Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png

Says so here:

From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo

On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
> https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
>
> Says so here:
>
> From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo

And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
Completely OT here.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

On Sun, 5 May 2024 21:23:41 +0200, J�rg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote

> And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?

Where are most digital photos taken from?
Maybe a phone or a webcam perhaps?

Mickey,

> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.

And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.

You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is
what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
feature of yourself to everyone around you.

Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken"
from literally tens of meters away.

To me whomever thought of using finger and faceprints for locks wasn't very
bright.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 2024-05-05 16:20, R.Wieser wrote:
> Mickey,
>
>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>
> And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
>
> You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is
> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
> feature of yourself to everyone around you.
>
> Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken"
> from literally tens of meters away.
>
> To me whomever thought of using finger and faceprints for locks wasn't very
> bright.

Yet trying to unlock an iPhone with its owner's photo will not work and
you have to go through a lot of contortions if you happen to have their
fingerprint.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-05 15:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>> https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
>>
>> Says so here:
>>
>> From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
>
> And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
> Completely OT here.

Interesting nonetheless and some connection to smart phones (they have
cameras, after all - indeed more people use the camera than the "phone").

Please note: We don't need you as net cop Jörg.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-05-05 15:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>>> https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
>>>
>>>
>>> Says so here:
>>>
>>>  From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
>>
>> And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
>> Completely OT here.
>
>
> Interesting nonetheless and some connection to smart phones (they have
> cameras, after all - indeed more people use the camera than the "phone").
>
> Please note: We don't need you as net cop Jörg.
>

Don't worry. I don't think he has arrest power, but he *is* the moderator
here, so we should show him the due respect.

On May 5, 2024, Hank Rogers wrote
(in article <v196qb$24t86$1@dont-email.me>):

> Alan Browne wrote:
> > On 2024-05-05 15:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> > > On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
> > > > Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
> > > > https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-
> > > > 8533-c557f743cc78.png
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Says so here:
> > > >
> > > > From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
> > > > https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
> > >
> > > And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
> > > Completely OT here.
> >
> >
> > Interesting nonetheless and some connection to smart phones (they have
> > cameras, after all - indeed more people use the camera than the "phone").
> >
> > Please note: We don't need you as net cop Jörg.
>
> Don't worry. I don't think he has arrest power, but he *is* the moderator
> here,

No, he isn’t.
> so we should show him the due respect.

I show him all the respect that a trolling, sliming, stalking, serial
homosexual sexual harasser deserves.

Hey, David, you arsenugget, how goes your attempt to ‘report’ me to
Supernews?

On May 5, 2024, WolfFan wrote
(in article<0001HW.2BE86E980020D285700006E6738F@news.supernews.com>):

> On May 5, 2024, Hank Rogers wrote
> (in article <v196qb$24t86$1@dont-email.me>):
>
> > Alan Browne wrote:
> > > On 2024-05-05 15:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> > > > On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
> > > > > Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
> > > > > https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef
> > > > > -
> > > > > 8533-c557f743cc78.png
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Says so here:
> > > > >
> > > > > From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
> > > > > https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
> > > >
> > > > And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
> > > > Completely OT here.
> > >
> > >
> > > Interesting nonetheless and some connection to smart phones (they have
> > > cameras, after all - indeed more people use the camera than the "phone").
> > >
> > > Please note: We don't need you as net cop Jörg.
> >
> > Don't worry. I don't think he has arrest power, but he *is* the moderator
> > here,
>
> No, he isn’t.
> > so we should show him the due respect.
>
> I show him all the respect that a trolling, sliming, stalking, serial
> homosexual sexual harasser deserves.
>
> Hey, David, you arsenugget, how goes your attempt to ‘report’ me to
> Supernews?

Oops. it’s the other twit, Jorg, not the supertwit David. Jorg’s bad.
He’s not David Brooks bad. Ignore that post, bad aim.

