 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit
|
|
|
Subject: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 May 07 - 04:00 AM I was a witness in a car. A photos has ben onforwarded to me alleging much car damage from a very slight glancing impact. How can can photos be manipulated to increase the damage and is there easy ways to tell if the 'damage' has been 'increased - good references, please? There has already been much 'blocking behaviour' and delaying tactics by the insurance company, including a letter saying 'photo enclosed' but no photo - now one emailed much later shows damage to a black car (from a white car) when the other car was red - and shows no corresponding damage. Ta. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: stallion Date: 11 May 07 - 04:07 AM contact the police |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 May 07 - 04:24 AM 'Alleged Accident' took place on private property (shopping centre car park) - this has nothing to do with the Police. Fraud charges, however may - but I wish the information I asked for BEFORE making allegations of fraud. Thank you, but I do wish the 'helpful' would provide only the help requested please. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: JohnInKansas Date: 11 May 07 - 05:23 AM The easiest way to fake more damage than actually occured would probably be to substitute an unaltered photo of a different car than the one that actually was in the accident. An alternate fraudulent method could be to create more damage to the car before taking the photo for the purpose perhaps of getting a part replacement rather than a touch up paint job. The appearance of white marks on any car could be the result of exposing an undercoat or primer on the damaged car, and without direct examination of the car itself it would be difficult to rule out collision with a red car that produced white "scrapings" on the other vehicle. The visible marks don't necessary match the color of the other vehicle, especially if the other vehicle is relatively undamaged. "Photoshoping" a picture to change the appearance can be done, more or less easily, but requires fairly expert manipulation to avoid obvious alteration. If a digital file for the photo has been altered, it usually is possible, and sometimes not too difficult, to tell from the digital file if alterations have been made. A lot depends on how expert the person doing it was, and on how much time was devoted to getting everything right. If all you have is a paper print from an altered file, the printing process probably "smoothes out" most of the evidence, and it could be very difficult to "prove" that there had been a digital alteration. In either case, "proving" that the photo had been altered would require that your expert have credentials satisfactory to whatever court hears the evidence, and that your expert's credentials were at least as good as their expert's. The witness fee for a suitably credible expert (if you can find one) may outweigh what can be gained from a favorable judgement. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 May 07 - 08:09 AM Thanks John. It seems to be the same car. The amount of damage is far in excess of what I observed immediately. The 2 vehicles barely touched - I felt no contact - the angles being apparently different from what damages the photo suggests. The length of the contact would have taken a couple of seconds at the speed the 2 vehicles allegedly touched - being almost stationary - under 1/2 km per hour at most. The amount of alleged damage to the rear bumper (the cars barely touched rear panel side to rear) and left no panel ripple (the photo show enormous damage) and left no scratches of white showing on a black car that I witnessed at the immediate time. I told her that there was no damage. The lady's car (that I was in) had the rear panel and bumper damaged (on the other side of the car) about 18 months prior by her ex, and any contact of the sort of force and extent of energy involved in the contact that is alleged that should have caused the extent of damage shown in the photo would have ripped the whole rear section under the bumper of her car off, as it is not rigidly securely attached to the body, but hanging loosely, secured sufficiently so that it will not fall off!. Further the lower part of the damage where the plastic bumper is alleged to have struck - shows very sharp gouges (of about half an inch deep!) that appear to have been caused by a much harder and sharper edged substance, such as a brick wall, or other object, such as a fence or metal object like a 4WD 'roo bar'. There was no corresponding damage I observed at the time to the red car bumper bar, nor any traces thereon of what would be white paint - if the white paint is an undercoat of the car alleged struck, whose car finish is a pearly type sheer gloss black. I observed that he red car also had no white undercoat showing on the finish immediately after. The guy savaged her on the phone, then admitted that the damage was so trivial that he could