×

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!

New Photo Fraud Detection Software

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the get-the-red-out dept.

Software 124

An anonymous reader writes "CNet is reporting that Hany Farid, Professor of Computer Science and applied mathematics at Darthmouth College, has developed a new version of his Image Science Group's photo fraud software now in use by the FBI and large media organizations. The current software is written in Matlab, but the new version will be written in Java making it much more readily available to local police and smaller media organizations. From the article: 'I hope to have a beta out in the next six months,' Farid said. 'Right now, you need someone who is reasonably well-trained to use it.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

124 comments

but... (4, Funny)

smash (1351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645077)

How do we know the fraud detection software isn't fraudulent? :D

smash.

Re:but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645085)

What are you trying to do? Get the furniture repairman into Steve's office again already?

Re:but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645171)

I see that you use ':D' in your post to emulate a smiling face. This is not proper use of the colon.

This link proves this. [rcsed.ac.uk]

Because it's open source (1)

morzel (62033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647170)

I know you're trying to be funny but it is explicitly stated in the article that the software used in a "verification" is open source. Seems ok to me.

Very good idea, but... (5, Funny)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645089)

Can we adapt it to detect Slashdot article fraud?

open source? (5, Interesting)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645096)

"Will you be able to get a copy of the Java-based version of the Image Science Group's applications? Probably not. One of the dilemmas of this type of software is that the more widespread the distribution, the more chance forgers will exploit it to their advantage."

followed by -

"...the software will be made freely available under an open-source license.
--
"Taxpayers," he said, "are paying me to do this research and it needs to go back out." "

Which is it?

Re:open source? (4, Interesting)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645172)

Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. He said access will be limited, most likely to police, FBI and other government agencies. But if those agencies want to enhance it, or make it better, they'll be able to do so under the open source license. The license may have a clause that limits who can get access to the software, but for those who are able to access it, typical OS rights are given to them.

Or he might not know what he's talking about, and/or wanted to use the term "open source" for good free publicity.

Re:open source? (0, Troll)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645188)

The license may have a clause that limits who can get access to the software

An open-source license can not have such a clause.

Re:open source? (4, Insightful)

NathanBFH (558218) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645207)

Negative. The GPL doesn't have such a clause, but it is easy enough to modify the GPL (or any other license) to allow distribution of the source with the binary, and then restrict distribution of both. Granted, you may be using a different definition of the word 'open' than the software owner is. This scheme is more open than a closed-source solution where I sell you a binary with rights only to use the software and absolutely no rights to the source. While it may offend your OSS senses, it is, I think, a valid use of the term open source.

If you really want to take the term 'open source' to the extreme, I could argue that even the GPL fails to meet some level of openness. The GPL restricts use of its source code on several accounts.

Re:open source? (1)

dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv (951946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645245)

the gpl restricts re-distribution of gpl'd code, if it isnt redistrubuted under the terms of the gpl. i dont believe it restricts use, unless redistribution is defined as 'use'.

open source is a trademarked term. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645424)

text is unnecessary.

Re:open source? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645448)

Open Source is not some open ended concept, it has a clear definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [opensource.org]

Re:open source? (1)

jefu (53450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646323)

"When I use a word [...] it means what I choose it to mean. Neither more nor less. The question is who is to be master?" Humpty Dumpty (in "Through the Looking Glass").

In real use, words (and phrases) mean what the speaker (writer) wants them to mean. They also mean what the listener (reader) hears them as meaning. (This is rather less the case in the context of formal documents of whatever sort - which is where your cited definition appears.) Definitions in dictionaries reflect that use (yup, I tend to the descriptive side of linguistics).

Re:open source? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646814)

Well, the only truly open "license" is the public domain. Otherwise, the only real point of having a license is to delimit the use of the copyrighted work. And that's okay, one simply has to accept that the term "open" is not an absolute.

Re:open source? (1)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647122)

If you really want to take the term 'open source' to the extreme,

I use the OSD (opensource.org), nothing more, nothing less. And you can't restrict distribution. You can twist the meaning of 'opensource', I won't.

Re:open source? (1)

twoshortplanks (124523) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645255)

No, a Free Software licence may not have such a claim. Free and open source software are not always the same thing!

