8 ms·

Thats not what they claimed. They pointed out that the onus is on the prosecution to their get evidence validated. If they want to zoom in they have to get an

by djsbs 5y ago

Thats not what they claimed. They pointed out that the onus is on the prosecution to their get evidence validated. If they want to zoom in they have to get an expert to testify that iOS doesnt add any pixles. Its pretty basic trial procedure, the prosecution knows the rules and the judge gave them time to find an expert.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
I read “add any pixels” in the context of zooming in as super resolution.
- djsbs 5y ago
  Is interpolation “super resolution”. Id argue not, but it doesn't matter. If the software adds pixels to the image than it has made a material change to the picture. Defense has a right to call the prosecution to prove that the zoom effect does not alter the picture. And its not a moot point. Years ago Xerox started doing OCR (?) on photocopies to same on storage before photocopying (by storing the image as text). Everyone assumed it was a materially identical copy until people noticed it was making typographical and lexical changes to legal contracts in materially meaningful ways. [1] [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/xerox-copiers-might-alter-numbers-text-in-documents-1.1303751 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/xerox-copiers-might-alter-nu...
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    It would have to be an interpolation algorithm that doesn't add or remove signal information. Everybody uses approximations for efficient hardware utilization. I wouldn't consider that admissible.
    - pfortuny 5y ago
      Any interpolation adds information to the data: the very interpolation method is alien to the image, and hence becomes “added” information.
      - djsbs 5y ago
        And therefore needs to be validated! The prosecutor literally tried to infer an action from a single pixel. That’s BS and everyone in this forum has the technical ability to recognize this. A single pixel from a low light environment (therefore noisy)? BS
    - djsbs 5y ago
      Then get an expert to testify as much. Btw, this isn’t a “right wing” issue. Political “liberals”, to their credit, have been saying as much for years, pointing out that closed source software has huge problems in court. As it stands, the defense has a right to force the prosecution to either get an Apple employee to testify in court, or use a linux machine, gimp and a CS expert to explain what gimp is doing. EDIT: sorry I read comment Im replying to as “I wouldn't consider it inadmissible”. I txted this while dozing off. Leaving comment for record’s sake.
lph 5y ago
"The judge responded by disallowing the zoomed-in footage unless the prosecution could prove that it wasn’t manipulated, and only giving them 20 minutes to find and produce an expert witness from Apple, which was obviously impossible. " 20 minutes to find an expert? All of this hinges on whether or not Apple really is using AI (like super-resolution) for pinch and zoom. If they are, this is a totally valid objection. But I've never heard that iPad pinch-and-zoom does this. It would be surprising if it's more than plain old interpolation. Not to mention the defense lawyer clearly doesn't understand what the hell he's talking about, which doesn't exactly engender confidence in the judge taking this complaint seriously: "iPads, which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three dimensions and logarithms" OH NO. LOGARITHMS!
- Natsu 5y ago
  > 20 minutes to find an expert? They'd had an expert in previously who came back and contradicted the prosecution's statement that enlarging won't add "pickles" (quickly corrected to pixels) to the image. The judge allowed the evidence after the prosecution followed the proper procedure. > But I've never heard that iPad pinch-and-zoom does this. It would be surprising if it's more than plain old interpolation. There are various methods that can be used, any of which can add new pixels and or colors, the prosecution expert didn't actually know the details. When you have a couple of pixels that's claimed to be a gun, it really matters whether it's an image artifact or not. Also, the alleged gun is somehow in Kyle's left hand (he's right handed) and does show up as the same temperature as his body on the infrared image of the same scene. > Not to mention the defense lawyer clearly doesn't understand what the hell he's talking about Nobody there knew what they were talking about, which is why they got experts to testify. The prosecution hasn't been following court procedure and has gotten chewed out for it repeatedly because they're trying to pull illegal tricks and are getting called on it.
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    The correct way to frame this conundrum is that what you see on an iPad in Photos by default[0] is not the original version the jury should be considering, either. What you get is typically a zoomed-out version, which mangles the image by selectively omitting “pickles”, or an already zoomed-in version (even without any pinching) if the image is smaller than the screen. The “true original” cannot be viewed using Photos absent third-party tooling. [0] Excluding rare events where source image’s dimensions in pixels exactly corresponds to those of the screen on that particular iPad model.
Someone 5y ago
The image likely was recorded as pixels (in some grid), but is stored as sets of DCT components (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform), and doesn’t have pixels. If so, of course it adds pixels. So, there are several ways to lose information. Inside the phone, at least these: - between reality and image sensor - between image sensor and storage - between storage and display
- djsbs 5y ago
  If the algorithm introduces materially changes the image, then the opposing council (to the one who introduces evidence) has the right to have the image validated be validated by an expert. Thats basic court procedure. Btw, see a submission I made about the dangers of ignoring procedure and trusting digital data: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29206833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29206833

by djsbs 5y ago

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

I read “add any pixels” in the context of zooming in as super resolution.

