[HN Gopher] Police Can Trace Cameras Thanks to Sensor Imperfecti...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Police Can Trace Cameras Thanks to Sensor Imperfection
       'Fingerprints'
        
       Author : mikece
       Score  : 69 points
       Date   : 2022-07-01 14:59 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (petapixel.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (petapixel.com)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | buildbot wrote:
       | Any camera does a huge amount of processing before even giving
       | you a raw file, in most cases. And any algorithm for data
       | reduction like converting true raw sensor output to processed
       | data, say JPG, is somewhat hash like. But not a cryptographic
       | hash, more like a locality sensitive hash. Of course this can be
       | exploited to identify cameras.
       | 
       | Really old Sinar digital backs came with a calibration file
       | unique to the CCD serial, newer cameras have it embedded in their
       | firmware typically. You can also build these calibration files,
       | but the way you apply it will still leave processing "marks" that
       | someone will be able to pick up.
        
       | vmoore wrote:
       | This reminds me of an article a while back: `Facebook can track
       | who you know using the dust on your camera`[0]
       | 
       | [0]
       | https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5262297/Face...
        
       | deepnotderp wrote:
       | Will the lack of existence of any stable fingerprint be a valid
       | heuristic for the detection of a deepfake?
        
         | vasco wrote:
         | Should be straightforward to train a model to add these based
         | on a few examples. Could last for a short bit though.
        
       | lkxijlewlf wrote:
       | Laser printers (color ones) are (were?) required to have some
       | sort of built in imperfection because they were too good and
       | could be used for counterfeiting.
       | 
       | I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually is a requirement for
       | cameras, you know, just because law enforcement wants it.
        
         | sbierwagen wrote:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
         | 
         | There's also a pattern of circles on currency that color
         | copiers and Photoshop will read and then refuse to work on:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation
        
       | wubbert wrote:
       | About 15 years when I got my first digital camera, I noticed that
       | there were always a few dots in the same spots that were bright
       | white/red/green/blue no matter what the settings on the camera
       | were or what the picture was of. I found out these were "hot
       | pixels" and were caused by defects in the sensor. I'd always
       | wondered if someone could create an algorithm to match photos to
       | a specific camera based on hot pixels. It seems like this is
       | exactly that.
        
         | dontcare007 wrote:
         | Seems like an opportunity for an anonymous service. Post
         | calorie editing if photos to remove identifying fingerprints...
        
         | noja wrote:
         | You could do something similar with the lens too.
        
         | Manuel_D wrote:
         | Yeah, cameras calibrate out those pixels essentially by taking
         | a photo of total darkness (taking an exposure while the shutter
         | is closed) and discarding any pixels that still read bright. I
         | noticed this happen a while back and the location of the dead
         | pixel was visible if I took a photo of fabric. I could see
         | where the pixel was being interpolated from surrounding pixels.
         | Super subtle, I could only notice by knowing a-priori where the
         | dead pixel was, but something that an algorithm could detect.
         | 
         | I wonder how well this fingerprinting technique works when
         | photos are resized or manipulated, though.
        
         | trompetenaccoun wrote:
         | For certain types of photography (for example low-light) it's
         | important to remove them if you care about quality, I think
         | software for getting rid of hot pixels came first. All you need
         | is enough suitable shots from the same camera, so it's sort of
         | trivial. Of course this can also be used as a sort of
         | fingerprint, so it's true that if you want to share photos
         | truly anonymously you need to get rid of those pixels in
         | addition to the metadata.
        
       | Arnt wrote:
       | I have a feeling that someone like Samy Kamkar is already
       | thinking about writing a convenient tool to replace the
       | fingerprint of one camera with that of another on a photo.
       | 
       | (Hm, the latest entry on samy.pl is two years old. Is he well?)
        
       | danielfoster wrote:
       | >Groningen is a city in the Netherlands, which is the biggest
       | distributor of child sex abuse images in the world.
       | 
       | How does a city of only 200,000 people earn this title?
        