On 2024-05-06, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 2024, WolfFan wrote
> (in article<0001HW.2BE86E980020D285700006E6738F@news.supernews.com>):
>
>> On May 5, 2024, Hank Rogers wrote
>> (in article <v196qb$24t86$1@dont-email.me>):
>>
>> > Alan Browne wrote:
>> > > On 2024-05-05 15:23, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> > > > On 05.05.24 20:47, Mickey D wrote:
>> > > > > Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>> > > > > https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef
>> > > > > -
>> > > > > 8533-c557f743cc78.png
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Says so here:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
>> > > > > https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
>> > > >
>> > > > And this bizarre story has exactly what to do with iOS or Android?
>> > > > Completely OT here.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Interesting nonetheless and some connection to smart phones (they have
>> > > cameras, after all - indeed more people use the camera than the "phone").
>> > >
>> > > Please note: We don't need you as net cop Jörg.
>> >
>> > Don't worry. I don't think he has arrest power, but he *is* the moderator
>> > here,
>>
>> No, he isn’t.
>> > so we should show him the due respect.
>>
>> I show him all the respect that a trolling, sliming, stalking, serial
>> homosexual sexual harasser deserves.
>>
>> Hey, David, you arsenugget, how goes your attempt to ‘report’ me to
>> Supernews?
>
> Oops. it’s the other twit, Jorg, not the supertwit David. Jorg’s bad.
> He’s not David Brooks bad. Ignore that post, bad aim.

I mean both are jackasses and neither one is a moderator on Usenet. So
you weren't too far off the mark. 😉

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Mon, 6 May 2024 03:30:00 +0000, Uncle Sam wrote:

> On 05/05/2024 19:47, Mickey D wrote:
>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>> https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
>>
>> Says so here:
>>
>> From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo

> They got the fingerprints because he
> posted an image of his fingers online and this was compared with his
> fingers when he was in custody. That's how they proved that the anon
> chap is the same person they have got in their custody. So moral of the
> story is don't be stupid to post images of your body parts if you are
> going to commit any cyber crimes hoping to get away by being anonymous.

Thank you for explaining the story for those who haven't read it yet.

What's not in that story is that they can also often identify which camera
an original photo came from (which means they can cross correlate photos
that you post to various sites on the net if they want to do that).

That is, if you post a photo to forum 1 and another photo to forum 2, in
some cases they can correlate the sensor fingerprint to your unique camera.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about metadata as sensor fingerprints
work for all photo formats - as the forensics identify the camera through
unique repetitive imperfections in each camera sensor's digital output.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-law-enforcement-decodes-your-photos-78828

https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/7254/1/Large-scale-test-of-sensor-fingerprint-camera-identification/10.1117/12.805701.short
"This paper presents a large scale test of camera identification
from sensor fingerprints."

However, if you modify that original image substantially, their forensics
are increasingly less than perfect depending on how well you modify them.

Alan,

> Yet trying to unlock an iPhone with its owner's photo will not work

They said the same about fingerprints. Yet, here we are ...

The point is not about how easy it (now!) is to reproduce something like
that, but that anyone can "take" from you what's supposed to be only yours.

> and you have to go through a lot of contortions if you happen to have
> their fingerprint.

As long as you don't need the owner of said fingerprints to be present, who
cares ?

And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are fooled.

Yes, yes. IPhone fingerprint locks are superior and noone can bypass them.
Go pull my other finger.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:

> Mickey,
>
>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>
> And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
>
> You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is
> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
> feature of yourself to everyone around you.
>
> Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken"
> from literally tens of meters away.

Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the
reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face.

> To me whomever thought of using finger and faceprints for locks wasn't very
> bright.

Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is indeed not
a good idea.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

R.Wieser wrote on Mon, 6 May 2024 09:04:57 +0200 :

>> Yet trying to unlock an iPhone with its owner's photo will not work
>
> They said the same about fingerprints. Yet, here we are ...
>
> The point is not about how easy it (now!) is to reproduce something like
> that, but that anyone can "take" from you what's supposed to be only yours.
>
>> and you have to go through a lot of contortions if you happen to have
>> their fingerprint.
>
> As long as you don't need the owner of said fingerprints to be present, who
> cares ?
>
> And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
> fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are fooled.
>
> Yes, yes. IPhone fingerprint locks are superior and noone can bypass them.
> Go pull my other finger.

Fingerprint biometric unlocks on most phones are only a marketing gimmick.

