Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mining EXIF Data From Camera Phones

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the know-where-you-did-it-last-summer dept.

Cellphones 175

emeitner notes that folks at the Internet Storm Center wrote scripts that harvested 15,291 images from Twitpic and analyzed the EXIF information. This reader adds, "While mining EXIF data from images is nothing new, how many people would allow this data to leave their cell phone if they knew what it contained? The source code for the scripts is also available from the article." "399 images included the location of the camera at the time the image was taken, and 102 images included the name of the photographer. ... The iPhone is including the most EXIF information among the images we found. ... It not only includes the phone's location, but also accelerometer data showing if the phone was moved at the time the picture was taken and the readout from the [built-]in compass showing in which direction the phone was pointed at the time."

cancel ×

175 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The metadata (4, Insightful)

Hmmm2000 (1146723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31115988)

Someday soon a politician will post what appears to be a benign photo with an embarrassing long/lat location.

Re:The metadata (5, Funny)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116028)

Re:The metadata (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116798)

I want a date with that Megan chick.

Re:The metadata (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116924)

Like most xkcd, that was not funny. Just gay and try hard.

Re:The metadata (3, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116404)

Most people have a lassitude attitude with latitude.

They give sites way too much latitude. Even if it may reveal their turpitude.

Not enough aptitude and too much ineptitude.

Re:The metadata (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31117144)

"Even if it may reveal their turpitude."

This thread is worthless without pics of the pulchritude!

Re:The metadata (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116556)

Someday soon a politician will post what appears to be a benign photo with an embarrassing long/lat location.

Ah... but perhaps they already have, and it's already out there- it's just that no-one has realised it yet.

In which case, there's nothing they can do about it now. :-/

This is why you should be cautious about what information you release. Even if there's no known exploit for information at the time you give it out; even if you tighten things up once a given danger becomes known... your old information is still out there, and now subject to *newer* information-retrieval techniques.

If it's time-sensitive information (e.g. you don't want $REPRESSIVE_DICTATORIAL_REGIME to know your current location), then their being able to retrieve such info two years down the line is meaningless. On the other hand, if it (e.g.) revealed the previously unknown fact that you were active with an anti-government organisation, you're in trouble.

Re:The metadata (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116810)

Ah... but perhaps they already have, and it's already out there- it's just that no-one has realised it yet.

400 images have "location of the camera at the time the image was taken" out of 15300. 100 of 15300 have the photographer's name.

You're all getting lathered up over 2.6% and 0.65%????? That's serious overreaction!

Re:The metadata (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116852)

How much more information would it take to identify this guy [google.ca] to his wife? Or to someone who might want to embarrass him for some reason?

Re:The metadata (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31117280)

The left-rear quarter of a medium-height salt-and-pepper hair white guy who, for all we know,

  • might already be divorced,
  • own/work at the joint, or
  • be the "old man" of some skank who works there.

Re:The metadata (1)

Advocatus Diaboli (1627651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31117072)

Hey, I wrote about this concept a few weeks ago on my blog. Even submitted a link to slashdot and have outlined certain possibilities that we will likely see in the future. Here it is again: http://dissention.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/self-shots-gps-enabled-smartphones-and-data-mining/ [wordpress.com]

Re:The metadata (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31117096)

You mean like when Arnold did it, last year?
http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2009/10/wheres-arnold.html [blogspot.com]

Re:The metadata (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31117130)

Cool, now Obama doesn't even need to invent some rope-a-dope justification for obtaining your phone's location without a warrant!

Yours in Totalitarianism,
Tony Rezko, convicted felon, former Chicago slumlord, and one-time realtor to the Obamas

Photosynth Would Like This (3, Interesting)

QBasicer (781745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116062)

Photosynth [wikipedia.org] would probably find the information to be extremely useful. Unfortunately, the iPhone camera isn't terribly great (for now), but I can see some of the exif tags coming to more "consumer" cameras (Point and shoot). Almost every online photo service and social networking site could use this information in many ways, such as automatic correlation of pictures and events, concerts, etc.

Re:Photosynth Would Like This (2, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116096)

While I'm guessing you can use applications to strip this data...is there anyway (particularly on the iPhone) to keep it from setting this metadata in the first place?!?!