not see it - such is simply on the case with the photo. I suspect that this may be damage caused by a subsequent far greater incident that would have entirely obliterated all traces of any previous contact. The utter rudeness and unprofessionalness of the 'agent' refusing to acknowledge any approach, but just issuing 'pay within 14 days' letters, that then take 10 days to get postmarked!, and deliberately refusing to enclose photos, that the letters claim are enclosed ("because you wouldn't have been able to see the damage!!!!") are what make me highly suspicious! The only photo (by email) supplied was VERY clear. Perhaps TOO clear... I am still looking for anybody who knows any tricks of observing the photo (jpeg), as I am aware that certain artifacts can be created - I do suspect that the damage may be real and merely subsequent, due to another incident, perhaps by a driver other than the owner, perhaps a relative. This is all I am asking for, thanks. We have so many geeks and gurus (and self professed experts!) in all sorts of interesting fields here, that it was worth a quick ask you see... I remember contributions about those faked photos of the recent war in another thread here... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Donuel Date: 11 May 07 - 09:25 AM A Potomac valley girl pursuing her law degree cut a wild left hand turn cutting us off as we were turning right into a parking space. My children were concerned while she was shouting for us to get out of her way, so I put my car in park which let the car roll forward about an inch. She then started shouting that we hit her. I didn't feel anything but I got out and looked .. . nothing. There was still space between the cars. She called the police. We waited inside the drug store by the parking space. The police arrived, she flirted with them, they took pictures of ...nothing. The police questioned me about her claim that I had yelled at her and hit her car which I had not. They also asked why I had left the scene of an accident by waiting in the drugstore entrance 20 feet away. She filed an insurance claim and got thousands of dollars to repaint her brand new Rav-4. My insurance for a 1990 Buick was later canceled. I was amazed that a photo that showed nothing, a claim that was blatently false and a spolied brat's ravings could leverage the system when nothing was there. Then I remembered the Iraq invasion. Fate favors the bold. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: GUEST,Scoville at scanner Date: 11 May 07 - 10:07 AM It sounds like the car got hit again, possibly by someone who had no insurance, and they're trying to squeeze the repair costs out of you instead. I was in an accident a number of years ago in which a car ran a stop sign and hit the van in front of me. I hit the van lightly (moderate damage to my own car, minor to the van). The first car destroyed the front end of the van but the man driving it was uninsured so the drivers of the van tried to sue me for the value of their vehicle. I told my insurance agent I'd be glad to pay for damage to the back bumper but as I did not cause the accident and had nothing to do with the damage to the front of the van (which had already occurred when I bumped them), I wasn't going to go down for totalling the van without a fight. They finally gave up the suit but it was a pain in the ass. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Donuel Date: 11 May 07 - 10:12 AM When a driver with no insurance hurts your car...The State of Maryland covers the damage to your car with state insurance. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Stilly River Sage Date: 11 May 07 - 10:21 AM Protest fraud and file charges. Photoshop is too easy to use and hard to prove. You should have taken photos for yourself. Now you'll have to be diligent and protest and write a lot. But threaten fraud charges. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Grab Date: 11 May 07 - 11:11 AM When a driver with no insurance hurts your car...The State of Maryland covers the damage to your car with state insurance. Sadly not the case in the UK, or probably most other places. Factory undercoats are all pale grey, even if the car has black paintwork. That's the basic rust-protection undercoat that goes on all metalwork, and I believe the undercoat's naturally grey (no need to add colour when a topcoat's going on anyway). If the picture's been emailed, that gives you the original file, which is good. To photoshop a picture such that examination of the file shows no evidence would take serious skill and lots of time - it's not impossible, but I suspect it'd be cheaper to write the car off than to dedicate that much time to the exercise! Simple paintwork scrapes could be doctored without spending too much time, but a complete "remodelling" of the side panels? not likely. Zoom in on the file and look for areas of suspiciously-similar pixel colour, but I don't think it'll happen. I think John and Scoville have it right - it's been damaged afterwards (either in a second accident, or deliberately to write it off for the money) and they're trying to screw you over. Have you asked the shopping centre about security cameras? If there's a shot of their car leaving (or even better, of the incident itself) then you're in business. Of course, if it's months ago then you're probably SOL on that one. