Interesting article from BBC about photo meta data.

[Mazdaman323lx]

Interesting article from BBC about photo meta data. Think your posting your photos anonymously , think again.

The hidden fingerprint inside your photos

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Actually, there's a great deal more hidden inside the modern digital image, says researcher Jerone Andrews.

www.bbc.com

 

[Johnmcl7]

After watching programs about insurance fraud it's certainly clear that many people don't understand the metadata that's stored in digital photos but I don't agree with much of the article.

It talks about the 'modern' digital image implying this is something new but it absolutely isn't and even very early digital cameras stored exif data in their pictures:

This is one of the first photos I took with my first digital camera almost 20 years ago and you'll find a wealth of information in the metadata about the camera, when the photo was taken, what the settings were, the camera software etc. Embedding GPS data in photos is nothing new either and phones have been doing this for a long time.

The article exaggerates the problems with metadata as it's just one potentially useful piece in a puzzle but there's many other parts. The act of simply posting a photo regardless of the metadata could be a giveaway someone is doing something they shouldn't since that generates data on its own showing when the user has been active and the content of the picture is often far more valuable than anything else, To be able to store location data in the metadata that's going to mean the user has GPS enabled on their phone which leaves them wide open to many other possible slip ups given how keen apps are to use that information.

The tone of the article gives the impression this is all really bad and doesn't make any mention of the benefits of this data. which is much more likely not to be of detriment to the photographer. If people are unhappy with their pictures then others can give advice from looking at the metadata and if I'm curious about a photo and how it was taken or what equipment I can easily see that. My photo processing software gives me the option to strip out the metadata if I want on my photos but I leave it in as others may find it useful on my photos and at the moment I'm not on the run from authorities or trying to fake my work schedule as the US president.

 

[THE CYBORG]

I like my meta data but if you want to get rid of it try THIS

 

[Mazdaman323lx]

I think the point of the article was that 99% of joe average types , are unaware your camera photos , be it from a phone ,drone , camera contain all this info ?

 

[Cymru]

Its way more fun to alter the metadata to stoke conspiracy theories or just wind people up on your images though.

 

[lensimages]

Interesting article from BBC about photo meta data. Think your posting your photos anonymously , think again.

The hidden fingerprint inside your photos

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Actually, there's a great deal more hidden inside the modern digital image, says researcher Jerone Andrews.

www.bbc.com

What would happen if I took a photo of a photo I took 2 years ago in 2019 surely it would record its metadata as on the date I photographed the original photo in 2021

 

[SkyeHigh]

I’d be more concerned if I wasn’t aware of the embedded code in colour laser copiers and printers that has been going on since the 1980’s:

Printer tracking dots - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Computer printers have been quietly embedding tracking codes in documents for decades

Imperceptible yellow dots identifying the specific device and time of printing are used by governments to track who printed documents.

qz.com

 

[THE CYBORG]

What would happen if I took a photo of a photo I took 2 years ago in 2019 surely it would record its metadata as on the date I photographed the original photo in 2021

Yes the meta data would be for the photo you just took, your camera couldn’t read the data on the original.