Re:Photosynth Would Like This (3, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116854)

Individual apps require you to give them the OK to get location data, but that only applies to shots taken from the app itself and not those that pull from the existing photo library. You can turn location services off entirely, but I can't find an immediately obvious way to revoke privileges from individual apps.

Re:Photosynth Would Like This (4, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116122)

Now you mention it, the information from the iPhone could be useful for correctly placing a photo in an application such as Google Earth. You would know what angle the camera was in, what direction it was pointing and given the fact its a fixed zoom how line everything up. You could then even use a temporal guide to view evolution of the location over time, given multiple photos.

Re:Photosynth Would Like This (3, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116624)

the information from the iPhone could be useful for correctly placing a photo in an application such as Google Earth.

iPhoto and Aperture are already taking advantage of this enhanced metadata.

Digital cameras can really stuff the metadata in. Exposure etc are all in there usually. Sometimes other things like camera model and firmware rev.

I wonder if any of them are putting in too much information though? As in phone number, phone ESN, email address, etc, things most would not want in their pictures without notice...

Re:Photosynth Would Like This (1)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116864)

FYI, the iPhone doesn't have an ESN, it has an imei.

Re:too much information (1)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 4 years ago | (#31117036)

Just noticed that my new point and shoot includes its own serial number in there, which I kinda liked at first, since it might help me locate it should it end up in someone else's hands without my consent!

Though it does make all my snapshots totally traceable.

Re:Photosynth Would Like This (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116182)

Nokia is already working on that [nokia.com] , albeit opt-in.

Re:Photosynth Would Like This (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116488)

Aren't all the online photo services and social networking sites already using EXIF data? I think they're only hindered by the people who aren't inserting latitude/longitude info.

dumb question (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116064)

How hard is it to extract this data, Do you need a special tool or can i see it all in photoshop

Re:dumb question (4, Interesting)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116192)

Exif is even viewable on OSX and Windows by just looking at the file's properties.

Most artists actually *rely* on EXIF (and carefully protect it) to establish things like Copyright - not to mention keeping track of settings.
If my phone *didn't* tag my photos with my name I'd be a bit miffed :)

Re:dumb question (4, Insightful)

QBasicer (781745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116292)

If my phone *didn't* tag my photos with my name I'd be a bit miffed :)

Generally yes. Unless you want to anonymously submit a photo, and you had no idea this information was stored inside the picture.

Re:dumb question (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116880)

If it's a service that exists for that kind of thing (Wikileaks?), they should know well enough to strip that data out themselves.

Not that I'd want to rely on someone else. You'd be astonished at the number of websites that don't even hash or encrypt passwords.

Re:dumb question (4, Insightful)

Joreallean (969424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116938)

Then maybe you should take a little more responsibility for what you are posting for the public to view.

Re:dumb question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31117136)

I like to examine the exif information on the sexting photos I google for.

Re:dumb question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31117292)

If they *rely* on EXIF dqta to establish copyright they are pretty dumb. EXIF data can be esaily manipulated or even removed altogether. I can replace your (C) Copyright WinterSolstice notice with a (C) Copyright AnonymousCoward notice with just a couple of clicks

Re:dumb question (2, Informative)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116300)

How hard is it to extract this data, Do you need a special tool or can i see it all in photoshop

It's not hard at all. On Vista and 7, right-click on the file, select properties, and go to "details." It might work on XP as well.

Depending on your folder view, all you might have to do is select the file.

Re:dumb question (2, Interesting)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116686)

For most of my photos, this works:

cat image_name.jpg | strings | more

Re:dumb question (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116740)

You should be able to look at the most interesting details in most up to date image software.

The buzzsaw is ExifTool:

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/ [queensu.ca]

meh (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116078)

I can't be bothered to set the clock on my camera, let alone enter personal data.

Re:meh (4, Insightful)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116156)

I can't be bothered to set the clock on my camera, let alone enter personal data.

Not a problem on CELL PHONE cameras!

Re:meh (1)

KC7JHO (919247) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116822)

While I completely understand the sentiment, even most Point and Shoot cameras come with some type of software for downloading the pictures from the camera. This software will usually use the EXIF data to help organize your pictures by date taken, location (If available), etc. The real problem is that when uploading directly from your cell phone you are not given the option to strip that data from the file. If you upload it to your computer first you can just right click on it in windows explorer, or what ever other file browser you are using, and select properties (then advanced properties if needed on windows XP) and delete the data you want to, close the file ant the new properties will be saved to it.