Re:open source? (2, Interesting)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647109)

Could you argue please? AFAIK, FS and OSS are similar for this question.
OSD: 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups. The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Re:open source? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645962)

An Open Source Licenced piece of software can go to a community who will not distribute it outside their peer group, however. If no binaries make it outside that community, no source needs to be distributed outside that community, either. It cannot be done by edict as part of the license. But that's the only restriction.

Re:open source? (1)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647078)

Exactly. And that's what I mean. You can not put restriction but you can distribute the software only to a small number of persons. However these persons can do the same.

Re:open source? (1)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645309)

When you distribute source, but don't allot redistribution of source, that's closed source. I believe AT&T used to do exactly the same thing, back in the day.

This seems like the professor is trying to limit access to his source in order to either keep the number of people with access to the softare low. This is probably for a couple of reasons; people could pick holes is his source and find ways to beat his code, or he just doesn't want anyone outside of government to have the program.

He's throwing aroung terms like "Open Source" but he's actually trying to stop Linus's Law from coming into effect. Sounds more like security through obscurity.

Re:open source? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645462)

He allows redistribution of the source, merely to a limited amount of people (based on profession rather then numbers). I guess it depends which part of open source you think signifies something to be called open source. Altering and redistribution to particular people, or redistribution to anyone?

Funnily enough, all open source licenses have limitations. So a limitation that says "only the following american government agencies" doesn't necessarily exlcude it from being open source, IMO.

Re:open source? (1)

cb0nd (893473) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645871)

Maybe, but this whole discussion is merely philosophical, since the source would be readily available for download very soon in P2P networks.

Government Funded (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646274)

But if its government funded and tied to the GPL, i would think they would be bound to the requirement to give us a copy if we go thru the proper channels. ( like most other government funded software.. and all GPL code. )

This article likes to contradict itself (5, Interesting)

icydog (923695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645126)

As pointed out earlier, apparently the source code won't be released but it is open-source. Interesting.

Anyways, also FTFA:

Still, around 1 percent of accepted articles contain manipulated images that do significantly affect the results, said executive editor Mike Rossner. Those papers get rejected.

So do they get accepted or rejected?

Re:This article likes to contradict itself (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645582)

So do they get accepted or rejected?

Accepted I assume, otherwise it isn't a problem. I assume this guy gets the papers rejected with his software.

Same shot from a different angle... (4, Insightful)

Tsar (536185) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645128)

Note that the submitter identifies the product as "photo fraud software" not "photo fraud detection software." This is quite apt, since the application will obviously cut both ways. Someone cooking a photo could simply run each version through this software, making minor tweaks until their "improvements" pass its inspection. If the software works the way it appears to, it would be the image manipulator's equivalent of a spell checker.

Re:Same shot from a different angle... (4, Funny)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645147)

Ah, yes, a spell checker. Now there's something we *can* use to detect slashdot article fraud.

Re:Same shot from a different angle... (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645616)

Or inverting the algorithm to "correct" a picture, it may not be that easy, but it does provide a guideline to those that want to make stuff up a way to validte it as real.

Re:Same shot from a different angle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645863)

I wonder how long it will take for leaks to get to the underworld. That kind of spell checker might be worth lots of money to elements of the underworld. No amount of controlled distribution will ensure nobody in the pipeline gets bought. Anybody up for bets?

Can it detect all the FAKE kiddie porn pix via FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645150)

Can it detect all the FAKE kiddie porn pix the FBI keeps flooding the internet with with URLS pointing back to FBI created honeypot web sites, and strewn all over legitimate usenet groups?

They (the fbi) puts images of kids heads on nude 18 year old skinny bodies and then wait for the perverts to access the urls only found in the photos.

I bet half the kiddie porn out there is probably from the FBI! Really!

A decade ago Playboy magazine ran an expose that reported that the usa governemt actually MANUFACTURED and distributed kiddie porn via the USPO. The groundbreaking political article ended a longstanding ruse of the post offices Postmaster General from the ensuing outrage at the corrupt practice.

Basically the famous Playboy article said that the feds deliverred UNSOLICITED kiddie porn to peoples homes and if they did not IMMEDIATELY report it to the feds (as if they open their mail that hour or minute) the gestapo feds kicked down your door and arrested the duped person.

nowadays its the same sort of thing i guess, but its a honeypot and uses FAKED photos of composited heads put on bodies

Perhaps this cool new software can poke fun at the lame attempts to round up the perverts?

You may like to read this (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645254)

"Basically the famous Playboy article said that the feds deliverred UNSOLICITED kiddie porn to peoples homes and if they did not IMMEDIATELY report it to the feds (as if they open their mail that hour or minute) the gestapo feds kicked down your door and arrested the duped person"

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/AABBS_Thomases_Memp his/ [eff.org]

He ran a BBS that was legal in California. A prosectutor in Tennessee sent him child porn by post in order to use Federal law to have him arrested (for receiving child porn through the post). He was then arrested and taken to Tennessee, charged with selling porn to Tennessee residents and the child porn charge dropped.

Outsource.. (1)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645186)

Now the CIA can outsource 1/2 their work... :P If we hack it into a video fraud detection package we can effectively get rid of the CIA all together...

Re:Outsource.. (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645984)

I know you won't agree, but many people view 'getting rid of the CIA' as being equivalent to 'getting rid of the fire department' on certain levels.

DARTHmouth College? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645209)

Sounds like somewhere Sith lords are trained.

Why Soviet Russia would love to go digital (2)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645216)

In capitalist west scientist detects your airbrush fraud.

In Soviet Union you airbrush scientist out of photo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_disappearance# Soviet_Union [wikipedia.org]

The fun a government can now have with this package will be great.
False positives to kill a story?
Could real digital "abusing prisoners" images now be spun as a hoax?
Just a few well placed reports as to the authenticity of any new digital images could kill a story?
Or lure a leaker out to 'prove' the reality of the images only to face character assassination?

Re:Why Soviet Russia would love to go digital (1)

thecoolestcow (890234) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646518)

"The fun a government can now have with this package will be great.
False positives to kill a story?
Could real digital "abusing prisoners" images now be spun as a hoax?
Just a few well placed reports as to the authenticity of any new digital images could kill a story?
Or lure a leaker out to 'prove' the reality of the images only to face character assassination?"

That shouldn't be modded as a troll. Although he is unfair to Russia, he has a very good point that should be taken into consideration. What if a government does pass off real pictures as hoaxes because of their "infallable" software?

Can we close this thread now please? (0, Redundant)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645217)

We've had enough intelligent discussion about another no-brainer.
How about posting something more interesting?

Fallibility (5, Insightful)

Mikey-San (582838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645220)

From the article:

"Right now, you need someone who is reasonably well-trained to use it."

I would like to hope that if this software is going to be used for anything of consequence, that someone reasonably well-trained will always be using it. A system is only as good as its operator, ultimately.

Re:Fallibility (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645800)

It really depends on how hard it is to use. If it's the kind of thing where you feed it the file, and it spits out a percentage of how likely it is that the image is fraudulent, then perhaps you could have a regular cop working the system. Or at least a Cop who deals with computers on a day to day basis. I don't think you'd really have to know exactly how it works to get it to work right. I'm just worried that the error rate might be a little off.

It's a fraud, because my blackbox software says so (5, Insightful)

Jivha (842251) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645232)

As other commenters have already pointed out, the confusion over its open-source nature(is it or is it not?) is critical. Without the source code/algorithm being open-source and freely accessible to the public how can one trust its "judgement"? In a legal situation, an accused will always question the accuracy of the algorithm and the software.

On a different angle, I wonder how soon before such detection capabilities will be available to consumers either as an installable plugin or web-based feature. Imagine being able to verify the authenticity of any picture on the web, ranging from that nude shot of your ex- to that impossibly perfect low-light picture taken by your photography class buddy ;-)

Re:It's a fraud, because my blackbox software says (3, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645727)

What you're saying is a rehash of the argument that "Information security isn't secure when the algorithm's security depends on its secrecy".

Thing is, does the same thing hold true when you're talking about detecting fakes (say), as opposed to building strong encryption? If I announce "Well, we can tell this photo isn't genuine because this part which shouldn't be in focus is", I've effectively announced to any potential fraudsters who might be listening "OK, folks, you need to learn to get your focusing correct".

Realistically, the only way such an algorithm remains secure is if it cannot be beaten even with a full understanding of how it works - and I would ask if such an algorithm even exists yet. If the algorithm is anything less than 100% effective, chances are it doesn't.

Obviously it can be beaten (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646411)

It it can analyze a 640x480 image and tell if it's a fake or not then it can be beaten.