djsbs 5y ago
Is interpolation “super resolution”. Id argue not, but it doesn't matter. If the software adds pixels to the image than it has made a material change to the picture. Defense has a right to call the prosecution to prove that the zoom effect does not alter the picture. And its not a moot point. Years ago Xerox started doing OCR (?) on photocopies to same on storage before photocopying (by storing the image as text). Everyone assumed it was a materially identical copy until people noticed it was making typographical and lexical changes to legal contracts in materially meaningful ways. [1] [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/xerox-copiers-might-alter-numbers-text-in-documents-1.1303751 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/xerox-copiers-might-alter-nu...
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  It would have to be an interpolation algorithm that doesn't add or remove signal information. Everybody uses approximations for efficient hardware utilization. I wouldn't consider that admissible.
  - pfortuny 5y ago
    Any interpolation adds information to the data: the very interpolation method is alien to the image, and hence becomes “added” information.
    - djsbs 5y ago
      And therefore needs to be validated! The prosecutor literally tried to infer an action from a single pixel. That’s BS and everyone in this forum has the technical ability to recognize this. A single pixel from a low light environment (therefore noisy)? BS
  - djsbs 5y ago
    Then get an expert to testify as much. Btw, this isn’t a “right wing” issue. Political “liberals”, to their credit, have been saying as much for years, pointing out that closed source software has huge problems in court. As it stands, the defense has a right to force the prosecution to either get an Apple employee to testify in court, or use a linux machine, gimp and a CS expert to explain what gimp is doing. EDIT: sorry I read comment Im replying to as “I wouldn't consider it inadmissible”. I txted this while dozing off. Leaving comment for record’s sake.

lph 5y ago

"The judge responded by disallowing the zoomed-in footage unless the prosecution could prove that it wasn’t manipulated, and only giving them 20 minutes to find and produce an expert witness from Apple, which was obviously impossible. " 20 minutes to find an expert? All of this hinges on whether or not Apple really is using AI (like super-resolution) for pinch and zoom. If they are, this is a totally valid objection. But I've never heard that iPad pinch-and-zoom does this. It would be surprising if it's more than plain old interpolation. Not to mention the defense lawyer clearly doesn't understand what the hell he's talking about, which doesn't exactly engender confidence in the judge taking this complaint seriously: "iPads, which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three dimensions and logarithms" OH NO. LOGARITHMS!

Natsu 5y ago
> 20 minutes to find an expert? They'd had an expert in previously who came back and contradicted the prosecution's statement that enlarging won't add "pickles" (quickly corrected to pixels) to the image. The judge allowed the evidence after the prosecution followed the proper procedure. > But I've never heard that iPad pinch-and-zoom does this. It would be surprising if it's more than plain old interpolation. There are various methods that can be used, any of which can add new pixels and or colors, the prosecution expert didn't actually know the details. When you have a couple of pixels that's claimed to be a gun, it really matters whether it's an image artifact or not. Also, the alleged gun is somehow in Kyle's left hand (he's right handed) and does show up as the same temperature as his body on the infrared image of the same scene. > Not to mention the defense lawyer clearly doesn't understand what the hell he's talking about Nobody there knew what they were talking about, which is why they got experts to testify. The prosecution hasn't been following court procedure and has gotten chewed out for it repeatedly because they're trying to pull illegal tricks and are getting called on it.
- strogonoff 5y ago
  The correct way to frame this conundrum is that what you see on an iPad in Photos by default[0] is not the original version the jury should be considering, either. What you get is typically a zoomed-out version, which mangles the image by selectively omitting “pickles”, or an already zoomed-in version (even without any pinching) if the image is smaller than the screen. The “true original” cannot be viewed using Photos absent third-party tooling. [0] Excluding rare events where source image’s dimensions in pixels exactly corresponds to those of the screen on that particular iPad model.

Someone 5y ago

The image likely was recorded as pixels (in some grid), but is stored as sets of DCT components (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform), and doesn’t have pixels. If so, of course it adds pixels. So, there are several ways to lose information. Inside the phone, at least these: - between reality and image sensor - between image sensor and storage - between storage and display

djsbs 5y ago
If the algorithm introduces materially changes the image, then the opposing council (to the one who introduces evidence) has the right to have the image validated be validated by an expert. Thats basic court procedure. Btw, see a submission I made about the dangers of ignoring procedure and trusting digital data: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29206833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29206833