RSS
Don't Forget To Hide The Metadata When Protecting Your Sources
from the finding-deep.throat dept
Yesterday, we pointed to a Washington Post article about botnets. The article was definitely a fascinating read, helped along by the story, weaved throughout the article, of one young botnet herder, who remained nameless (other than an online handle). Part of the agreement he apparently made with the Washington Post was that his small town not be identified either. The article contains a few random details which could apply to just any number of small towns throughout the country -- so they seemed safe enough. However, there was also a tightly cropped photo designed to not really give away any info in the image. Unfortunately, as many people have learned, there's more than meets the eye when it comes to data associated with digital files, and it didn't take long for some Slashdot readers to take a gander at the photo's metadata, and work out the probable location of the young man. Some are wondering if the Washington Post (who famously kept Deep Throat's identity secret for three decades) may now face some sort of liability should the individual actually be revealed through this bit of metadata sleuthing.
23 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Rep. Doyle Introduces Bill To Provide Public Access To Publicly Funded Research
- Beware Of Those Who Claim They're 'Saving The Culture Business' When They're Really Protecting Those Who Strip Artists Of Rights
- The Rise Of The 'Professional Amateur' And The Fall Of Gated, Exclusionary 'Clubs'
- OK Go Shows, Once Again, How Content Is Advertising... And How There Are Many Revenue Streams For Musicians
- We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Little or no effort, huh?
That's pretty offensive, I think. Little or no effort for a reliable income. Perhaps this writer should spend a day developing web applications for technophobic clients who take their time with check writing.
Then tell me it's no effort. Bah.
:)
My two bits. 01
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Digital image redaction is so easy
I can't understand why people of the trade (reporters, such as the one from Washington Post who bungled the whole thing, and others where secrecy is needed) don't know this stuff.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
What do you want us to say? Ooooh, you know what the reporter didn't. You even spelled it out step by step to make sure that we're adequately impressed. You even took extra special care to make sure that we all know you regard anyone who doesn't know as an idiot, because anyone who doesn't live up to your level of expertise is an ignorant fool not worthy of employment, let alone a position in the ranks of humanity.
I apologize if I was excessive. I don't want to misconstrue your words... I know I should be able to exactly discern your mental state and berate you properly, but sometimes we inferior can't see things with the same clarity and insight as you.
Post useful comments and leave the mental-masturbation to your diary.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.
Taken from dictionary.com and remember, don't feed the Troll.
While this particular post is not incorrect, I believe it still fits the definition of a troll in that it aimed to elicit an emotional response (and succeeded).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
Back on topic. OK, sure the average person doesn't know (or care) about image metadata. However, reporters are responsible for maintaning their contacts anonymity. They really should be better informed to remove this kind of potentially damaging information from their files.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
Perhaps you should re-read what you wrote then look at the nearest mirror instead.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
For a moment I thought of telling you were on the right track, there's plenty money to be made from pop-psych. But then I thought to myself, "oh wait, no, the pop-psych field is now fully saturated." You'll have to find another way to get rich, matchstickdick.
"Post useful comments and leave the mental-masturbation to your diary."
Which of the comments offers the useful knowledge of how to defend your anonymity, and which of them merely tells people about the emotional insecurity of a frustrated web addict, which they don't give a flying rat's ass about?
Back atcha your entire post. :-D
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Guess he has the chance to do more before 9am than
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
Shouldn't making sure that everything posted on the site is pristine and clean be the responsibility of the web / IT department?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
nice one.
Leaving the metadata in and revealing an "anonymous source" had to happen to someone the first time. Fortunately it wasnt anyone that actually matters! So its win win.
One intenet scumbag (basically) identified, hopefully caught, in the very least pretty sh!t scared.
Reporters everywhere should be now wised up to the fact that you should remove the metadata.
Sweet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
That first guy is clearing $7-10K/month and still lives with his parents in some hick nowhere town. This is a gullible reporter and a script kiddie with dillusions of grandeur.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
The guy's sitting back in his chair laughing at you right now.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
The trick of not having metadata in your image file is to understand implicitly what the application vendor is doign when writing out the file. With digital photos, this also inlcuded cameras raw formats sometimes.
To illustrate this, here is an example:
http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/main.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
sheesh, people. think.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Digital image redaction is so easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Neverming, I'm still trying to get rid of this metacrap, cuz I dont want anyone knowing anything, and saving as bmp then jpg or tif don't work.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Metadata, et al,...
...and Michael, the coward is right. If youre gonna be in the trade, you WILL need the knowledge and understanding to do your job PROPERLY.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment