Cameras - Info stuck to your pics

So I've searched around and can't find any info on this, even though I know I've seen it somewhere.....

I'm told by a friend that there is a danger posting photos/takin pics of ur plants with certain cameras b/c there is info stuck with the pic about what type of cam was used and when it was taken etc. etc.
and you need to get rid of that info.... theres something he does to his pics to make them "safe" for posting.
Anyone have a clue what I'm talking about?
I have a canon powershot and plenty of pics taken with it, can I post them freely without worry? Or is there something I need to do to the pics first?

Thanks!

That info is removed when you upload to this site. if your hot linking pictures, you might need to worry, but otherwise your good.

o, i wish i knew where the thread was on this. it came up a few months back. Some people go through and save a jpg as a gif or something like that to mess with the tags. Photoshop has something (can't place it) that removes all the data from your camera. If i find the other thread ill post again.

I remember reading it... it said to just crop the pictures and you should be good...

SweetNightmare said:

I remember reading it... it said to just crop the pictures and you should be good...

Click to expand...

That's what I got from it too.
I was kinda wonderin if it was just me...lol

I was just informed by another member and verified it myself that the info IS NOT REMOVED. I've heard OVER AND OVER from EVERYONE on here, including the OWNERS, that this was the case. I guess upload with caution....

what if you convert it to .bmp (bitmap) in MS Paint and convert it back to .jpg?
Irfanview (google it, it's free) can edit images and save them as just about any image file type (I think).

If that doesn't do it why not? Who has links to info on where this info is stored in an image file. Shouldn't be a hard process.

thnx
surprisingly hard to find info on the net about this...(unless its my poor searching?)
Anyone know exactly what info is stored with the photo?
.....its not like I have a massive grow op, plus I live in canada... so I'm not too concerned, but things from the past always seem to bite you in the ass later in life....

Relax. It's not really a problem.

It's called EXIF data (Exchangeable Image File Format). It will mostly just give information on camera model, shutter speed, DOF, software used. The only way the information can really be traced back to you is if the EXIF data contains your cameras serial number....but not many cameras will do this. I believe there are some Canon models that will save a serial number in the EXIF data. But the only way this could be traced back is if you sent in your warranty and then LEO would have to go to the camera maker and trace it back to you.

With the amounts of images that are uploaded, don't you think we would have heard something if their was a problem?

But if you really want to get rid of the EXIF data then you want to use the Photoshop "Save For Web" option. This will strip the EXIF data from the picture. There are some free image optimisers that will also strip the data...Google it.

Here is what the EXIF data looks like on a random picture from ICM....nothing incriminating.

I just went through some of my diary pics on IC. Those simply resized maintained all data (though none of it incriminating other than make and model of the camera) Pics that were cropped first were free of anything approaching personal data.

Just tried Save for Web. It leaves the info field pretty darn bare. Good find.

Awesome, Thanks

I understand that some cell phones will incorporate GPS data into the EXIF tags.
That is what would really F up your weekend.

hoosierdaddy
I understand that some cell phones will incorporate GPS data into the EXIF tags.

Click to expand...

That's fucked up. Have to do some research on that. Probably should be a sticky warning if that is the case. Thanks for the heads-up.

I'm no PC guru but here is what I use to strip everything out.

http://www.irfanview.com/

Once you do the free download open up the application/program and then click on [file] and with in the drop down menu you will see [Batch Conversion/Rename]. This will strip all info from your pics. One gotcha is that it renames your pics with a simple numeric name i.e. 1,2,3 etc.
Once you go to [Batch Conversion/Rename] a separate screen will open up there will be a spot called [Batch rename settings] this has an [option] of where you want to start the numeric sequence i.e. 25,26,27 vs. 1,2,3. Why is this important? Because after you run a rename batch lets say you come back in two weeks with a new batch of pics to rename them. It will rename them the same 1,2,3 as last time and screw your old pics up. In fact when IC mags upload system sees them it will replace your old pics with same name. You may see your pics in old post(seedlings) change to the new pics(6ft trees). i.e. your pics of seedlings are now replaced with fully grown budding plants and thread no longer makes sense.

Just make note of what your last pic was in the [Batch Conversion/Rename] i.e. 33 and then go back under [Batch rename settings] and change the starting point to 34 and you are golden.

