Thu, 04 Jan 2007

Detecting computer-generated porn?

The judge rightly laughed this idiotic claim out of court. But this case has implications far beyond prosecuting perverts: the veracity of all photographic evidence is being called into question. Think security videos, where images are often "enhanced" ("Photoshopped")to give the police a leg up on identification. Should such things be allowed into court as evidence? Can we trust the camera any more? Could we ever, really?

In this week's installment, the FBI claims that one of its analysts can spot computer-generated images just by looking at them.

(link) [CNET News.com]

/Politics | 0 writebacks | permanent link

comment...

 
Notes: If you put a <mailto:> link in the URL field your address will not be mangled: this could be a bad idea as your email address could be easily harvested by bots designed for SPAM. The comments field should now format correctly for line feeds and carriage returns: when you hit the 'Enter' or 'Return' keys in your comment it should break to a new line. The text should wrap cleanly. Please let me know if it doesn't. No HTML tags will pass through - entering links seems to be the main cause of comment SPAM. Also, please be sure that Javascript is enabled in your browser before attempting to post a writeback. Sorry for any inconvenience, but this really helps cut down on the amount of comment SPAM I have to deal with.
 
 Name:
 URL:(optional)
 Title: (optional)
 Comments:  
Save my Name and URL/Email for next time