Photos as evidence in court

[lozina]

While going through some of Czar's "real or rendered" threads I was just thinking, considering how amazing rendered images are becoming- do you think "photos" will one day soon no longer become admissable as evidence to a trial?

 

[TitanDiddly]

Interesting. There'll probably be a new job position for the experts who can tell the difference.

 

[DurocShark]

"Experts" in photo validation are full of crap anyway. Remember the pixie pictures around the turn of the century?

 

[C'DaleRider]

As far as I know, very few types of photographs are actually admissable as evidence just because of potential problems from "doctoring" the pic. One type of photo that IS admissable as evidence is the Polaroid instant pciture......cannot doctor that one.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
As far as I know, very few types of photographs are actually admissable as evidence just because of potential problems from "doctoring" the pic. One type of photo that IS admissable as evidence is the Polaroid instant pciture......cannot doctor that one.

I always wondered why every decent movie that features CSI uses a polaroid.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
As far as I know, very few types of photographs are actually admissable as evidence just because of potential problems from "doctoring" the pic. One type of photo that IS admissable as evidence is the Polaroid instant pciture......cannot doctor that one.

I always wondered why every decent movie that features CSI uses a polaroid.

Yeah that's interesting- thanks for that bit of trivia

 

[C'DaleRider]

I got that info from a detective that was photographing a break-in at the bike shop where I used to work. I asked why not use a digital or regular camera since Polaroids were so hard to find film for (and he also said the cop supply stores have a plentiful supply of Polaroid film just for this) and he informed me of the court and evidence admissability problems with anything but a Polaroid. Once you think about it, it does make sense.

 

[rahvin]

Canon and Nikon both sell digital validation kits for their DSLR's. These software packages make the images secure in that any tampering becomes obvious. Using the digital validation kits and trained photgraphers makes the images admissable in court.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
"Experts" in photo validation are full of crap anyway.

Reminds me of everybody in these "Real or Rendered" threads... nothing but crap pulled out of their asses.

 

[CRXican]

As a journalism student I was attending court cases to write short stories on. Both the prosecution and defense used normal photographs (not Polorid) during the case.

 

[dman]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Canon and Nikon both sell digital validation kits for their DSLR's. These software packages make the images secure in that any tampering becomes obvious. Using the digital validation kits and trained photgraphers makes the images admissable in court.

I read about that as well, sounds like the future, since Polaroid is dying (at least the instant-film cameras)

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Canon and Nikon both sell digital validation kits for their DSLR's. These software packages make the images secure in that any tampering becomes obvious. Using the digital validation kits and trained photgraphers makes the images admissable in court.

the question is how secure is this even.

 

[Brutuskend]

"With circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us."

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: lnguyen

Originally posted by: rahvin
Canon and Nikon both sell digital validation kits for their DSLR's. These software packages make the images secure in that any tampering becomes obvious. Using the digital validation kits and trained photgraphers makes the images admissable in court.

the question is how secure is this even.

Tell ya what, you pay the $500 to get the kit, try it out and let us know how secure it is.

 

[Mo0o]

Eyewitness testimony is far less reliable and it is still allowed in courts.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
"With circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us."

I think you and I are the only two people on this site that know that song.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
"With circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us."

I think you and I are the only two people on this site that know that song.

Too bad. It's a CLASSIC!

 

[Juice Box]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
"With circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us."

I think you and I are the only two people on this site that know that song.

Too bad. It's a CLASSIC!

maybe if you are over 50