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: GUEST,Scoville Date: 11 May 07 - 11:15 AM Yeah, if you get hit by an uninsured driver in Texas, you're on your own. I would assume that Maryland is in the small minority with that policy but I don't know. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Liz the Squeak Date: 11 May 07 - 11:41 AM We recently acquired a new car and when we insured it, we were sent an 'incident pack' which included one of those disposable throwaway cameras. If you are going to take photos of damage, ALWAYS use a film camera as it cannot be tampered with. There are lots of 1hr developers around and you get not only the prints but the negatives as well. Even mobile phone cameras are better than digital. Carrying a disposable camera in the car is a pretty sensible idea, for just these occurences, when the damage is too small to be noticed but an insurance claim is still made. Of course, that's all a bit stable door now, but I would go with the CCTV of the parking lot, if there is one. Good luck! LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Nick Date: 11 May 07 - 12:38 PM If you have the jpg have a look at it in a text editor as a kick off. There is sometimes some tell tale information at the beginning of the file that will give an idea as to what program was used. If you want some more information about fakes you might also want to google "The Fake Detective" where there is some interesting information. It is an adult site as it was originally set up to investigate the veracity of supposed naked pictures of celebrities that were usually photoshopped fakes. There are some good pointers on there if you can live with the subject matter that might be helpful. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 May 07 - 12:41 PM Shopping Center Car park- In Canada, in Alberta, and I am sure most if not all provinces and U. S. states, police have jurisdiction over accidents in car parks and the rules of the road hold. A frequent cause of accident is failure to yield to the right in the several 'avenues' cross-hatching the car park (Canada, I don't know current U. S. state statutes on this). Although certain of these 'avenues' may seem to be dominant, the 'yield to the right' holds, as several people I know who didn't read the manual have found out. Foolstroupe, somehow I doubt that the police have no jurisdiction in a car park open to the public; all of these lots in shopping centers are private property in Canada, but users must adhere to the highway traffic laws. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: GUEST,Scoville Date: 11 May 07 - 01:33 PM Find somebody who has some experience looking at digitally altered photos--photoshopping is often detectable. This is what did in that scientist who faked his cell research photographs; by changing the settings on the digital images, it became obvious that he had pasted stuff on, touched up, and enhanced. (I used to be in a hobby that used digital photographs a lot and routinely checked for altering of digital images, which was grounds for automatic disqualification in contests. These people were not photoshop professionals. If they could find it, you probably can, too). However, if the damage was "added" later and the photograph itself is untouched, obviously this won't help. Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 May 07 - 01:41 PM As discussed above, taking photographs is recommended here as well by the automobile association. Many stores have these little disposable film cameras. Keep one in the car. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: JohnInKansas Date: 11 May 07 - 07:09 PM If the photo was in an email, it may appear as an attachment that you can save. If they attached an original digital camera image, you may be able to get some information from it. Most digital cameras imprint "metadata" as part of the file. The data varies from one camera to another but usually includes a "date created" and the original resolution. Some, but probably not all, editing programs will add a "date changed" to this information if the file is altered after it's been downloaded. This data can be viewed in the Photoshop Elements that I have, and I'm sure it can be accessed in Photoshop. Simpler programs may or may not be able to read it. Of course the validity of the creation date depends on the camera "knowing the date and time" when the picture was taken, so a truly dedicated fraud could just reset the camera clock to "fake" when the picture was taken. Many cameras, especially more expensive ones, also allow the photographer to select what metadata gets recorded, and "none" sometimes is an option. The creation date is useless information if the image that you received was