> “Like snowflakes, no two smartphones are the same. Each device, regardless of the manufacturer or make, can be identified through a pattern of microscopic imaging flaws that are present in every picture they take,” says Kui Ren, lead author of a new study describing the smartphone-identifying technology. “It’s kind of like matching bullets to a gun, only we’re matching photos to a smartphone camera.”
Some tips to maximise user privacy while deploying this tool: 1) The code, for now, runs locally. This is good. To avoid the possibility of the code being tampered with at a later day (for example, it could be modified to send copies of the image to a server), download the webpage and use the saved copy, not the live copy. 2) Do not use the blur functionality. For maximum privacy, this should be removed from the app…
A replacement for blur could just be black boxes. Seems easy and safe enough.
As soon as deepfakes and "thispersondoesnotexist" started happening I wanted a tool that would replace everyone's face with a auto-generated face just so I could do street photography without feeling like I was invading people's right to obscurity
Removing EXIF data is not enough. > “Like snowflakes, no two smartphones are the same. Each device, regardless of the manufacturer or make, can be identified through a pattern of microscopic imaging flaws that are present in every picture they take,” says Kui Ren, lead author of a new study describing the smartphone-identifying technology. “It’s kind of like matching bullets to a gun, only we’re matching photos to a…
I wonder if there are tools for removing (or repatterning) these as post-processing. In fact, you’d think single pixel defects might get washed out in conversion to a lossee image format.
A replacement for blur could just be black boxes. Seems easy and safe enough.
As soon as deepfakes and "thispersondoesnotexist" started happening I wanted a tool that would replace everyone's face with a auto-generated face just so I could do street photography without feeling like I was invading people's right to obscurity
This is a cool idea. Oh to be a streamer with an auto generated face. Reminds me of A Scanner Darkly.
Do not keep it transparent! The Gimp for example keeps the underlying colour data, and just sets the opacity to 0. this bug (closed as Expected Behavior) has a demonstration: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/4487
It blows my mind that there are so many ways to screw up something this simple. Edit: to be clear I meant this as a commentary on the technology, not the people making the mistakes
I think there is a need for a dedicated image privacy offline program. On a technical level its very easy to preserve privacy, its just the tools people are using were built for other purposes (Non destructive editing is highly desirable in normal cases).
All the program has to do is scrub all exif data, have a censor box/brush that is 100% black and rencode the image so there is no remaining unneeded data.
Easier to select an area and delete it from the layer entirely so that a transparent hole is left. Then make sure you cleanup EXIF and other metadata or you may have the original image still in a thumbnail field at reduced fidelity. Free online metadata viewer http://exif.regex.info Powered by FOSS (Perl-based) https://exiftool.org
Do not keep it transparent! The Gimp for example keeps the underlying colour data, and just sets the opacity to 0. this bug (closed as Expected Behavior) has a demonstration: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/4487
Is PPM a safe round-trip format to remove all metadata and transparency? I'd like to recommend it to a friend and as far as I know it really only contains RGB as text and has no extensions for exif or similar. But after so many gotchas, as listed here in the thread, I'm somewhat paranoid...
A billion dollars of property damage and the targeted destruction of businesses operated by Korean immigrants, but multiplied by a factor that will ensure laughter at the memory of those killed in the '92 race riots? I don't know how you could more charitably interpret the "wish".
tal8d said 3 hours ago> 'A billion dollars of property damage and the targeted destruction of businesses operated by Korean immigrants, but multiplied by a factor that will ensure laughter at the memory of those killed in the '92 race riots? I don't know how you could more charitably interpret the "wish".' I believe you're having problems thinking clearly. Here, in a public forum, you threaten "A billion dollars of p…
lol, either your reading comprehension is poor or your understanding of the '92 riots is... or both, I guess. That was a response to your question about what one could mean when saying "1992 will look like a joke", and I answered that question exactly. Do you not understand how usernames work?
"There are _a lot_ of forensic methods to reverse blur techniques" Any examples? You can't reverse it if the data is gone.
> You can't reverse it if the data is gone. That's the problem - the data you think is gone isn't gone. High frequencies are gone.... but you left all the low frequencies, didn't you? You can read a face from the low frequencies.
Nit: when you blur high frequencies are not gone. They are damped.
Some tips to maximise user privacy while deploying this tool: 1) The code, for now, runs locally. This is good. To avoid the possibility of the code being tampered with at a later day (for example, it could be modified to send copies of the image to a server), download the webpage and use the saved copy, not the live copy. 2) Do not use the blur functionality. For maximum privacy, this should be removed from the app…
Given that this is a protest about cops getting away with brutality even when there's clear evidence I think "gather evidence against both sides equally" is unlikely to be convincing argument to protesters.
“Getting away with” Who is getting away with what? They are under arrest right now. Or do you want them dragged through the streets?