Mainly you'll see the Apple religious nutjob zealots defending its use.

That's because Apple zealots always believe everything Apple tells them to.
Apple religious nutjob zealots have no capacity to think on their own.

On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
> R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:
>
>> Mickey,
>>
>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>>
>> And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
>>
>> You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is
>> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
>> feature of yourself to everyone around you.
>>
>> Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken"
>> from literally tens of meters away.
>
> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the
> reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
> not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face.

What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Arno,

> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.

Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.

And thats the buget solution. People who created 3D heads (and full body
representations) have existed since *forever* - statues anyone? And as a
more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds in New York.
(and others like it).

> Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is indeed
> not a good idea.

Its a *very good* idea. It should *not ever* happen though. :-)

Coming up with a new locking mechanism (mechanical or software) isn't all
that hard. What is is to make sure that only the key designed for it can
actually open it.

If you want to see examples of how locks, even expensive ones, can be
bypassed with the proverbial paperclip I would like to refer you to the
"Lockpicking Lawyer" clips on YouTube. Those are enlighting.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 05/05/2024 19:47, Mickey D wrote:
> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
> https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
>
> Says so here:
>
> From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo

The bigger point is don't get onto the Red Notice as one of Europe's
most wanted so that they go to those lengths to catch you.

I'd also like to see the scientific evidence to support that digital
extraction of a fingerprint from photos is accurate enough. Obviously,
the photo shared by the police is far too compressed to get anything from.

Dragging this to be a little on-topic, also be careful what servers you
use and make sure they use the most secure encryption:

"Police managed to crack the encryption on two of the servers — the
first of which contained the suspected stolen data. Examining the
servers' traffic, authorities were able to track down an additional 16
servers."
https://yle.fi/a/74-20058572

On 06/05/2024 09:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:
>>
>>> Mickey,
>>>
>>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>>>
>>> And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
>>>
>>> You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey,
>>> that is
>>> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
>>> feature of yourself to everyone around you.
>>>
>>> Same goes for "faceprints".  Even easier, as your faceprint can be
>>> "taken"
>>> from literally tens of meters away.
>>
>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the
>> reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
>> not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face.
>
> What is a "3D sensor" actually?  :-)

It's an infrared projection of a known pattern onto your face which
provides a 3D map of the shape of your face. By comparing the
distortions of the pattern between known and unknown faces you can check
whether a person is able unlock the phone.

On 06/05/2024 07:09, Mickey D wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2024 03:30:00 +0000, Uncle Sam wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2024 19:47, Mickey D wrote:
>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>>> https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
>>>
>>> Says so here:
>>>
>>> From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
>
>> They got the fingerprints because he
>> posted an image of his fingers online and this was compared with his
>> fingers when he was in custody. That's how they proved that the anon
>> chap is the same person they have got in their custody. So moral of the
>> story is don't be stupid to post images of your body parts if you are
>> going to commit any cyber crimes hoping to get away by being anonymous.
>
> Thank you for explaining the story for those who haven't read it yet.
>
> What's not in that story is that they can also often identify which camera
> an original photo came from (which means they can cross correlate photos
> that you post to various sites on the net if they want to do that).
>
> That is, if you post a photo to forum 1 and another photo to forum 2, in
> some cases they can correlate the sensor fingerprint to your unique camera.

Not quite. Last I looked at this, which was a few years ago now, it was
limited to the make and model of the camera. Not the capability to
identify your particular camera. e.g.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24751839.2022.2058252

This is of limited utility as I imagine 95% of photos are taken by
iphones, galaxys and pixels. Plus the sensors are commodity items which
are shared between models.

> Just to be clear, I'm not talking about metadata as sensor fingerprints
> work for all photo formats - as the forensics identify the camera through
> unique repetitive imperfections in each camera sensor's digital output.
> https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-law-enforcement-decodes-your-photos-78828
>
> https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/7254/1/Large-scale-test-of-sensor-fingerprint-camera-identification/10.1117/12.805701.short
> "This paper presents a large scale test of camera identification
> from sensor fingerprints."

This is quite an old reference.

> However, if you modify that original image substantially, their forensics
> are increasingly less than perfect depending on how well you modify them.

