In a past post, we presented several improvements we did to Amped Authenticate’s Camera Identification filter based on PRNU analysis. Those improvements propagated also to the PRNU Tampering filter so that Amped Authenticate also features an improved algorithm for forgery localization. Improvements mainly include:
Peak-to-Correlation Energy-based (PCE) analysis
During block-based analysis, the PCE is computed and the point yielding the maximum PCE value (peak) is considered. If the peak is in the expected position, the block is considered authentic; if the peak is in a different position, then the PCE value is compared with a threshold to decide the authenticity of the block.
Support for multi-core processing
If your CPU features multiple logical cores, block-based analysis will run in parallel, thus reducing the computation time.
Faster, easier training
Thanks to PCE robustness, there is no need to train a separate model for forgery detection: you can use the same .crp file created for Camera Identification.
Forgery localization for cropped images
If the image is cropped and/or rotated before or after manipulation, the PRNU Tampering filter will detect cropping, compensate for it and run the forgery localization algorithm. The same applies to resizing and/or rotation. Combination of resizing and cropping is not supported yet.
Alert for unreliable regions
PRNU-based forgery localization is not reliable in saturated areas (i.e., totally white or black regions of the image). Indeed, for those pixels, it is impossible to discriminate between the image content and the actual sensor noise. The new version of PRNU-based forgery localization enables highlighting of white and black saturated pixels (marked in yellow and blue, respectively), in order to help the analyst rule out false alarms. Continue reading
Digital images are frequently used to provide supporting evidence within papers and reports, yet are not routinely submitted to any scientific process of authentication. In a world in which the tools to digitally manipulate an image are freely available, it’s no longer acceptable to simply take these images at face value.
The past 12 months has seen the scientific community rocked by a series of scandals relating to the use of manipulated images within published scientific research.
Researchers’ ambition to gain scientific exposure, to achieve career advancement or to secure funding, can drive them to embellish their results in order to attain their goals in the increasingly competitive world of scientific discovery. Equally, the pressure to publish can see them stumbled across doctored images and incorporate them by mistake. In these cases, not only is the individual’s reputation at risk, but also their colleagues’ who are oblivious to the altered nature of the images. The impact of these images is extensive and far-reaching: they threaten to endanger the name of the organization for which the researcher is working, as well as calling into question the integrity of the scientific community at large. This is a critical issue in the current technological day and age, yet very little is being done to address it. Bearing in mind the damage that doctored images can do, scientific publishers and research institutes ought to be more rigorous when setting out the requirements for images that are used in papers.
If some basic screening were applied more extensively to scientific publications, with minimal effort we would be in a much better position to guarantee, or dispute, the authenticity of images within scientific papers for the benefit of science and its wider community.
Working to detect image manipulation in the world of science is a long-term battle, just as it is in photojournalism, forensics, and in any other field where image manipulation is a growing threat to the veracity of images.
Read the full article published in Laboratory News.
Images and videos are some of the most compelling forms of evidence that can be presented in a courtroom. Yet it is important that the steps we take when preparing them stand up to scrutiny.
Within the field of forensic image and video analysis one of the biggest issues we face is the CSI effect: the phenomenon whereby representations of forensic science on popular TV shows gives a distorted perception of what is possible; from endless zooming from satellite imagery to enhancing the reflection of a reflection of a reflection. We very often have to explain, even to “the experts”, what is science and what is fiction.
Enhancing images for forensic use is not just about trying a few sliders and combining filters until you see something better. Are you confident the images you present within a legal investigation would stand up to scrutiny? And do you have the procedures in place to challenge digital evidence introduced by other parties?
Read the full article published in Lawyer Monthly.
Wishing you a Happy New Year
from everyone at Amped Software!
We’ve had a great year and hope you have too!
Look at what we accomplished in 2017:
Thank you to all our customers, partners and friends for believing in us and trusting our products to help you solve your cases and keep our communities safe.
We look forward to seeing you again in 2018!
With CCTV probably being the number one piece of digital evidence used in cases, many officers will have asked questions like, how do I get the footage; why is it not playing; or how can I get an image? It’s important therefore to understand why we have ended up here. Why digital video, specifically from the surveillance industry, is such a huge pain in the proverbial!
As computers and digital video started to creep into normality, the surveillance companies started to think of ways to say, and prove, that they were better than the other. One of the easiest ways to do this was to use a bespoke recording method and format, to suggest that it was better than the other. This is where it starts to go pear-shaped.
