Fake fabricate JPEG date created

[unpopular]

DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney, the following statements are not legal advice and should not be applied to any specific case without consultation with an attorney; are intended only for conjecture and are not provided for informational or educational purposes.

If in the US and other Common Law legal systems, and if I understand procedure right, the defendant only needs to prove that the date can be manipulated not that it had been manipulated.

But stuff dealing with evidence and dismissal gets super confusing.

 

[Garbz]

Interesting case. I'm surprised you can consider paying out given the differences in lists. My insurance company won't pay out for anything not reported to the police.

Also interesting you dig up this old thread, since when I last wrote Nikon's image authentication and Canon's equivalent both were still cryptographically secure. Currently I don't believe there's any system that allows you to say with 100% certainty that a digital image is authentic.

 

[unpopular]

arrrrgg! 2009?!

damn newbies and their shovels!

 

[KmH]

At least it wasn't SPAM.

 

[unpopular]

OP is prob in jail for evidence tampering.

 

[480sparky]

At least it wasn't SPAM.

Wait for it........ I'm the the floodgates have opened upstream.

 

[bratkinson]

As a former mainframe computer consultant and one with 30 years fooling around with PCs and internal programming therein, I can state unequivocally that there is no BIT of information on the computer I cannot change from a zero to a one or vice versa...all without leaving any evidence of having been changed. The only exception is ROM (Read Only Memory) data in a chip, to which, I could probably create a replacement ROM and no one would be the wiser.

 

[panblue]

As a former mainframe computer consultant and one with 30 years fooling around with PCs and internal programming therein, I can state unequivocally that there is no BIT of information on the computer I cannot change from a zero to a one or vice versa...all without leaving any evidence of having been changed.

OK, Q: How do you hide the fact that you scrubbed a hard-drive with a scrubber then deleted the scrubber app?
You need a scrubber to scrub the fact you used a scrubber, then scrubbed it

 

[unpopular]

typically you deep erase on a separate bootable partition.... srub the drive, burn the boot disk you used to scrub the drive with.

 

[panblue]

typically you deep erase on a separate bootable partition.... srub the drive, burn the boot disk you used to scrub the drive with.

Say you are running Windows..you delete your Event logs then use Eraser, System Ninja, CCcleaner etc. Then you uninstall those apps. How would you erase the fact you had used those apps? This is something I pondered in the past and bratkinson's post piqued my interest. It seems 'chicken and egg' ..even a harddrive reformat (of all partitions) wouldn't actually clean the 'deleted' erasing apps from the drive, no?

typically you deep erase on a separate bootable partition I find this hard to understand as erasing is specific to the drive requiring cleaning. Say you wish to scrub C: and D: is the recovery partition which does not contain user data; only OS.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Who would anyone lie about a date on a pic!?

"honey, that pic of the blonde in my lap with her high heels in the air facing me while driving was BEFORE you and i were in a relationship"

"well then, why has the dome light only been broken since wednesday!?"

 

[Philarp]

arrrrgg! 2009?!

damn newbies and their shovels!

Sorry! I filled the post with smiley faces and crap in the hope of appeasing all your forum regulars. I will now discard my shovel and cease digging up long burried threads!

Got a wealth of information I can use so thanks all. Especially that last post re blondes with legs in the air. I'd never thought of altering them myself. This information is going to be more useful than I thought!!!

 

[sapper6fd]

If someone took a phot after the fact and submitted it for evidence, they wouldnt need to alter the EXIF data. Jsut set their cameras date and time to the point in the past, take the photo, and no one is the wiser.

 

[panblue]

If someone took a phot after the fact and submitted it for evidence, they wouldnt need to alter the EXIF data. Jsut set their cameras date and time to the point in the past, take the photo, and no one is the wiser.

..and are all cameras' time/date stamps true and accurate in any case.

 

[480sparky]

If someone took a phot after the fact and submitted it for evidence, they wouldnt need to alter the EXIF data. Jsut set their cameras date and time to the point in the past, take the photo, and no one is the wiser.

So my D7000 will be able to fake a photo taken in, say, 2004?