         | tomcam wrote:
         | Well the Dutch are famous for their work ethic. Seriously, an
         | assertion like that is easy to make but it could well be that
         | they are better about keeping statistics and are more willing
         | to publish them transparently.
        
           | piva00 wrote:
           | Same issue with the numbers on sexual abuse in Sweden, they
           | are more often reported and the definition is broader than
           | the common sense belief. Numbers appear ridiculous (to the
           | point where the alt-right loves taunting Swedes with "rape
           | capital of the world" and such) but it's just a matter of
           | much better statistical collection, and more nuanced (and
           | broader) interpretation of what configures sexual abuse.
        
         | SoftTalker wrote:
         | It's unclear whether "which" in that sentence is referring to
         | Groningen or the Netherlands.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | oropolo wrote:
       | Which leads to the question: will cameras be "fingerprinted"
       | before being sold?
        
         | mistrial9 wrote:
         | digital cameras have extensive internal IDs that are
         | transferred into the image file -- this varies a lot by
         | manufacturer and model
         | 
         |  _edit_ https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=exif
        
           | pessimizer wrote:
           | The file, but not the image. Also easily removable, although
           | companies have been clearly encouraged to make this difficult
           | in mainstream software and to set maximal defaults. Probably
           | doesn't take much encouragement, because the more metadata,
           | the more automagic.
        
         | dogma1138 wrote:
         | It would be far easier to force phone and camera manufacturers
         | to "embed" a fingerprint in the photo than to measure every
         | sensor.
         | 
         | Also these fingerprints in reality are very flaky and the
         | higher the quality of the sensor the less of a fingerprint
         | there is to work with.
         | 
         | The fingerprints are also dependent on specific operating
         | conditions which can change with firmware and operating
         | parameters (e.g. digital zoom / cropping) as well as
         | environmental conditions such as light levels and even
         | temperature.
        
           | gonesilent wrote:
           | camera manufacturers already put unique QR like barcode on
           | the sensors for lot tracking and such.
        
             | thfuran wrote:
             | Slapping a barcode on a sensor is a lot less involved than
             | using it to take some careful measurements and then storing
             | and retaining the results.
        
         | zorlack wrote:
         | ...and also leads would-be anonymous image-posters to increase
         | the noise-floor of their photographs.
        
           | ancientworldnow wrote:
           | It makes more sense to just denoise.
        
             | dogma1138 wrote:
             | Most phones do that for you anyhow. Unless there are
             | serious defects in the sensor that would probably mean it
             | would fail QA even for bargain bin phones the amount of
             | "AI" post processing that phones do these days is probably
             | sufficient to erase any sensor fingerprint.
             | 
             | Even with DSLRs and RAW files you often don't get a RAW
             | output from the sensor all of them do their own "color
             | science" magic and other alterations like denoising too
             | even on the rawest of the RAW settings.
             | 
             | RAW files today just mean that the files are uncompressed
             | or the least compressed since there might be some
             | compression/downsampling happening at readout anyhow and
             | that you get a ton of metadata that can be used by a photo
             | editing app to better work with the image.
        
             | zorlack wrote:
             | Or to just dither the hell out of your image.
             | 
             | Luminance sensitivity information could probably be most-
             | easily detected in the dark areas of an image. So just
             | crush those areas.
             | 
             | I suspect the more you think about this problem the more
             | the answer becomes: Compress your image in order to remove
             | information density.
             | 
             | Still, a determined adversary might find this information
             | discernable over a long enough series of images.
        
       | toss1 wrote:
       | I wonder if this would still work with cameras like the S22 Ultra
       | which has iirc, ~108MP sensors and uses pixel binning to improve
       | the pic and outputs ~12MP photos. Seems the binning algorithm
       | would obscure many of the 'sins' of the individual pixels and
       | blend the output to something more like what is generically
       | expected from a photo. Or, could the algorithm actually wind up
       | amplifying some of the flaws, perhaps once they got past a
       | certain size?
        
