On: The iPhone 11 Camera, Part 1: A Completely New Camera

[tiffanyh]

Can law enforcement convict someone due to a Computational Photograph?

Google & Apple are digitally altering photos so much so to “enhance them”, couldn’t it be agrued the evidence of a crime photo has been tempered due to computational photography.

[thanatos_dem → tiffanyh]

I doubt it. “Tampering” usually requires an intent to obscure or subvert. Computation photography applied broadly to all photos doesn’t have that.

Definition from OED: “interfere with (something) in order to cause damage or make unauthorized alterations.”

The “in order to” seems to imply intent. Not sure if there’s a different legal definition however.

[adrr → tiffanyh]

Wouldn’t every digital camera be guilty of that? White balance, lens correction profiles, noise reduction, compression.

[bufferoverflow → adrr]

Not if you shoot raw.

Plus none of these modifications really alter the content of the photo.

[bobbylarrybobby → tiffanyh]

By the same logic should cropped photos or photos that have had the sliders mucked with count as altered?

[tiffanyh → bobbylarrybobby]

I don’t see how cropping would introduce “reasonable doubt”. But a face being computationally altered by the photo seems like that would introduce reasonable doubt that the alleged person didn’t not in fact do the crime.

[tomatotomato37 → tiffanyh]

They'd have to throw out any digital picture taken in a JPG or GIF format, since those too require image "tampering" in order to get the size down

[tomc1985 → tiffanyh]

I doubt it. I'd think a court/opposing counsel would examine the nature of that tampering to see if it could have effected the evidence or not

[pacetherace → tiffanyh]

Apps that use deepfake like algorithms to enhance photos can fall into that category.