On Mon, 6 May 2024 12:10:07 +0100, Chris wrote:

>>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>>>> https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
>>>>
>>>> Says so here:
>>>>
>>>> From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
>>
>>> They got the fingerprints because he
>>> posted an image of his fingers online and this was compared with his
>>> fingers when he was in custody. That's how they proved that the anon
>>> chap is the same person they have got in their custody. So moral of the
>>> story is don't be stupid to post images of your body parts if you are
>>> going to commit any cyber crimes hoping to get away by being anonymous.
>>
>> Thank you for explaining the story for those who haven't read it yet.
>>
>> What's not in that story is that they can also often identify which camera
>> an original photo came from (which means they can cross correlate photos
>> that you post to various sites on the net if they want to do that).
>>
>> That is, if you post a photo to forum 1 and another photo to forum 2, in
>> some cases they can correlate the sensor fingerprint to your unique camera.
>
> Not quite. Last I looked at this, which was a few years ago now, it was
> limited to the make and model of the camera. Not the capability to
> identify your particular camera. e.g.
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24751839.2022.2058252
>
> This is of limited utility as I imagine 95% of photos are taken by
> iphones, galaxys and pixels. Plus the sensors are commodity items which
> are shared between models.
>
>> Just to be clear, I'm not talking about metadata as sensor fingerprints
>> work for all photo formats - as the forensics identify the camera through
>> unique repetitive imperfections in each camera sensor's digital output.
>> https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-law-enforcement-decodes-your-photos-78828
>>
>> https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/7254/1/Large-scale-test-of-sensor-fingerprint-camera-identification/10.1117/12.805701.short
>> "This paper presents a large scale test of camera identification
>> from sensor fingerprints."
>
> This is quite an old reference.
>
>> However, if you modify that original image substantially, their forensics
>> are increasingly less than perfect depending on how well you modify them.

You misunderstood. It's all about identifying the EXACT camera.

There are many forensic techniques which take advantage of the unique
errors inherent in any camera sensor, all of which improve over time.
https://www.mdpi.com/2313-433X/10/2/31

There are even companies that sell this software already.
https://www.mobiledit.com/camera-ballistics

Don't ask me how they do it though as it uses sophisticated math.

There are articles out there on how to defeat it if you care to look.
https://duckduckgo.com/&q=how+to+defeat+camera+photo+forensics

On 06/05/2024 12:56, Mickey D wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2024 12:10:07 +0100, Chris wrote:
>
>>>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>>>>> https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/07f9/live/65b1da70-07be-11ef-8533-c557f743cc78.png
>>>>>
>>>>> Says so here:
>>>>>
>>>>> From teenage cyber-thug to Europe’s most wanted
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxe9g4zlgpo
>>>
>>>> They got the fingerprints because he
>>>> posted an image of his fingers online and this was compared with his
>>>> fingers when he was in custody. That's how they proved that the anon
>>>> chap is the same person they have got in their custody. So moral of the
>>>> story is don't be stupid to post images of your body parts if you are
>>>> going to commit any cyber crimes hoping to get away by being anonymous.
>>>
>>> Thank you for explaining the story for those who haven't read it yet.
>>>
>>> What's not in that story is that they can also often identify which camera
>>> an original photo came from (which means they can cross correlate photos
>>> that you post to various sites on the net if they want to do that).
>>>
>>> That is, if you post a photo to forum 1 and another photo to forum 2, in
>>> some cases they can correlate the sensor fingerprint to your unique camera.
>>
>> Not quite. Last I looked at this, which was a few years ago now, it was
>> limited to the make and model of the camera. Not the capability to
>> identify your particular camera. e.g.
>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24751839.2022.2058252
>>
>> This is of limited utility as I imagine 95% of photos are taken by
>> iphones, galaxys and pixels. Plus the sensors are commodity items which
>> are shared between models.
>>
>>> Just to be clear, I'm not talking about metadata as sensor fingerprints
>>> work for all photo formats - as the forensics identify the camera through
>>> unique repetitive imperfections in each camera sensor's digital output.
>>> https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-law-enforcement-decodes-your-photos-78828
>>>
>>> https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/7254/1/Large-scale-test-of-sensor-fingerprint-camera-identification/10.1117/12.805701.short
>>> "This paper presents a large scale test of camera identification
>>> from sensor fingerprints."
>>
>> This is quite an old reference.
>>
>>> However, if you modify that original image substantially, their forensics
>>> are increasingly less than perfect depending on how well you modify them.
>
> You misunderstood. It's all about identifying the EXACT camera.

