January 3, 2007 4:00 AM PST

Police blotter: Detecting computer-generated porn?

Related Stories

Police blotter: Fired over 'Wicked Weasel' photo

December 8, 2006

Police blotter: Child porn in Web cache OK

November 24, 2006

Police blotter: Florida judges target Net sex

November 17, 2006

Police blotter: Prison inmate wants personal ad replies

November 10, 2006

Police blotter: Child porn blamed on computer virus

November 3, 2006

Police blotter: Web cookies become defendant's alibi

October 27, 2006

Police blotter: Flap over nude photos of Cameron Diaz

October 20, 2006

Police blotter: Prosecutors want reporters' hard drives

October 13, 2006

Police blotter: Sex offender demands Playboy on PC

October 6, 2006

Police blotter: When can cops seize your computer?

September 29, 2006

Police blotter: Alleged al-Qaida hacker goes to court

September 22, 2006

Are fake videos next?

September 11, 2006

Police blotter: Cops raid Usenet provider over porn

September 8, 2006

Police blotter: Judge OKs text message use in drug case

September 1, 2006

Digital cameras focus on revised reality

August 29, 2006

Police blotter: Trojan horse leads to porn convictions

August 25, 2006

Police blotter: Mortgage 'spammers' sued by ISP

July 14, 2006

Police blotter: SBC sued over deleted screenplay

July 7, 2006

Police blotter: Student sues over IM-related suspension

June 30, 2006

Police blotter: Husband spies on wife's computer

June 16, 2006

Police blotter: eBay suit over $380,000 Porsche

May 26, 2006

Police blotter: 911 dispatcher misuses database, kills ex-girlfriend

May 19, 2006

Police blotter: Enhanced video used to convict arsonist

May 12, 2006

Police blotter: Wells Fargo not required to encrypt data

April 14, 2006

Police blotter: Porn-dialing firm loses appeal

March 31, 2006

Police blotter: Schools' IT chief loses bribery appeal

March 24, 2006

Police blotter: Judge orders Gmail disclosure

March 17, 2006

Verbatim: Search firms surveyed on privacy

February 3, 2006

Smoking out photo hoaxes with software

January 31, 2006
"Police blotter" is a weekly News.com report on the intersection of technology and the law.

What: FBI claims that one of its analysts can simply look at a photo and detect whether it's been altered in Photoshop or generated by a computer.

When: U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner in Massachusetts ruled on August 11 and November 22, 2006.

Outcome: FBI's claim was rejected and its expert was not permitted to testify.

What happened, according to court documents:
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal law banning the possession of images of minors in lascivious poses that were either Photoshop-altered adults or completely computer-generated. Since then, to secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove that a defendant possessed images of real--not virtual--children.

This brings us to the case of Rudy Frabizio, whose employer discovered sexually explicit images on Frabizio's computer that appeared to involve minors. The FBI was contacted, and Frabizio was indicted on one count of possession of child pornography.

Photo hoaxes

Initially, the FBI chose as its expert witness Hany Farid, a Dartmouth College professor of computer science, who had written a program to determine whether an image was real. But then Frabizio's defense attorney discovered that the program had a 30 percent false-positive error rate: it frequently classified a real photograph as computer-generated. It also classified an image of a cartoon dragon called "Zembad" as real.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which shares responsibility with the FBI for prosecuting child pornography, has paid for Farid's research on image detection. A DHS-funded technical report that Farid published after the Supreme Court's ruling claims his statistical technique "correctly correctly classified 67 percent of the photographic images."

After that revelation, the FBI quickly switched witnesses. Its new expert was Thomas Musheno of the FBI's Forensic Audio, Video, and Image Analysis Unit.

The FBI claimed that Musheno could simply look at each image--with no computer program required--and figure out which is legal and which is not. Musheno concluded that 6 of the 19 JPEG images definitely depict real children and 10 others "appear to be" real children. (Musheno holds a bachelor's and a master's degree in photography, not in any technical disciplines, and the FBI handbook (PDF) does not discuss how to detect computer-altered images.)

In response, Frabizio's defense counsel essentially argued that the line between real and virtual had disappeared. As evidence, the defense cited a computer-generated image of a woman in a fetal position, a "photo" of actress Jennifer Garner, and an image of a woman kneeling on a bed.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner in Massachusetts wrote two opinions, the first on August 11 and the second on November 22. (A preliminary ruling is here).

Gertner seemed to take a dim view of the FBI's witness-switching and its claim that one of its analysts could simply look at a sexually explicit image and say confidently that it was of someone who's 17 years old and a minor--or 18 years old and an adult.

"I have serious doubts as to whether a person visually studying the images in this case can distinguish real pictures from manipulated or wholly virtual ones with the level of confidence required in a criminal prosecution," Gertner wrote. She cited computer science research that said even "experts cannot know whether a digital image is real or virtual."

Gertner ruled in August that the government was welcome to find an expert on computer-based graphical manipulation--but because Musheno was not one, he would not be allowed to testify. In November, she rejected the government's request to reconsider, which had argued that other federal circuits permitted such testimony from nonexperts.

Excerpts from Judge Gertner's August opinion:
I find that visual observation alone is inadequate to the task of evaluating the images in this case. If photographic experts as a general matter are inadequate to the task of identifying computer-generated images, then no level of experience in that field will suffice to qualify one as an expert. Indeed, allowing Musheno to testify would be like allowing a dentist to identify the causes of glaucoma. If the government offered an expert who eliminated the possibility of such imagery in this case, then Musheno's testimony might be admissible.

In a world of rapidly changing technology, where the availability and use of Photoshop and other, similar programs is widespread, substantial evidence suggests it may be possible to digitally create or manipulate photographs in a manner the naked eye cannot detect. The government has not shown otherwise. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect a lay jury to differentiate the real from the computer-generated. The government must therefore present an expert or other extrinsic evidence to prove that the images in question depict real children.

Whether the images in this case are real or virtual cannot be determined based on mere observation, however, even by a photographic expert. More specialized, computer-based knowledge is required to exclude the possibility that the pictures are wholly virtual. Furthermore, even if visual observation were sufficient, I would find that Musheno's qualifications and expertise do not justify the conclusions he proposes to make. I would allow him to testify to his observations, but not to his ultimate conclusions.

Excerpts from Judge Gertner's November opinion:
The government suggests that the Supreme Court has already resolved the issue in the case at bar. It did not. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court was addressing a hypothetical question and one from 2002 to boot. The Supreme Court did no more than assume that if the government's position were true, that virtual images are indistinguishable from real ones, that would be irrelevant to a constitutional analysis. The fact that it would be difficult to tell the real images--which are not protected--from the virtual images--which are protected--is not a basis for suppressing lawful speech, i.e. the virtual images.

The argument, in essence, is that protected speech may be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech. This analysis turns the First Amendment upside down. The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse. The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted.

See more CNET content tagged:
Police Blotter, computer science, U.S. District Judge, defense, image

2 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
No comment. I am actually afraid if I make one, it may one day be used against me in a court of law.
(Just got my Master's Degree in Criminal Justice . . . I'm frightened at how truly crazy this world is becoming.) I understand both arguments but my gut feeling is that it is two teenagers who were sharing intimate information. The legalities of these issues must be understood before acting, of course, this is easier said than done. Teens do not understand many of their actions until it is too late. I do not think that Megan's laws should be applied (based on the information I've read so far) . . . think that is ridiculous.
Posted by jaminale (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Real or fantasy where do we draw the line between them
Posted by lurch_and_co (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.