memory card for court evidence??

[carrbowl]

So it appears a piece of our pool equipment has disappeared from the side of our house and appeared on our next door neighbors house. So I want to take photos, but since photos can be altered I'm thinking if I just take them and leave them on the memory card, they would be legit. Do think they would hold up in court (if it came to that) if I left them on the memory card and didn't download them?

[StudioDesigntC]

Hmm, I'm not sure because you can still add images and files to a memory card, kind of like a little external HD. The metadata would be your saving grace I guess. Dunno what holds up in court though. Perhaps get a simple disposable and use that? They don't seem very "alterable".

[CallMeAl]

Just report the offense to the police. They can take the photos (if needed) and will be well versed in what will hold up in court.

Craig

[ndsimm]

they use Video in court all the time so what's the difference? It should be allowable

[bondarnes]

Having had to take pictures and appear in court with them I can tell you that it has never been just about the pictures. To be entered into evidence the images need to have been made by a disinterested third party who gives sworn testimony as to the circumstances under which the images were made and that the images are unaltered and purpport to represent the scene at the time.

Many years ago, before video was available, I was hired to shoot movie film of a little girl playing on a school playground. Then I had to testify as to the date, the time, and the circumstances under which the motion pictures was shot. The plaintifs were sueing an auto insurance company claiming their little girl was struck by a car and had permanent injuries preventing her from leading a normal active life. The driver of the car claimed the girl fell down in front of his car and that his car never made contact with the child.The poor little girl all huddled in a wheelchair had the jurors ready to award significant damages. After they saw the movie, they gave them nothing.

[Duffy Pratt]

Don has it basically right, except there is no requirement that evidence be produced by a disinterested third party. A party to a lawsuit can gather evidence just as well. Also, the person who made the picture does not necessarily have to be the one to authenticate it. Instead, all you need is someone who can testify that the picture is a fair and accurate representation of the subject at some relevant time.

Duffy

[Night Owl]

Unless there's some idea of whodunnit, I'd say don't bother. All you'd have is some photos of a space where some pool equipment used to be.

And if you do know who ganked the gear, the more incriminating photos would be of him in possession.

[MC Images]

Do you have receipt of purchase? Serial numbers?

[srdanz]

Technically speaking, no digital image taken today can be guaranteed to be intact. One thing to improve on this would be the use of Public Key Cryptography.

One option that the camera manufacturers could consider (and it would actually go into the next EXIF specification), would be to add a message digest calculated from the image data, and sign it with the manufacturer's Private Key. That way, the only thing an interested party would have to do is calculate the message digest of the image, decrypt the signature contained in the EXIF with the manufacturer's public key, and compare the two.

The equality would pretty much prove that the image is intact. (There are pitfalls to this, the major one would be a compromised private key, and less interesting would be attempt to guess the signature that can take years on super fast computers and would not be accessible to most casual forgerers.)


I should go ahead and suggest this to EXIF people, sounds cool (to a nerd in me at least).

[Dsheree]

If you want to add pictures as proof ...regardless if it will help or not.... go buy a disposable film camera....they still make those right?

or just do what I would.....take it back and then make them ask you for it.

[Steelsun]

Even film can be altered.
Take a picture, scan it, get the print made again, have a negative made from the print. Voila.

Generally digital images are as evidence worthy as film if your lawyer is good. And as DOn said, testimony is paramount.

I've had digital photos and video accepted into evidence many times in my PI work.