Very quickly we ended up with non-standard video files, requiring a player that could not install on a Force computer, with no method to interrogate, analyze, validate or process the evidence as required by the investigation.
It has been nearly 20 years since the start of Digital Video Recorders, and you will be glad to hear that things are improving. But, it is going to take a long time for many of these poor systems to get replaced by ones that are fit for purpose.
Read the full article published on Police Oracle.
As technology has enabled mainstream, widespread image manipulation, it is not surprising that there has been a huge increase in the number of tampered images which find their way into a wide spectrum of industries and sectors. Incidents of doctored images frequently appear in mainstream media where they incite cries of “fake news”.
For example, a photo at the G20 summit this year featured a photoshopped president Putin, giving the impression that he was colluding with president Donald Trump. The photo proceeded to spread like wildfire across the internet, instigating huge political ramifications from a digital fabrication which would have taken a few minutes to create on a laptop. Last August also showed our vulnerability to tampered photos, with the circulation of a photoshopped image of a shark swimming up the freeway during hurricane Harvey indicating a larger problem with major international news outlets spreading the image as genuine.
Equally there is significant evidence of doctored images being used to support fraudulent scientific research internationally. Doctored experiment results and images continue to rock the research industry with every new fraudulent revelation. A prominent cancer research scientist in Italy has been under investigation for using a photography studio to manipulate images pivotal to the crux of the “ground breaking” research. Indeed, the journal Nature has suggested that up to 1 in 5 scientific papers contain evidence of some sort of manipulation.
It is clear therefore, that when the stakes are high enough, people will manipulate the truth, and unfortunately given our tendency to trust photographic images, it seems that it is currently worth their while to do so. When the stakes are as high as imprisonment, it is easy to see how tempting it may be to manipulate an image to support an alibi or a particular version of events.
Unfortunately, security investigations are by no means immune to this phenomenon either. In fact, given the increase in the sources of digital images, the integrity of evidence in such investigations is at its all-time most vulnerable. Body worn cameras, smart phones and increasingly sophisticated CCTV surveillance means that investigators are now dealing with a fast-growing pile of unverified evidence.
Read the full article published in The Intersec Journal of International Security.
We are proud to announce that Amped Software ranked on the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 EMEA.
The Deloitte Technology Fast 500 program, now in its seventeenth year, is an objective
industry ranking that recognizes the fastest-growing technology companies in EMEA. This
year’s list featured 18 countries, including Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Turkey and the UK. This year’s winners were selected based on percentage
fiscal-year revenue growth from 2013 to 2016. Amped Software placed 5th in the local
ranking of the fastest growing technology companies in Italy.
“As founder of Amped Software, I am really proud that we have been acknowledged as
one of EMEA’s and Italy’s fastest growing companies in 2017. When I started the
company, I set a single objective: to develop the worldwide industry leading software for all
image and video processing needs for forensics and investigations,” said Amped Software
Founder and CEO, Martino Jerian. “The challenge was to create something unique for a
very specific type of client, aiming to be the best in the world. It was a very ambitious goal
and certainly a bit crazy, but clear and simple. And here we are today! A big thank you to
the team that believed in my vision and allowed me to develop it to the fullest.” Continue reading
This article, published in Evidence Technology Magazine, takes a look at two cases involving the authentication of digital images and the importance of the questions asked of the analyst during those investigations. It looks at how authentication software, such as Amped Authenticate has been designed with a structured workflow, to locate the puzzle pieces required to assist in answering those questions.
Read the full article here.
With the rise of the digital age can experts trust that photographic evidence is legitimate?
Sophie Garrod, from Police Oracle, writes about how a growing number of forensic and counter-terrorism units are getting on board with pioneering image authentication software.
Approximately a third of UK forces have invested in Amped Software products – including Amped Authenticate, an all in one computer programme which can detect doctored images.
Forensic image departments, counter-terrorism units, and government departments say they are saving time and money by sending detectives on a short training course in the software.
Read the full article here to learn more.
Acquiring evidence from a digital camera or a smartphone is more or less relatively easy to do. Images are usually in standard JPEG format and videos in MP4 or some other format that most players can read. But what is the best way to retrieve and handle CCTV footage to ensure it stands up to the scrutiny in the courtroom? There are numerous possibilities and it depends on where the video is actually recorded.
To learn more, read the article by Martino Jerian, Amped CEO and Founder, published in Lawyer Monthly.