scanned from a film photo print, since scanning creates a new file; and the change date can be confounded (in some programs) just by copying a file from one place to another or by renaming - or by any number of other "innocent changes." A few kinds of scanners may imprint a creation date, but I think that's rare, and would be discounted as an "innocent change" anyway. File information may give you some information in file properties. Most attempts to detect "editing" of a photo will look first for changes in texture. Natural surfaces nearly always have "texture" that is somewhat difficult to reproduce when something is "painted in" or when any "blending" occurs. The altered areas tend to be noticeably "flat." Photoshop and Elements both include a "clone tool" that lets you copy a color, pattern, and texture from one part of the picture to another, and this is often used to avoid the flattening of the texture of surfaces, but unless it's expertly done it's often possible to detect "repeated patterns" where the pattern and/or texture in the cloned area matches the area from which it was taken. The "patterning" that is a dead giveaway for simple alterations frequently is "smudged out" and/or filtered using one or more of the blur filters. (Even Elements has nearly 2 dozen different filters that can be used this way.) Under some conditions, the "filter effects" can themselves sometimes give clues to an alteration. Except in the case of blatantly incompetent editing, any of the "evidences" that can be found can contribute to an opinion that a photo has been altered, but at best it is an OPINION that's unlikely to have any standing in a formal legal contest unless it is the opinion of a qualified and certified "expert witness" whose expert qualifications are accepted by the judge in the case at hand. The opposition can always bring in their own expert witness to call yours a liar. The loser usually(?) has to pay for both experts. The only kind of "proof" that I've heard of that's likely to be generally unequivocal and not likely to be refuted relies on the "camera signature." Every digital image sensor in every camera has its own variations in pixel sensitivities, and with special forensic grade analyzers the unique signature for a given camera can be found. In a lab, it can be done with one shot, but for most evidence cases it requires at least two or more pictures from the same camera. The "image information" has to be subtracted out of both pictures to derive a "sensor signature" for the camera. The only requirement is that any alterations in the sample pictures not be in overlapping areas. If a picture does not display the "signature" for the camera that took it, then the picture has incontestably been altered in the area where the "pixel error map" doesn't match what the camera originally produced. You can guess whether this occurs in Photoshop - sometimes - but you can't document the mismatch, so far as I know, without the forensic tools that belong only to the FBI and CIA and perhaps to a few other If the friend who is being accused of causing damage is insured, his/her own insurance company is much better equipped to detect, demonstrate, and defeat a fraudulent claim. (For one thing, they are likely to have access to reports of prior similar claims by the persons (and/or agents) making the claim.) If there really is good reason to believe there's a fraud attempt, a letter from an attorney on your side sometimes can have remarkable effect. Threats and persuasion appropriately applied are much more likely to be effective than evidence. You can do a lot with simple software to convince yourself that a picture has been altered; but what you can reasonably do is unlikely to convince a judge. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: GUEST,Black Hawk unlogged Date: 11 May 07 - 07:39 PM Liz the Squeak - Even mobile phone cameras are better than digital What grounds do you have for this statement? A mobile phone picture IS a digital picture. Serious question - would like to know if there is a technical reason :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: GUEST,Billary Date: 11 May 07 - 07:39 PM Are photos even allowed as evidence anymore? Didn't the O.J. Simpson photoshopped with fake shoes kind of kill the credibility of photos? I read 3-4 years ago that "photographic evidence" had gone the way of "polygraph tests." In the US, at least. Photos are now too easy to manipulate. http://www.topplebush.com/humor/billary.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: JohnB Date: 11 May 07 - 09:50 PM Try a couple of simple things, right click on the picture, click properties. Check the dates times and the file sizes, see if things look OK with what you know. JohnB |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: GUEST Date: 11 May 07 - 10:46 PM You really chose an appropriate name for your postings.
Damage "after the fact?"
Kick the sh_T out of the car....then photograph it.
Get hammered in a pub parking lot - photograph it - and attribute it the previous accident.
