Well, maybe they should not have given away how to easily fake a screenshot yourself, but still some useful tips to keep in mind. It helps to know what to zoom in on to look at.
I did not know about the Forensically app, which is a web based app that can analyse any image in depth and create heatmaps of stuff that’s been edited in.
See howtogeek.com/how-to-check-if-…
#Blog, #forensics, #scams, #technology
This means you can use #bacteria to determine whether someone has just been to the beach, got off the train in the city centre or taken a walk in the woods. This opens up new possibilities within #medicine, #epidemiology and #forensics.
#police #surveillance #location #technology #privacy #news #future
European far-right parties have used artificial intelligence (AI)-generated images to support political messaging, two new reports have found, but it is difficult to assess how those images may have impacted the recent French and European #elections.
Non-profit organisation AI #Forensics went through the social media pages of 31 French political parties to determine whether they could spot generative AI (genAI) content from May 1 to June 28, during the EU elections and the first round of France’s legislative campaign.
#AI #FarRight #campaigns #France #Europe #propaganda #photos #FairVotes
How Language Nerds Solve Crimes | Otherwords
"The way you speak can be as unique as a fingerprint... and as useful for investigators in solving crimes!
Otherwords is a PBS web series on Storied that digs deep into this quintessential human trait of language and finds the fascinating, thought-provoking, and funny stories behind the words and sounds we take for granted. Incorporating the fields of biology, history, cultural studies, literature, and more, linguistics has something for everyone and offers a unique perspective on what it means to be human."
#Language #Words #Forensics #Storied #Otherwords #PBS #BreakfastVideo
"This week, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a long-awaited report on the use of bitemark analysis." "The entire specialty of bitemark comparison rests on three core assumptions. The first is that each person's teeth are structured and aligned in a way that causes them to leave unique bite marks. The second is that human skin is capable of recording and preserving those marks in a way that makes them distinguishable. The final assumption is that trained analysts are capable of analyzing marks to include or exclude someone as the person who left them."
"The NIST study found no scientific evidence to support any of these assumptions, and the evidence we do have explicitly refutes two of them."
The writer (Radley Balko) predicts the courts won't care because "typically, the courts' 'scientific' analysis has consisted of little more than listing all of the other courts that have previously found the field to be reliable."
I guess what that shows is that the legal system operates on the principle of "precedence" which is different from the principle of the scientific method that science follows (or at least is supposed to). That's why I decided this is worth sharing. The legal system is inherently non-scientific.
Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis. The courts still won't care.
Campaigners call for reforms to allow those who claim to be wrongly convicted – such as Kevin Nunn, jailed for murdering his ex-girlfriend – to obtain information to appeal
Charles McCrory has spent decades in prison for the murder of his wife, convicted on the strength of bite mark evidence. The problem? CSI-style forensics is bad science
It's a truism that the prisons are full of innocent people. Here's one of the reasons.
Phone signals, soil samples, tattoo ink, fly larvae… We all know that microscopic traces can play a crucial role in solving crimes. But who are the forensic experts who can read the clues?
An interesting Sunday read.
Phishing. So easy to counter if you know (your) shit.
But sadly, most people are too ignorant about… simple checks of plausibility and email source http links.
Got an email purportedly from fnac.be. First, plausibility check: I never had any business with Fnac Belgium (I was once (that I remember) in a Fnac in Strasbourg, but that's Fnac France (and I never registered an email with them, AFAICR).
Second, check the email source (it's of course a pure HTML email… which mutt shows the source of anyway), because since it isn't legit, there must be some obvious signs.
Hmm, the From header says "fnac.be" (as a legit Fnac Belgium mail might), but there's a link in the mail to fnac-be.com. Almost looks legit, right? Almost…
Most people would probably be satisfied with this, although most people who check for suspicious links probably wouldn't.
So, a Whois on this domain is in order (natch).
Registrar sounds so not fishy (or is that "phishy"?): Wild West Domains LLC
But much more useful is of course the date of original registration: 2021-11-09. Not even a week ago. Yeah, right, Fnac has their root domain this young. Let's check fnac.be, just to make sure: Oh, registrar is some subsidiary of CSC, CSC Corporate Domains). Something you'd expect. And not Wild West Domains.
Oh, and of course this domain was registered in 1998. Also as expected.
#csc #fnac #fnacbe #phishing #somethingsmellsphishy #forensics #sleuthing #csi ;-)
The new version (1.3) of DFF is out: http://www.digital-forensic.org/
#dff is a Digital #forensics Framework. It is a #Freesoftware. It works on #windows and #gnulinux #linux.
There is bootable edition and a live edition to collect volatile data.