There are only so many pixels and so many combinations thereof that it'd quite simply have to be possible to make a fake image that meets all the criteria for a real one.

I don't think that's his point (1)

NigelJohnstone (242811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646599)

'Information security isn't secure when the algorithm's security depends on its secrecy"'

I think his point was that people will run images through this software and the software will say "fake" and users will believe it, even when it's wrong. The same problem is true whether closed or open source. They'll substitute the black box's definition of 'fake' for the real definition of fake because it's easier.

Re:It's a fraud, because my blackbox software says (1)

pikine (771084) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646764)

that impossibly perfect low-light picture taken by your photography class buddy

Still object or moving object? Low-light scenes can pretty much be compensated by large aperture and/or long exposure. Large aperture increases depth of field, and long exposure blurs moving objects. He could also use a high speed film that is more sensitive to light but results in more grain in the image. With experience, you can find a good balance between those three factors and take perfect pictures.

I'm sure you know all this stuff, since you've taken photography class. What I'm trying to say is he might know a trick or two that you could learn before you start accusing his pictures are fake.

Now, from what TFA discloses of the fraud detection algorithm---namely (1) anomalies in lighting direction, and (2) statistical correlation of "filled" pixels---it seems unlikely that adjusting color levels or contrast would be detected as fraud, so you could still post-process a badly exposed low-light picture and have it pass the detection. On the other hand, seemingly benign scratch or noise removal would trigger it.

what could go wrong? (4, Funny)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645259)

Rewrite software written in powerful mathematical simulation software in java?
What could possibly go wrong?

And now, rather than processing an image in 30 minutes, it takes 30 hours, yay!

Re:what could go wrong? (3, Interesting)

titzandkunt (623280) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645343)


"...What could possibly go wrong?..."

Well, memory leaks and array bounds probably won't go wrong ;-)

Looking at some benchmarks [idiom.com] for numerical processing using Java, it appears to stack up quite well agains C++ at least.

Yeah I know, what exactly is being measured, are the benchmarks relevant, are any benchmarks relevant, blah blah blah. Just pointing out that the parent's postulated x60 slowdown is a trifle pessimistic.

T&K

Re:what could go wrong? (2, Informative)

777v777 (730694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646020)

I saw a 60x slowdown in a journal paper describing this exact topic(Java vs. Fortran). Their summary was that it may be possible to get Java fast but by default Java is(was) slow.

Look at "Java for Numerically Intensive Computing: from Flops to Gigaflops" or "Java for high-performance numerical computing". These both tell that better libraries(for multidimensional arrays) and relaxation of the floating point requirements of Java can speed up things a lot.

Re:what could go wrong? (1)

titzandkunt (623280) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646093)

Yeah. If left to its devices, the JDK will do all numerical stuff in double-precision. This is absolutely diabolical for things like acumulating the results of a matrix multiplication, where intermediate result accuracy can be allowed to slide while the final total accuracy must be maintained. Who ever said that numerical calcs were easy? Java can be slow, but it doesn't have to be...

Re:what could go wrong? (1)

777v777 (730694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646635)

Those papers I listed describe the problems with java, including the need for precise exception handling which limits compiler code restructuring(like loop unrolling), among the commonly known things like bounds checking for all array accesses.

Re:what could go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14646609)

Of course, comparing a coomputationally intensive Java implementation to a C++ implemenentation for speed is like comparing the Hindenberg to the Titanic for turning radius. It's not why you use either language.

Re:what could go wrong? (1)

pikine (771084) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646829)

It looks like, at least for light direction computation, linear algebra is used intensively. If they use LAPACK for Java, then their program will at least attain the same efficiency as in MATLAB if not more efficient. MATLAB programs are interpreted, so they could not be more efficient than compiled code.

Re:what could go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14646879)

It depends on how extensively this application makes use of the JIT Accelerator [mathworks.com] that was introduced in MATLAB 6.5:

JAI has native accelleration... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645994)

It's called imlib, I think, so if you have it some core operations are done in a native dll/.so.

JAI being the Java Advanced Imaging library.