I - ALWAYS - (even with rentals) carry a cheap throw away camera - wrapped in newspaper, wrapped in a towel, in lower section of the boat...to help keep temperature stable....toss them away after two years or non-use. You can get them, with film for less than 3. Photograph the damage, and the skid marks, and the person and the other vehicle. Process IF necessary, otherwise refrigerate until needed. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: GUEST Date: 11 May 07 - 10:48 PM Photo film is recognized in courts of law. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Dickey Date: 11 May 07 - 11:31 PM If a robbery occured in a privately owned parking lot be exempt from the law? How about an assault? Hit and run? I think the police do have jurisdiction so contact them. If you look closely at an image on a pixel level photoshopping can be detected. It is more likely that they are swapping photos. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 May 07 - 04:53 AM In Australia, (Queensland!) Private land - car parking lot bingles - has nothing to do with police - The police keep on saying so! As I said - please only give ME the help I requested (I may just know far more than you think I do about SOME things!) - but you ARE free to chat among yourselves! :-) (Dickey, etc take note!) Criminal offences now, ARE another matter... I've been a hex editor junkie since the TRS-80 days when I used to patch hard drive sectors 'on the fly' and rebuild fragged data files... :-) .... the only recognisable readable text data in the first few Kb is 'JFIF'. I do not know how to interpret 'metadata' that is not in clear ASCII text - thanks JiK (any web pointers anyone?). BTW, Filealyzer is a good free Win hex reader. I have blown up the image using Irfanview to the point where each pixel is very large, and can't see any obvious sign of clear tampering - so I do suspect the obvious damage is physically really later ... no red paint - but lots of blue :-) Suspect another later bingle - no details left for that one - so 'we'll just claim it on this one and get by on the one "free claim" a year'.... :-) The hit car policy is 'no excess'. We will be dealing seriously with the insurance company - and the driver is uninsured. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 May 07 - 05:08 AM "Try a couple of simple things, right click on the picture, click properties. Check the dates times and the file sizes, see if things look OK with what you know." Windows 98 cleverly writes the date and time of the date and time it creates any received file (even attached to an Eudora email) on my hard disk. Thank you guys - but as I said... "I may just know far more than you think I do about SOME things!". I'm still interested in just what I asked though.... :-) The 'stable door' stuff is great for you guys 'talking among yourselves', BTW, but it cannot help me - also carrying a film camera around in South East Queensland is largely futile - the heat inside parked cars (children and animals die regularly!) - over 60 Deg C in Summer and well above 40 deg C even in winter in any car parked in the sun, means that the film emulsion gets cooked quickly - you would need to replace the camera regularly for the film to be usable at any given time - and just throw it away every year or so when it gets 'out of date' anyway!!!!- and if you REALLY think you can find a long term cool enough spot for this purpose in a normal (low-end older model) Aussie car, the best of British Luck to you! :-) Robin |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Liz the Squeak Date: 12 May 07 - 10:03 AM Black Hawk Unlogged:~ Unless your phone is pretty damned sophisticated, it's almost impossible to edit an image on a mobile phone. Certainly my telephone (Motorola L6) logs the date and time the image was taken and it can only be edited if sent to a computer. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: JohnInKansas Date: 12 May 07 - 11:43 AM If you're interested in the metadata embedded in your pictures, and you don't have a program that shows it to you, you probably can find something suitable at: EXIF, IPTC, XMP Software - Metadata Readers, Editors, Extraction Tools. It appears that most of the stuff is freeware, although I didn't examine too closely. There's a "sublink" at the top of the page to some information about what the EXIF and other embedded data forms can be. As noted previously, the data recorded by an individual camera varies with make and model and can be set up to some extent to suit the user. To have any meaning at all, the timestamps require that the camera user must have "set the clock" and many users don't even realize that the camera has a clock. It's unlikely that you'll find anything that will help much as a legal argument, but you might find something that suggests where to look for other useful information or something useful in knowing how to argue the case. Note that I haven't tried any of the programs, so I'm going only by the impression that it "looks like a credible site." John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: JohnInKansas Date: 12 May 07 - 11:47 AM LTS - I'll accept your superior experience with phonecams, but note that one site I know of that accepts images for posting requires that they be "sent from the phone that took them," but isolated posted images have been appearing recently in Macromedia Flash. ... (?). Are phones doing that now? John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: GUEST,Black Hawk unlogged Date: 12 May 07 - 01:08 PM LTS - Sorry, reading your post I thought you were saying that mobile phones aren't digital. I own 7 digital cameras and all need the images sending to a computer for manipulating. As I mentioned above, I was hoping there was a technical reason for your statement as I am always open to learning. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 May 07 - 08:41 PM Thanks John, that's the sort of info I was hoping that someone like you might be able to suggest. Now back to the circus... BTW, I don't have Photoshop - can get access to GIMP if needed or OOO if needed. "sent from the phone that took them," Obviously a naive attempt to stop manipulation of the images, but can't you upload photos to a phone as well as download them? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: JohnInKansas Date: 12 May 07 - 11:35 PM There are at least two or three websites that in theory at least limit postings to "phonecam originals." The one where I've seen Flash postings recently is, so far as I know, the only one that doesn't require a membership and charges no fees. It was touted in the PC industry news a couple of years ago as a great "social experiment," but due to extremely poor performance by the guy who put it up, it's degenerated into something definitly not of uplifting influence. That site crashed at about the same time mudcat did, and nothing has been fixed despite vacuous promises and lots of pissed off former participants. I check in once in a while to see if there's been any recovery, and to remind myself how lucky we are here to have competent management. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Liz the Squeak Date: 13 May 07 - 04:45 AM 'The phone that took them' - probably the best opportunity to have an uncorrupted digital image with a time signature and provenance. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 May 07 - 06:49 AM "upload photos to a phone as well as download" Seeing as how you can take the memory card out and put in a reder, you should be able to transfer the data either way... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 May 07 - 07:04 AM Actually I meant 'camera' rather than 'phone'... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 May 07 - 07:20 AM Well the EXIF extractor returned absolutely nada, zip, nothing - so either it has been put thru and saved in an editing program, or the camera saved nothing. Output verbatim: !"Filename","Date","Time","Date and time","Camera manufacturer and model","Camera manufacturer","Camera model","Width x height","Size of image file","Exposure (1/sec)","Aperture (F-number)","ISO","Was flash used?","Distance","Focal length","Comment","Latitude","Longitude" |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: JohnInKansas Date: 13 May 07 - 03:22 PM If a digital camera was used, the user has to be smart enough to set the internal calendar and clock. Lots of people don't know they should do that, and some know but just don't care enough to bother. Although recording EXIF information is pretty standard, some cheap camperas may not have the features to do so. In some expensive cameras, you can opt NOT to record anything. Once a print has been made, the print does not contain any data. If it's scanned, a very few scanners may give limited information but can't record anything other than a scan date and perhaps some resolution and color set data. It's just one of the places where one can look to see if there's useful information. Sometimes there is, but often there isn't. RE the debate about whether photo evidence is accepted for legal purposes: Any evidence, to be accepted, generally requires a documented "evidence trail" showing who found or created the evidence, who received it and stored it, how it was stored, who has been made aware of it, who has had access to it. In other words, someone must testify that a photo accurately represents something that they personally observed. After all that, the judge (usually) has to decide that the evidence is or is not "believable" and agree to "admit it" so that the lawyers can refer to it in testimony. In a case of this kind, if the insurance agent says "here's a picture I took of the damage," the judge may just say "okay" and the clerk/bailiff will stamp a number on it. End of story. The judge may or may not permit an opposing attorney to present arguments that the photo misrepresents things. Your situation may be different, but in many places in the US, anyone with a claim for damages can petition an appropriate court for an order for someone to pay them. The judge may issue an order to pay with no hearing, and without prior notice to the one claimed to be at fault. You will be told that you can contest the ruling, but usually this consists in filing a counter petition - without a hearing. The judge then can decide to actually have a hearing, or can simply reject your counter petition and tell you to pay up. IF a hearing is scheduled, it's usual to "let the original order stand" pending arguments. Scheduling a hearing in cases where this happens in my jurisdiction means a wait of about two years to get to court, during which time the original petitioner can continue to If your situation is even remotely like what I would encounter, you cannot assume that any "evidence" you find will be of any use, without the advice of competent legal counsel familiar with the courts having jurisdiction. Perhaps your situation is less bleak - but I rather doubt it. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Grab Date: 14 May 07 - 08:06 AM Unless your phone is pretty damned sophisticated, it's almost impossible to edit an image on a mobile phone. Certainly my telephone (Motorola L6) logs the date and time the image was taken and it can only be edited if sent to a computer. It's also impossible to edit a picture on a digital camera, FWIW... Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Liz the Squeak Date: 14 May 07 - 10:04 AM It is impossible to edit on a digital camera, yes; but once that image has been downloaded, anything can happen to it. That's the point... there is no guarantee that a digital image has not been tampered with unless you have the original exposure as a reference. If an image is taken with a phone and then sent via the phone to the insurance agent, there is little chance that the image has been tampered with, unless you're going to take a phone image, import it to a computer, enhance it and send it back to your phone, then on to the insurance agent... even then, you'd have to do work out how to send it without the forwarding tag. Having just tried to edit a photo taken with my phone, on the computer, the properties give a time and date of modification, so it's going to be hard to get round that. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: GUEST,Nick Date: 14 May 07 - 10:10 AM I use photoshop every day. I doubt the photo was retouched. It is easy to take one head and stick it on another body, but to create a different image from scratch (pardon the pun) is very hard. No for insurance fraud photoshop is not the tool I would use, I would use a sledge hammer. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 May 07 - 04:19 PM It's also impossible to edit a picture on a digital camera, FWIW... That depends somewhat on what kind of editing is meant, and on what kind of camera you're using. With the advent of numerous printers that allow printing "direct from the cameral" many digital cameras have added features that allow rotation of views, cropping, addition of notations and smart-assed pasties for decoration, color shifts, and other manipulations. The "cute" features probably are more likely to be found in newer phonecams than in more standard digital cameras. It is also quite true that an image can be downloaded for editing and then reloaded into the camera. The EXIF data imprinted in the image by cameras relies on the date/time setting for the internal camera clock, and maintaining correct settings is often ignored by users. There is some additional likelihood that a digital phone-cam will have an accurate date/time since the time is critical to phone communication and is usually synchronized with the service automatically. "Service time," however can be significantly "off" from real UCT time for some services, since an absolute reference isn't required - only agreement with other phones on the same service. The EXIF data also can be edited, although most simple programs will add an "edit date." More sophisticated programs reportedly can "make like new" EXIF data, although I have no experience with one that does it. Although some phone cams are very good, typical ones are not high resolution, and a photo of a photo, done carefully, can look like an original, and will have the effect of creating an "original" with a phony EXIF dataset. The internal clock usually can be reset manually to get any time you want, as long as the photo is taken before the synch resets it. Most synch systems make adjustments in increments with a maximum change per adjustment, so it may take at least several hours for a manual setting to be completely wiped out. I do agree with Nick - Photoshopping an original/altered picture that looks like a photograph is very difficult without obvious editing artifacts, and even for an expert is extremely time consuming, so the odds in this case are that any editing was done via a new collision or with a sledge hammer. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 08:21 PM "any editing was done via a new collision or with a sledge hammer." But it is then possible to see if the angle of the added impacts is at odds with the original impact. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Dickey Date: 14 May 07 - 09:48 PM I did not know it was Queensland. Better ask the Queen for help. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Donuel Date: 14 May 07 - 10:21 PM On top of some of the alteration artifacts John mentioned there is also the halo effect that jpg images get when resized or when resized overlays occur. Metadata in pics can be a nefarious matter. Along the lines of Hirshfeld hiding NINA in a pic, I often would write interesting things in the dark areas of my pictures by simply using the same tone but a slightly different hue and type in a easy to read font. IT is invisible. To decode in photoshop you just select all and apply show edges filter. All the print will appear as white outlined letters. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 May 07 - 10:32 PM And halo from resizing doesn't necessarily mean the image has been "altered," in the sense of making it look like something different; but it's difficult to make an alteration across the halo (after the size has been changed) without making it visible by wiping out or changing the direction of the halo. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Ella who is Sooze Date: 15 May 07 - 09:32 AM Agree with guest Nick. I also use photoshop everyday. It wouldn't be the tool I'd use to do what you've described. I'd use a sledgehammer. And from what you've said, I think they've used a sledgehammer/another accident to make their claim from your insurance bigger. It's quite a common occurance over here, I've heard of a lot of such goings on. They do it to be 'better off with their car - it suits them to do it - they gain a better car/more money than it was worth'. I'd be going down the I didn't do THAT damage route, but then you are going to be hard pushed to prove it unless, you A. have a witness, or B. like LTS said, can view any CCTV footage. Apart from that, get your insurance company to sort it out, write a statement, and stick with what you say happened. The insurance company's lawyers can sort it - and hopefully you have got legal waiver cover... Good luck EWIS... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Ella who is Sooze Date: 15 May 07 - 09:35 AM but saying that... here's a link to a www site about it... photoshop fraud software article |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: Ella who is Sooze Date: 15 May 07 - 09:38 AM for the computer geeks among us |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Photoshop Photos- Fraud & Profit From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Jun 07 - 12:16 AM Well i sent off my letter with several helpful ideas from you guys, especially that stuff about what might be considered the proper way to 'handle a legal document' - especially photos alleging damage by particular individuals.... :-) And heard nothing back as yet... |
| Share Thread: |