The iPhone metadata was already known I thought? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116084)

Wasn't there a demo during the release of the iPhone 3GS keynote that showed the use of this metadata with a bunch of GPS-aware cameras, including the iPhone and the new version of iPhoto that uses this data to create clickable maps with pushpins for each photo you have taken?

I suppose some people could think it was "magic", since embedded data in an image isn't something that is immediately obvious to a normal user. Perhaps if it was called "Virtual Writing on the back of your Photos".

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (1)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116196)

Yes - iPhoto features "Places", which tags them in a similar manner to what the article has done. As some have noted, the GPS data can be way wrong on an iPhone. Unlike the 5 blocks some have seen, in more rural states I've seen it be off by more than 20 miles (another city away).

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116364)

That's a time thing I think - when I fire up the map app on the phone it often takes a little while to update and settle on a GPS fix, probably because the GPS isn't powered on all the time for battery life, and it can take upto 30 seconds to register a satellite (due to the nature of the GPS signal itself), so if you just pop open the photo app and take a shot quickly you might get wildly inaccurate data.

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116544)

The GPS is constant, my phone is always 2+ blocks off

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116734)

I'd say it's more likely that your maps are off then

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (3, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116380)

The location data can be very wrong. If you don't have an adequate line of sight to the sky the phone will use cell towers to triangulate. If you can't see enough of them, it will use a wifi database to guess. If you've got a crappy (or no) cell connection but a clear view of the sky it might take a considerable amount of time for the GPS to lock on.

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116920)

I have nokia sports tracker on my phone (its great...I wish nokia pushed more stuff like this in the US instead of being provider lapdogs and disabling all useful features). It has an export to web function where you can see my route taken as well as stats like speed and elevation change...nice google maps overlays and charts of various things (apparently some phones even support bluetooth heartrate monitors).

When I upload to the service, it has an option to include any media which well then include any pictures I took with the phone while using the sports tracker (cycling in my case usually). To get it to pick up the photos though, I do have to be running the GPS tagger app in the background (so I can keep my pictures untagged by not actively running the app)

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116356)

I suppose some people could think it was "magic", since embedded data in an image isn't something that is immediately obvious to a normal user.

Try saying "metadata" to the average computer user. It's like watching a BSOD on someone's face; And that's exactly the problem here -- devices shipping with privacy-compromising features enabled by default. Joe Average doesn't even know it's possible, let alone that his iPhone is serrepticiously leaking a bunch of personal information everytime he posts a photo he snapped with it to some internet site. I can see it now -- "Hey, check out this cute girl's panties I snapped in class..." Oops. Oh, the bitter irony to be had there -- you're busted violating someone else's privacy because you didn't know your own was being violated by your cell phone. Brilliant.

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116722)

Rule 1 when doing something stupid and / or illegal:

Know your tech. Remember - stupid criminals get caught.

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (1)

Reece400 (584378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116742)

Really though, most people will benifit from these tags, I think the cameras recording them is great.

However I think websites should strip this content when uploaded, or at least offer some kind of warning to users that the content exists (reading exif data is simple, it could easily show them what is in the photo and ask them what they'd like to do..)

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (3, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116792)

Facebook strips the EXIF data...

and then saves the photo with a filename that includes the Facebook user ID of the person who uploaded it.

Re:The iPhone metadata was already known I thought (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116964)

Given the choice of convenience/cool features or privacy/security, users* will ALWAYS pick convenience/features. 100% of the time. To them, it's not "leaking a bunch of personal information", but enabling that "oh cool, it knows I took these pictures down by the waterfront and stuck them on the map for me" stuff.

* Normal users. Us paranoid slashdotters (and, in general, people that actually understand the necessity and implications of privacy and security) need not apply to that stat.

Oh Noes!!! (0, Offtopic)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116092)

Now someone will be able to track down the location of my precious kitty cat, Scruffles.

I must never take pictures of him again. /sarcasm

Re:Oh Noes!!! (2, Funny)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116220)

If "Scruffles" is the name of your favorite male cat-dresser/entertainer at the local strip joint, and you're a politician, someone will be able to A) see the name of the person who took the photo (you!), and B) see where you were when you took it.