-- ac at home

In related news... (5, Funny)

Elitist_Phoenix (808424) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645298)

In related news NASA announced today that it would close its public picture archives ;)

Re:In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645314)

Hahahahahaha. man that is so funny.. lol

this is a really good one :)

Re:In related news... (1)

Elitist_Phoenix (808424) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645388)

I see your posted AC, thus I can only conclude that your are one of "them" trying to lure me into a trap by appealing to ego while your colleagues in their suits and black sunglasses surround my house! Well its not going to work I tell you, because you've got the wrong house I'm using a proxy server! Hahahaha! All that is outside me house is a delivery truck labelled:
Flowers
By
Irene

Oh god! You bastar... NO CARRIER

Re:In related news... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645963)

The White House might have some explaining to do as various news agencies run every last picture on or from whitehouse.gov through the fake analyzer.

The Administration has been caught numerous times photoshopping soldiers into and out of pictures. (And I'm sure Clinton did it too.) I hope a tool like this would encourage a little more honesty & a little less photochopping from the gov't PR people.

/And if a program like this really takes off and is distributed to the media, I think it's fair to expect it available for download within the month.

A Java Version (3, Funny)

pugugly (152978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645323)

So - when can I expect to see this as a Firefox Extension?

"Warning: This nude of Britinet Spears has been photoshopped"

Pug

Re:A Java Version (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645740)

This nude of Britinet Spears has been photoshopped

I've never heard of Britinet Spears, how would I know what she's supposed to look like anyway?

It'll only really get fun ... (1)

the bluebrain (443451) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645328)

... when it's come full circle: Photo manipulation SW gets so good that it can fool the photo manipulation detection SW every time, so you're going to need human specialists to detect the kinds of manipulation that SW can't. Just hope the jury hasn't been replaced by a 12-member P2P system by then.

Moon landing (you knew it was coming!) (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645487)

I wonder what would happen if the software was used to process photos from the original Apollo moon landing. I am of the belief that there is a great possibility that at least the original Apollo landing was faked. Subsequent missions I am not too sure about, but I believe at least the first one was a fraud. I wrote this page [mrnaz.com] up many years ago when I was in 10th grade at school. After reading it again just now, however, I really think I need to update it for new facts I've discovered and general maturity of presentation :)

Re:Moon landing (you knew it was coming!) (1)

LiNKz (257629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645711)

The last pictures shadow looks how it should be -- The leg of the lander is angled, which causes the shadow to look off.

Re:Moon landing (you knew it was coming!) (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646046)

Your arguments sound awfully familiar to those already refuted [demon.co.uk]. In short: Stars aren't usually visible because of the fact that capturing those would need longer exposure, meaning the foreground would be overexposed (hint: Try taking a photograph anywhere with odd lighting conditions, then compare that to what you actually *see* - human eyes have pretty damn amazing dynamic range compared to cameras!) The odd shadows are mostly due to the fact that the surface isn't quite as flat as it seems, and the objects may be in a bit different angle than they immediately seem. Honestly, read the above site (and Clavius [clavius.org] too).

Re:Moon landing (you knew it was coming!) (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646483)

Amateur HAM radio operators communicated with some of the Apollo missions. HAMS need to position their antennae correctly to do this, which confirms that the signal did come from at least the direction of the moon, and not from some California backlot.

$MATLAB/bin/mcc (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645546)

If it's a matlab program, a C version is available now.

A matter of time (2, Interesting)

BiDi (853932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645715)

Just a matter of time before this application gets it's brother: "the simulator".

It uses the same algorithms in a slightly different way: instead of checking for the signs of forgery it finds the tell-tale signs of modification and then reverse-modifies them to "what-should-be-there" to make an "original" modified image.

The result will be an image that is ofcourse different only from mathematical standpoint - visual information will be the same. If that wouldn't be true I would love to have an application that "unblurs" or "unblackouts" the censored parts of some pictures.

Image will have after processing the properties of an "original" because the signs of "not-original" will be detected and "fixed". Way to go... :D

Re:A matter of time (1)

amitola (557122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646686)

You are on crack. No mathematics is going to magically reconstruct pixel information that has been destroyed. If it does, I'm going to get straight to work on a program that starts with a blank hard drive and mathematically interpolates "what should be there"...music, movies, software, whatever.

Re:A matter of time (2, Insightful)

pyite (140350) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646703)


It uses the same algorithms in a slightly different way: instead of checking for the signs of forgery it finds the tell-tale signs of modification and then reverse-modifies them to "what-should-be-there" to make an "original" modified image.