I use an older version of corel to export to JPG with all data stripped out

HOWEVER, I know for certain that phot prointers have it, and very possible dig cameras have it also. That is embedded micro water marks

If you have a security fear buy the camera cash off of someone. at best they cen get model place of purchase ect.

same thing with computers, they can only trace it back to the place of purchase

if you are not connected to that purchase your safe

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...r-tracking-may-be-human-rights-violation.html


EU: Secret printer watermarks may violate human rights

By Ryan Paul | Published: February 14, 2008 - 08:51AM CT

A European Union commissioner issued an official statement about the legality of printer tracking dot systems last month in response to a query from a member of the European Parliament. The commissioner states that no laws presently address the issue, but notes that it could possibly constitute a violation of the right to privacy guaranteed by the European Union's Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Privacy advocates have been aware for years that many color printers and photocopiers sold in the United States use patterns of nearly-invisible yellow dots to encode identifying information about the originating printer in every printed page. Although few details are available regarding the ultimate function of the watermark or the manner in which the information is used, it is generally characterized as a means through which law enforcement agencies can identify counterfeiters. There is no way to know, however, whether the government's use of the watermarks extends beyond that function.

The watermark could easily be used by the government to perform identification without any kind of judicial oversight. Some believe that the information could be potentially be used to identify and harass political dissidents. Critics argue that the system threatens to undermine the practice of anonymous pamphleteering—a time-honored vehicle for political dissent that has been used in America since before the Revolutionary War.

"The Commission is not aware of any specific laws either at national or at Community level governing tracking mechanisms in colour laser printers and photocopiers," wrote Commissioner Franco Frattini in an official statement (.DOC). "To the extent that individuals may be identified through material printed or copied using certain equipment, such processing may give rise to the violation of fundamental human rights, namely the right to privacy and private life. It also might violate the right to protection of personal data."

In the United States, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is leading a campaign to increase awareness of potential abuses associated with the watermarking. The organization hopes to eventually amass enough information about it to be able to challenge the practice in court. If the European Union decides to pursue the matter itself, it could potentially pressure U.S. printer manufacturers into providing more specific details that illuminate the extent to which watermarking threatens individual privacy.
Further reading

great thanks for the link hamstring

Johnny Rotten said:

I was just informed by another member and verified it myself that the info IS NOT REMOVED. I've heard OVER AND OVER from EVERYONE on here, including the OWNERS, that this was the case. I guess upload with caution....

Click to expand...

Yes I confirmed this recently by downloading a JPG from an active grower. It had a good bit of EXIF information, so I could determine her camera brand, model, time and date of the shoot, and certain defaults. That and ninety-nine cents will buy leo a cup of coffee. So I didn't even bother to post a thread about the issue at the time. It didn't seem like a HUGE issue in my opinion but all the same I think it wise to remove EXIF info. As has been said by another person, just visit downloads.com and pick a good tool to remove EXIF info. I use "EXIF TAG REMOVER" and it works great.

There is a possibility that among the EXIF information you could have a thing like "serial number" which uniquely identifies a camera, and that's the thing you don't want to have. I didn't find it on the specimens I collected from icmag, but that's not to say it might not be in there on some brands/models. Another worrisome variable is that some of the EXIF information is proprietary and encoded, thus you don't really know WHAT it contains, only the manufacturer does; could very well be a unique serial number. If you bought the camera via credit card then you can then be tied to that photo--theoretically.

I was going to post about this like months ago.

'Around midnight on September 11, 2007 a student posted photographs of mock-pipe bombs and another photograph of him holding them while saying he would blow up his high school at 9:11 a.m. on Sept. 11. Users of 4chan[47][48][49][50][51] helped to track him down by finding the perpetrator's father's name in the Exif data of a photograph he took, and contacted the police. He was arrested before school began that day.[52][53][54][55] The whole thing turned out to be a hoax; the "weapons" were toys and there were no actual bombs.[56]"

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

pics uploaded here still keep their EXIF info, no doubt about that.

Google EXIF reader and you can download a free reader that reads all the EXIF data.


Jstrip is a very simple program to strip the data. I put all my pics for IC in one folder. I run the Jstrip on the folder and it takes like 2-3 seconds to strip the whole folder. No "save as" etc PITA. I keep a shortcut on my desktop and the whole process takes 4 seconds once the pics are donwloaded from the camera to the PC.

Some cameras do embed their serial # into the EXIF data.



As far as the post regarding printers, thats not the same thing and is easily defeated. Since yellow is hard to see on white paper, tiny dots are used to indicate the serial #. The primary purpose is to track counterfeiters as stated. Buy the machine in cash, there is no large scale tracking through distribution to purchase. More easily, just reprogram the serial #, easily done through service mode on most models