So much for anonymously uploading your photos to furryfun.com.

Re:Oh Noes!!! (3, Insightful)

prockcore (543967) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116988)

If you're a politician, you're screwed the minute you set foot in a strip joint. It's not like the people inside have signed non disclosure agreements.

Re:Oh Noes!!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31117118)

Now someone will be able to track down the location of my precious kitty cat, Scruffles.

I haz Scruffles, will ak-cupt ranzom
3 punds of catnip & 2 fish
lv ranzom bi garage
den Scruffles will be relezed

Warrent (4, Funny)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116114)

I wonder how many grow ops have been busted by the cops looking through twitpics/myspace photos metadata.

Re:Warrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116342)

OH FUCK!

*runs off of slashdot to immediately take off all pictures and move the grow rooms to a new, secure location*

Re:Warrent (2, Interesting)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116696)

I just checked my most recent Yfrog upload (of something completely innocuous) which I shot and tweeted directly from my iPhone and it looks like every last bit of metadata has been stripped. It doesn't even say what it was shot with.

Don't know how Twitpic and others work, but so far so good.

Re:Warrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31117286)

jpegs downloaded from Facebook do not appear to retain the EXIF info

Scrubbing (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116126)

No picture leaves this computer before it has been subjected to "jhead -purejpg". Something else to look out for: Image data beyond the edge of the image after lossless resizing and orphaned preview images embedded in the JPG, showing the full uncropped picture. The latter is dealt with by the "jhead -purejpg" command, the former isn't.

So? (3, Insightful)

stokessd (89903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116136)

Maybe I need another layer on my tinfoil hat, but after reading the summary (and only the summary, obviously) all I can say is, "So what?"

After all, it's not like the pictures somehow snuck onto the interwebs without the users knowledge, the photographs actively put them there. Beyond that, I really don't care if someone knows my name, and where I was standing when I took a picture. In fact knowing where pictures were taken can lead to some really cool mashups of tourist photos and such.

Wake me when exif data routinely contains my passwords, social security number, and credit card number.

Sheldon

Re:So? (0, Troll)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116416)

Say you're witnessing a crime from your comfy couch and decide to take a picture and post it on the interwebs for... I dunno, "teh lulz" or because you want to become anonyfamous in some CNN iReport or who cares.
Now, nothing in the picture itself identifies you or where it was shot.

But then the EXIF data comes in and gives the perp, or his buddies, the exact location from where the picture was taken. Next thing you know, your house/its occupants are a target.

Perhaps we should all be 'smart enough' to strip the EXIF data when it comes to such images - but when the users themselves might not even know that their phone (of all things) is including this data when they use the little twitpic app to quick-submit the thing...

I can certainly see reason, at least, for such utilities to strip this data by default / prompt the user / etc.

Re:So? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116474)

You know what? Why argue? Go ahead and publish your life. Don't come crying to us when we exploit the information that you so generously provided. If you don't have the imagination to come up with ways how this may be bad for you and good for someone else, rest assured that we do have plenty ideas. I'm serious. I am really fed up with this whole "who cares" bullshit. I used to care for other people's privacy, but I don't anymore. If you publish it, I use it.

When chased by a tiger, you don't have to outrun the tiger. You only have to outrun your colleague.

Re:So? (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116642)

When chased by a tiger, you don't have to outrun the tiger. You only have to outrun your colleague.

Or you could just trip them, and walk away.

What the heck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116162)

There are zillions of images posted on public domain by millions...why should I care if you got to know that "I" took this picture in Tunisia and the camera was pointed to some blasted direction at some freaking angle...

Pakistani Pizza? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116188)

That looks more like a quiche...

I'm all for EXIF (3, Funny)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116216)

Especially when it means 800815. I'm looking at you, Cat Schwartz [wikipedia.org] !

Re:I'm all for EXIF (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116478)

Damn, you beat me to the reference. Sad though, the fantasy is always a lot better than the reality. I just hope when Morgan Webb takes her top off she doesn't have a bunch of nasty warts.

Re:I'm all for EXIF (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116982)

Damn, you both beat me to the reference.

I just hope when Morgan Webb takes her top off she doesn't have a bunch of nasty warts.

