-digital-fingerprints

      But pictures can also be traced back to a camera based on irregularities in the camera sensor https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tracing-photos-back-to-the-camera-that-snapped-them/

      Unlike with the printers, there is probably no database of the CMOS sensor irregularities of all cameras ever made. But if you upload pictures under your government name and the take pictures with the same camera and share them anonymously, this could be traced back to you in theory.

      • LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        sensor pattern noise is recognizable to an extent with pros, but usually its paired with highlight rolloff and other similar qualities. For instance, when I watch a movie, I can figure, okay, this was probably one of the arri’s rather than a RED, etc. Sometimes, especially with a bit of knowledge on how/where they shot this, you can get an even better idea, close to a specific model. Of course if you’re watching an actual movie, this is all after color correction so its more obvious if you have the raw files.

        anyway, my point is, people who work with the cameras and files can definitely have at least a good idea of what camera something was shot with, but you’d really need a huge database and computers to do the work to match it exactly. I have colleagues that will show me something they worked on, with cameras they don’t own and between the group of us, someone can immediately spot what camera it was shot on. but! like you said, if you post pictures on the internet, and then more pictures/videos with the same camera elsewhere, yeah it should be theoretically possible to match them with sensor noise pattern. they could at least prove its the same model. i’m not sure how much it differentiates between same camera models, but i can recognize my camera models dnp easy peasy. i have not had any caffeine yet so this is likely a jumbled mess of a thought and i apologize.

        • chgxvjh [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          And they can do that based on the way your write text posts too, so probably not worth worrying about camera sensor fingerprinting too much.

          Just don’t post about your insurrection plans on public forums in general, with or without photos.

    • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Cameras generally have barely noticeable, but uniquely identifiable, defects that will consistently affect pictures. So if you post a photo on your personal Social Media, and then you post a photo from the same camera on Hexbear, those two things could be connected. Just because it can happen doesn’t mean it’s practical, though.

      I have no idea if this is what’s been used with the Harry Potter thing.