What makes you think this is possible? Let's say I have a set of 15 numbers, {1, 2, ..., 15}. Now suppose I consider each of those numbers modulo 3. I now have a much smaller set of unique numbers, but multiple numbers in the original set map to the same new number. I can't solve x (mod 3) = 2 uniquely for x. A whole bunch of numbers satisfy that equation. Taking this back the fraud detection standpoint, it's likely that while you might be able to algorithmically generate a fraud, it won't look anything legitimate to the human eye. Much as the collisions found in MD5 are not meaningful because there is no change of mistaking a real message with a fake one with the same hash. So, your thought about reverse modifying is probably unlikely. That's not to say that other weaknesses in the algorithms won't be found.

how effective would this be? (1)

trb (8509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645794)

Photos have gradual changes in color (even when there are abrupt changes in the scene being photographed) and edits don't. But if people are trying to produce edited photos that need to be undetectable, it should be possible to write a filter that fixes edited photos. To do the equivalent of taking a photo of the edited photo. It's easy to seek for someone who isn't hiding. When they try to hide, it's a bit tougher.

Re:how effective would this be? (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14645953)

This is quite a generalization. I think a skilled artist could fool this software quite easily. My inclination is to believe that it might compare things like lighting temperature, and overall color makeup between various components, but if you have someone that knows that they're doing, this isn't a big deal.

the bulge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14645956)

So... maybe we can finally put this debate [salon.com] to rest.

Re:the bulge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14646348)

These rumours of George W. Bush being robotically controlled are pure bunk. The box and wires were actually just a poorly tailored shirt as the president explained. I mean come on, how many men haven't worn a wrinkled shirt that made it look like a feeding tube was running up from a colostomy bag toward our oral cavity? We've all been there, right?

Government document redaction (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646003)

I wonder if the software could be modified to easily uncover the blacked out parts prevelant in many government documents. I suspect they would put up a big stink about this though.

Republicans would never do that! (2, Funny)

craXORjack (726120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646066)

The light in the famous doctored photo that puts Sen. John Kerry next to actress Jane Fonda at a protest rally actually comes from two different directions.

"The lighting is off by 40 degrees," Farid said. "We are insensitive to it, but computers detect it."

Well even if that one is fake, at least we know that the one of John Kerry french-kissing Joseph Stalin is real.

How long 'til used on Oswald-with-gun photo? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646396)

I wonder if/when it will be used on the Oswald-with-gun photo that many (apparently starting with Oswald) claim was faked.

The photo appears at the start of this wikipedia article on Lee Harvey Oswald.

(Of course the article is the subject to disputes of its own. B-) )

Now, this is true science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14646506)

"Taxpayers," he said, "are paying me to do this research and it needs to go back out."

Hany Farid has my upmost respect. It's good to see people contribute rather than exploit.

MMMM. My first test to beat this would be. (3, Interesting)

AgNO3 (878843) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646684)

Once you have the comp in done in your image editor with as little pixel and grain distortions as possible. Try the following. Note this does require a $5000 set of plugins http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/ [thefoundry.co.uk] Furnace (no not the After deffects set) and the $5000 program them run in. http://www.eyeonline.com/ [eyeonline.com] or http://www.apple.com/shake [apple.com] http://www.d2software.com/ [d2software.com] (and yes a few others in the $100k+ range) In fact I might even do the whole comp in my film compositor with the use of some other tools. Anyway. Comp elements use historgram matching to match elements in the shot that should have the same color ranges. (You could do a color overlay in PS.) Ok now you have a good comp with good edges or edge blending and light wraps. You completely degrain the shot with furnace (each element seperatly degrained) You then regrain the shot as a whole. degraining and regraining work on all three color plates seperatly so when you regrain the shot it should be adding basically another blending of the of the colors making them uniform to what the original piece of film would have been. Now you take that file and do a film out of that. That is a very simlified break down of the technique. Many of the steps for each step are left out. My basic assumption is that the software looks for irregularities in the pixels deformations, areas of transition, and color offsets in the comp. I would love to go up against this software. (not that I would win but it would be fun to try as long as someone else is paying for the film outs and scans :-).) OH and if your source and destination or supposed to be film you probably want a drum scan not a CCD scan.

If you actually read the article (2, Funny)

texaport (600120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14646704)

It appears that the program also detects software bloat -- it found unnecessary manipulations with some
Big_Foot_Prints.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...