OT Abu Ghraib Digital Camera signatures?

BillyBoy wrote on 5/29/2004, 9:04 AM
This caught my curiosity...

While looking for some more funny political Flash movies I came across a far out story which certainly sounds like a "rumor" that 's making the rounds. It is far fetched to say the least, still, like most rumors it has at least a grain of truth to it. Anyhow here goes.

A wild rumor is circulating on the Internet that somebody supposedly at Kodak labs has compared the digital signatures of some footage shot at the Abu Ghraib prision in Iraq showing the prisoner abuse, and compared it the the infamous video of Berg being beheaded and according to the rumor the water marks match suggesting the beheading wasn't done by terrorists. Like I said a WILD rumor probably. Obviously if true the implications would be devastating.

I know you can watermark photos, but that's the end product getting watermarked. If I remember correctly there are indeed videos shot used mainly for surveillance or taping confessions, stuff like that where they have a countdown generated down to the 100th of a second that would show if the video was tampered with.

But...

Anyone know if some digital cameras do indeed embed some digital watermark or signature in any video they shoot that means it is possible to trace it to a specific camera?

I know if you have the latest version of Photoshop it can show the camera make, model and pull out other info from the raw images, so I was curious if what this rumor is based on has any legs or not.

Comments

The_Jeff wrote on 5/29/2004, 10:04 AM
Get out the tinfoil hats and lookout for the Black Helicopters.

In any case, there is not a digital signature in most cameras that identifies the
specific camera.

Even if there were, one would imagine the US government has more than one camera in the world.

Or if you still prefer the tinfoil hat approach then I assert that you are correct. There are watermarks. What this proves is that it was terrorists that drugged and then setup the US Military and took pictures to discredit the US.

See.. Isn't wild rumor and speculation fun.
john-beale wrote on 5/29/2004, 10:06 AM
If you capture two pieces of footage from the same network (Al Jazeera ?) there might well be various watermark-like features which match, regardless of the original source. Digital still cameras which also shoot video use highly compressed formats, which have various distinguishing features but as far as I know do not amount to a "fingerprint".

Here's a question: does posting, and hence spreading such a wild and if I may say so, distasteful rumour on an internet forum imply any responsibility to quote sources, links to evidence, etc. ? Where did you read this? By what means do we evaluate the reliability of your source?
BillyBoy wrote on 5/29/2004, 10:52 AM
I'm not the one injectiing politics, YOU TWO seem to be trying.

I'm simply asking DO some digital cameras imprint a watermark or some kind of identifying signature on any video they shoot thereby making it possible to identfy WHICH CAMERA shot the footage?

If you can't be adult, and need to attempt to turn it into a political hot potato don't bother responding. Its a interesting topic BEYOND the example I gave.
The_Jeff wrote on 5/29/2004, 3:51 PM
If you did not intend to inject politics then perhaps you could have just asked the question without reference to a rumor. I.e. The title of this thread could have been:

Any examples of Digital Still/Video Cameras with Device Unique Watermarks?


Instead you use the title you use, add the statement that if there are watermarks it would be "devastating".

Now, if you ignore the politics in my response you will note that I indicated that the answer was no. I am not aware of any cameras that do it however, I can imagine that in some cases one could make strong or relatively strong arguments about something being the "same" defice even without a watermark by looking for things like "hot" or dead pixel patterns.

farss wrote on 5/29/2004, 5:56 PM
I'd imagine that each CCD would have its own characteristics so perhaps one could, by analysis determine perhaps what type of CCD took a given image, maybe even down to a specific camera. However then again given how jpeg compression works possibly the detail necessary for that kind of analysis would get lost in the compression process.
I think a lot of these rumours start when someone extrapolates a process that applies in a very limited situation into a generalisation.
Spirit wrote on 5/29/2004, 8:08 PM
Of course posting a question like this has political overtones ! Repeating rumours and estimating the impact if true is making "political comment".

Here is a very thorough claimed "analysis" of the video:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=1471708&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21%E2%88%82=1

Personally I believe that terrorists killed Berg. After all, try hard enough and you can "prove" JFK was killed by the same alien that fathered a half-human lovechild with Marilyn Monroe.

Wild & weird conspiracy theories are alwys more popular reading than "occam's razor" truth.

B_JM wrote on 5/29/2004, 8:25 PM
oh - now you have done it and tripped Echelon ...

the systems in Menwith Hill and Pine Gap are spining out data like nuts ..


some people here will know what i'm talking about i'm sure ..
Spirit wrote on 5/29/2004, 9:22 PM
Do tell more - since the systems lready been tripped...
BillyBoy wrote on 5/29/2004, 9:52 PM
Don't get around much pal?

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

http://www.echelonwatch.org/

Spirit wrote on 5/29/2004, 11:46 PM
Well, since I'm no TERRORIST planning on a using SEMTEX or SARIN in a 9/11 strike, or possess NUCLEAR material for DIRTY BOMBS, or involved in CIA plots, or with MOSSAD, the DSD or MI-6, or with SAUDI agencies, to purchase FERTILISER or RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES from former SOVIET republics, I think I should be alright.

Let's not get paranoid.
John_Cline wrote on 5/30/2004, 12:17 AM
What does this even REMOTELY have to do with Vegas?
B_JM wrote on 5/30/2004, 5:04 AM
Vegas is great for laptop field editing of execution videos and compressing them for the web ....

riredale wrote on 5/30/2004, 2:15 PM
Ahem...
Anyway, getting back to the basic idea of this thread: I am not aware of any cameras that automatically watermark their output, other than attaching the usual metadata. It's certainly possible, however, that an industry expert could spot certain image characteristics tied to a particular CCD or compression chip family.