Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:49967 comp.sys.atari.st:25302
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix!barrett
From: barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Courtroom Evidence
Keywords: video graphics computer alter evidence
Message-ID: <4240@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Date: 15 Feb 90 15:51:26 GMT
References: <102034@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Reply-To: barrett@jhunix.UUCP (Dan Barrett)
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Lines: 56


In article <102034@pyramid.pyramid.com> wniren@pyrtech (Walter Nirenberg) writes:
>...the impact of recent computer
>graphics technology advances on the use of video and photographs as
>courtroom evidence.  As many of you may know, it has been possible
>over the past few years to manipulate photographs and videos at
>a bit-level using new generations of graphics computers.  The results
>are that you can completely alter what these media display.

>Is there software available for these inexpensive machines to enable average
>people to do this?  Has anyone seen examples of this kind of manipulation?

	Well, we have a relatively expensive Pixar graphics machine
($40,000) that produces pictures so lifelike that it's uncanny.  Note
that I said "produces", not "alters."  These pictures are NOT photographs,
but are completely computer-generated.
	So, not only can pictures be altered, but also they can be CREATED
FROM SCRATCH.

	I own a Commodore Amiga, and indeed it is possible to retouch photos
on screen.  Right now, the screen resolution of the Amiga (approx. 750 x 480
pixels in 4096 simultaneous colors) can display stunning pictures, but I
don't know how you would get an altered screen picture back onto a photograph.
You could photograph the screen, but that might result in a great loss of
quality compared to the original photo.  Perhaps there is a better-quality
way to do this.

>We're talking about a tremendous potential for "disinformation"...

	If you think about it, this isn't much different from the situation
that exists anyway.  If you bring a piece of evidence into a courtroom, it
could be completely fake REGARDLESS of its medium.  Documents can be forged,
alibis invented, fingerprints faked, guns substituted for other guns, etc.
In addition, it has long been possible to "stage" photographs.

	So, I see the real problem is one of educating your jurors and other
judicial personnel in what fakery is possible.  A photograph of my shooting
the president is not proof -- just evidence.  And it is up to the judicial
system to accept or reject that evidence.

	On the other hand, people tend to believe with their eyes more than
with any other of their senses.  I could see that fake photographs could
sway a jury toward the wrong decision.

	People have been saying for years that technology is racing ahead
faster than the software industry and the legal industry can handle it.
Well, it's true.  But forewarned is forearmed.

                                                        Dan

 //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
| Dan Barrett     -      Systems Administrator, Computer Science Department |
| The Johns Hopkins University, 34th and Charles Sts., Baltimore, MD  21218 |
| INTERNET:   barrett@cs.jhu.edu           |                                |
| COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP:   barrett@jhunix.UUCP    |
 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////