Like I said, it's been a while. Things might have improved.

> There are many forensic techniques which take advantage of the unique
> errors inherent in any camera sensor, all of which improve over time.
> https://www.mdpi.com/2313-433X/10/2/31

Thanks.

Not sure I see what you're seeing. The review is not very precise in its
language. Looking at a couple of specific papers, they still are
comparing make/model not specific cameras.

This one - not peer-reviewed - supposedly labelled as "individual
camera" with an accuracy of 99.15%, is actually only six different
devices (two phones and four cameras).
https://repository.derby.ac.uk/download/45e22f10d5dfc1d211a4392c591cd80d392237fa032ccc9f37f772a325fc91f5/922645/DIGITAL%20VIDEO%20SOURCE%20IDENTIFICATION%20BASED%20ON%20GREEN-CHANNEL%20PHOTO%20RESPONSE%20NON-UNIFORMITY%20%28G-PRNU%29.pdf

And this one - peer-reviewed - has 11 smartphones from six difference
manufacturers is similarly labelled as "individual camera" with an
accuracy of 96.18%.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742287616300998

I don't understand how either of those studies can be called
individual-level identification of cameras?

The evidence (sorry!) just isn't there. A study needs to be done with
15-20 examples of each camera across multiple models and brands and see
if they can be individualised.

> There are even companies that sell this software already.
> https://www.mobiledit.com/camera-ballistics
>
> Don't ask me how they do it though as it uses sophisticated math.

Sorry, but the forensic market is not very healthy with plenty of
products which sell a dream. If a product cannot back itself with
published scientific research - rather than hide behind math - then it's
snake oil. It's notable that the software has not been updated since 2017!

> There are articles out there on how to defeat it if you care to look.
> https://duckduckgo.com/&q=how+to+defeat+camera+photo+forensics

Which is probably why things haven't moved on: it's simply of academic
interest with little applicability in practice.

On 2024-05-06 03:04, R.Wieser wrote:

> And do yourself a favour and look up some YouTube stuff about "hacking"
> fingerprint locks. You might be surprised how easy some of them are fooled.

Easy when presented as a YT video. Not many people will actually:

- lift the print from something
- make the 'fake' print
- get access to the physical phone or other device
- get in

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-06 04:23, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20:
>>
>>> Mickey,
>>>
>>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo.
>>>
>>> And thats just one of the more complex methods there are.
>>>
>>> You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey,
>>> that is
>>> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that
>>> feature of yourself to everyone around you.
>>>
>>> Same goes for "faceprints".  Even easier, as your faceprint can be
>>> "taken"
>>> from literally tens of meters away.
>>
>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the
>> reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is
>> not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face.
>
> What is a "3D sensor" actually?  :-)

In the case of iPhone the 'shape' of the face is determined as described
here:

https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102381

The term Apple uses is "depth map of your face"

Further: "and also captures an infrared image of your face."

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-05-06 05:51, R.Wieser wrote:
> Arno,
>
>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
>
> Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.

That also express the thermal (IR) "print" that FaceID is looking for?

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 06/05/2024 10:51, R.Wieser wrote:
> Arno,
>
>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image
>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it.
>
> Yes, and ? 3D printers exist.

I mean getting a 3D scan of someone's face in order to create a copy is
not trivial.

>
> And thats the buget solution. People who created 3D heads (and full body
> representations) have existed since *forever* - statues anyone?

I think Ronaldo's phone is safe. lol
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5abe9e3a1e0000fb077b037a.jpeg

> And as a
> more contemporary example just take a look at Madame Tussauds in New York.
> (and others like it).

They are universally shit. I don't understand how waxworks museums are
still a thing. I'm sure they were amazing in Victorian times.