Yeah, warts is ok by me, it's just those nasty warts that are ... well, nasty.

no problem... (1)

sohp (22984) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116232)

This is why I shoot film on an old manual camera.

Re:no problem... (4, Funny)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116348)

This is why I shoot film on an old manual camera.

And then drop off my film to get it processed.
And then wait for it to get processed.
And then scan it with my film scanner.
And then correct it in Photoshop.
And then go to Google Maps and try and remember just where I was when I took the shot.
And then extract the longitude & latitude from the Google Maps URL.
And then convert the longitude & latitude from decimal to radians.
And then tag my photo with appropriate tags.

Privacy for the fail.

Re:no problem... (4, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116668)

And, as you sort of pointed out, it's not even privacy unless the photographer develops his own film.

Re:no problem... (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31117054)

I think the idea behind the manual camera is to AVOID steps 5-8.

Re:no problem... (1)

imunfair (877689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116394)

Well if you're taking photos with a digital SLR you're probably saving to RAW, and then resaving a post-processed version in another format, so this wouldn't be an issue.

Re:no problem... (4, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116430)

Most RAW processing software preserves the tags embedded in the RAW file.

Presumably if you're doing RAW processing you're smart enough to know what EXIF is and make a conscious decision about which tags you want in your web-posted JPEG, but you never know.

Re:no problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116638)

Of course, you'll need your own darkroom if you don't want one of those 1-hour photo places seeing your pictures.

EXIF and hidden thumbnails (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116322)

EXIFs can also contain thumbnails that can sometimes reveal more than needed after for example cropping the original.
http://no.spam.ee/~tonu/exif/ [no.spam.ee]

The horror! (4, Insightful)

paimin (656338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116332)

It not only includes the phone's location, but also accelerometer data showing if the phone was moved at the time the picture was taken and the readout from the [built-]in compass showing in which direction the phone was pointed at the time.

Not only that, the file exposes an image from the phone's camera. Won't someone think of the children!

There is always the alternative... (1)

geegel (1587009) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116384)

... of stripping [fileguru.com] the EXIF metadata. Just saying.

If you're surprised you're a fool (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116386)

You have to go out of your way to include location in your pic. You need to be outdoors with most phones to get a clean GPS signal and have the GPS on the phone switched on and the camera set to include GPS data. GPS is still an advanced (and desired!) feature on non-mobile phone cameras that people pay extra money for. It's just that many phones now happen to include both a camera and a GPS so giving the user the option to record the two makes sense. On a decent camera, in all but the top of the line SLRs you still have to get additional hardware to do it.

Pretending this is some sort of major security iisk is asinine.

Re:If you're surprised you're a fool (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116482)

The risk isn't from SLRs or compact cameras, it's from the people who emit a steady stream of blurry, compromising pictures from their cell phone cameras directly onto thing like Twitter. Now, they probably don't really care about privacy anyway, but it's worth noting.

Re:If you're surprised you're a fool (1)

KC7JHO (919247) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116970)

Yep those pictures of that chick you took with your cell phone and then forwarded to everyone at your school? Yep those pictures have your name saved to the EXIF data and is easily readable on any computer some one wants to upload them to. In fact I bet "There is an App for that!"

Does the Iphone turn all that on by default? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116390)

Personally, I enabled the GPS tagging on my phone on purpose. Normally it's off, and the only other interesting thing in the exif tags are the model of the phone. I enjoy having a GPS tag on each pic in case I want to go back and look at exactly where I was when it was taken. I did remember to turn it off before taking a picture of the secret location I buried my treasure of gold doubloons, so I think it should be safe.

Long story short, what could possibly go wrong? I could see how an Iphone user (if this stuff is turned on by default) would be caught off guard by all the extra info in the tag. However, unless you are really oversharing everything else, like "look at this sweet pic of my new 50" tv... too bad I will be on vacation for two weeks starting tomorrow and wont be able to watch it... hope no one realizes the spare key is under the door mat... And my social security card is in the cookie jar next to my birth certificate..." Would an Iphone user really be *that* stupid? Wait, no, don't answer that.

Re:Does the Iphone turn all that on by default? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116592)

Of course, how else would it be considered user friendly?

I never publish with EXIF (1)

rimugu (701444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116408)

I never publish photos with any EXIF.
There are tons of utilities out there to remove it, I use this: http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/ [sentex.net]

I still have to silence the cell phone camera. It is annoying.