         | formerly_proven wrote:
         | There are usually blobby patterns to the overall non-
         | uniformity, with tiling for larger (full-frame and up) sensors
         | where the different parts of the sensors are stitched during
         | lithography and commonly vertical lines or groups of lines for
         | differences between the column amplifiers and ADCs (CMOS image
         | sensors usually have one PGA and ADC for every column). You can
         | look at this by searching for dark frames astrophotography
         | people post.
        
       | stillbourne wrote:
       | This seems like something pretty easy to spoof.
        
       | conductor wrote:
       | In some cameras you can use "pixel mapping" to "fix" the sensor's
       | imperfectoins, see https://www.fujix-forum.com/threads/pixel-
       | mapping.73391/.
        
         | buildbot wrote:
         | As well as dark/flat file calibration - it can get pretty
         | complex: https://nightskypix.com/calibration-frames/
         | https://www.astropy.org/ccd-reduction-and-photometry-guide/v...
        
       | PaulHoule wrote:
       | Doesn't surprise me at all.
        
       | kornhole wrote:
       | After learning about this, all kiddie pornographers will learn to
       | put their photos through postprocessing to mask any signatures.
       | Activists photographing corporate or government crimes may not
       | take the same precautions.
        
       | cabirum wrote:
       | To extract the noise from sensor imperfections, wouldn't one need
       | unaltered images in raw format?
       | 
       | Automatic denoise and image compression ought to erase all but
       | most obvious defects.
        
         | dboreham wrote:
         | Guessing that with several compressed images you can recover
         | the original sensor noise pattern.
        
         | ashwagary wrote:
         | Call me cynical but I've noticed an uptick in phony police
         | capability stories like these that I expect make parallel
         | construction easier.
        
         | 1-6 wrote:
         | It's possibly difficult with one or two images but with
         | several, I'm pretty sure you can apply some sort pattern
         | matching and statistically hit a certainty threshold. The
         | question then becomes, can you use this tech as forensic
         | evidence in a court?
        
         | FrenchyJiby wrote:
         | A lifetime ago, I summarized the techniques of sensor detection
         | for a stackoverflow answer, see [1].
         | 
         | The generic answer is every step of the acquisition/storage
         | process can create artifacts worth analyzing statistically:
         | lens defects, color filter array patterns, imaging sensor
         | noise, color filter array interpolation technique, JPEG
         | quantization coefficient varying per camera/manufacturers...
         | 
         | [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/33674103/4576325
        
           | dr_zoidberg wrote:
           | From reading the article, it looks like it talsk about
           | PRNU[0] without really saying it's PRNU. For a while this
           | technique was known (the earliest papers about it are from
           | the early 2000s) but it was computationally complex at the
           | moment, and the domain of a few very knowledgeable persons. A
           | couple[1] of years ago, MobilEdit finally included a decent
           | UI and implementation of the technique into their
           | software[2], which has made it available. However, I'm unsure
           | if the majority of those who use it truly understand what the
           | technique does and what conclusions you can draw from it.
           | 
           | Oh and great summary on SO FrenchyJiby! It's a good intro to
           | those that aren't aware of what can and can't be done in
           | image analysis :)
           | 
           | [0] https://forensicnerd.wordpress.com/techniques/image-
           | forensic...
           | 
           | [1] https://xkcd.com/1070/
           | 
           | [2] https://www.mobiledit.com/camera-ballistics-features
        
         | jdavis703 wrote:
         | Yes, but it sounds like forensic researchers envision this tool
         | being the equivalent to bullet striation. So in other words,
         | law enforcement finds a suspect, captures their camera,
         | photographs RAW images, and then compares the sensor
         | imperfections in the seized camera to known illicit materials.
         | 
         | Of course this breaks down with used sales and camera rentals,
         | especially since those aren't tracked as intensively as
         | firearms sales.
        
       | twoxproblematic wrote:
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-07-01 23:02 UTC)