"Twitpic"? (2, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116462)

Amazing honesty.

Sharpie in the pooper! (4, Interesting)

AdamTrace (255409) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116464)

Someone posted a picture of their girlfriend's rear end with a sharpie sticking out of it to a popular anonymous image-sharing web board.

Unfortunately, the image contained EXIF data, including latitude and longitude. It was quick work to come up with a name and address and all sorts of other information...

Good times.

Re:Sharpie in the pooper! (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116484)

I wouldn't know about that, I have Verizon Wireless.

Re:Sharpie in the pooper! (1)

skuzzlebutt (177224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116594)

As disappoint in myself I am to admit it, I've seen a few threads that went that way.

"Hey look, I'm a camwhore with bathroom mirror nudie pix!"

"Hey, look, I found your lat/lon in the EXIF data"

"Hey, look, I found your house on Google Maps at this link. RAEDZ!"

Re:Sharpie in the pooper! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31116806)

The real disappointment happens when the 'houseguests' show up at the exact L/L location and realize it's about five houses off, and they bang on the door to the house of some fat slob who shows up at the door with his bath robe half open.

Re:Sharpie in the pooper! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31117158)

Yes, and then it’s only a short matter of time before the picture gets mailed to your parents, faxed and e-mailed to your school, ...

Facebook strips exif (2, Interesting)

Leebert (1694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116476)

I've actually found it kind of annoying that Facebook strips exif data. I've wanted to pull it out of some of the pics of friends' iPhone photos and creep them out by knowing where they were when they took them. :)

Conspiracy! (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116480)

FBI Agent A: Dammit guys, they found out about the EXIF stuff. Now what are we going to do to get data from these pictures?

FBI Agent B: Let's just Photoshop in some crack like we used to.

FBI Agent A: Promote that man!

More fun with Math (5, Informative)

Snowgen (586732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116504)

399 images included the location of the camera at the time the image was taken, and 102 images included the name of the photographer. ...

Or, to summarize from the other point of view...

"97.4% of images did not include the location of the camera at the time the image was taken, and 99.3% of images did not include the name of the photographer. ... "

Off-Topic: Good EXIF editing library? (3, Interesting)

TejWC (758299) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116506)

Sorry for being off-topic here, but I was wondering if anybody knows a good OSS EXIF editing library/software.

I tried libexif, but it seems to be rather limited in functionality (you can't add in new comments) and other libraries seem to be read only. It would be really useful to be able to easily edit the EXIF data like location, name of photographer, etc.

Considering (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116586)

how much I paid for the features, it damn well better be in there.

The real issue at hand is that neither the camera or management software have a system to remove/obfiscate that data and some apparently deliberately hide it from you.

Wait a second (1)

AGSHender (696890) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116620)

There's a privacy concern about the digital compass metadata telling someone else what direction you were facing...when they're looking at the picture? Can't you just look at the picture and figure out what direction the photographer was facing?

NASA, I'm on to you! (1)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116922)

The EXIF data in the moon photographs will surely prove that the moon landings were faked.

"Big Brother" made cool... (1)

logicassasin (318009) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116946)

... The title pretty much sums it up. Big Brother was made "cool" and the public welcomed it with open arms.

EXIF Twiddling (1)

GeoVizer (724140) | more than 4 years ago | (#31116986)

Perl-its can use the excellent "Image::EXIF" on CPAN. I'd love to find an equivalent library for Java. Anyone know of one?

Remove EXIF metadata? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31117082)

Someone should make a software that removes EXIF metadata. That strips it from an image.

$ stripexif img_5643.jpg

Oh no! (1)

LeonPierre (305002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31117098)

You mean to tell me that a photograph of something is capable telling me where that thing is?!

I sure hope that if I take a picture of the Empire State Building no one would be able to determine where I was where I took it.....

Accelerometer (2, Interesting)

kcitren (72383) | more than 4 years ago | (#31117178)

How good is the accelerometer and digital compass? Is it good enough to be able to do some blur / shake reduction of the image? Or how about improved panorama auto-stitching? This could actually be interesting... Maybe I need to break down and get an iphone, or wait for a camera enabled ipod.

yuO fail it!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31117184)

provide sodas, the most. Look at a relatively of ,business and
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>