Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Creating and Detecting Doctored and Virtual Images - Implicatiosn to The Child Pornography Prevention Act

Creating and Detecting Doctored and Virtual Images - Implicatiosn to The Child Pornography Prevention Act

Ratings: (0)|Views: 81 |Likes:
Published by jformica
Written by Hany Farid, this paper discusses the whole gambit of modified and virtual images depicting child sexual exploitation from concepts, to nuances between terms, and the legal interpretation of them. It also discusses how the CPPA effects and is effected by these images.
Written by Hany Farid, this paper discusses the whole gambit of modified and virtual images depicting child sexual exploitation from concepts, to nuances between terms, and the legal interpretation of them. It also discusses how the CPPA effects and is effected by these images.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: jformica on Nov 29, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
TR2004-518, Dartmouth College, Computer Science
Creating and Detecting Doctored and Virtual Images:Implications to The Child Pornography Prevention Act
Hany FaridDepartment of Computer Science andCenter for Cognitive NeuroscienceDartmouth CollegeHanover NH 03755
Abstract
The 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) extended the existing federal criminal laws againstchild pornography to include certain types of “virtual porn”. In 2002, the United States Supreme Courtfound that portions of the CPPA, being overly broad and restrictive, violated First Amendment rights.The Court ruled that images containing an actual minor or portions of a minor are not protected, whilecomputer generated images depicting a
ctitious “computer generated” minor are constitutionally pro-tected. In this report I outline various forms of digital tampering, placing them in the context of thisrecent ruling. I also review computational techniques for detecting doctored and virtual (computer gen-erated) images.
Hany Farid, 6211 Sudikoff Lab, Computer Science Department, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 USA (email: farid@cs.dartmouth.edu;tel/ fax: 603.646.2761/ 603.646.1672). This work was supported by an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, a NationalScience Foundation CAREER Award(IIS-99-83806), a departmental National Science Foundation Infrastructure Grant (EIA-98-02068), and under Award No. 2000-DT-CS-K001fromthe Of 
ce for Domestic Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (points of view in this document are those of the author and donot necessarily represent the of 
cial position of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security).
1
 
Contents
1 Introduction 22 Digital Tampering 2
2.1 Composited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Morphed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 Re-touched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.4 Enhanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.5 Computer Generated . . . . . . . . . . . 52.6 Painted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 The Child PornographyPrevention Act 54 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 55 Is it Real orVirtual? 6
5.1 Morphed & Re-touched . . . . . . . . . 65.1.1 Color Filter Array . . . . . . . . . 65.1.2 Duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.2 Computer Generated . . . . . . . . . . . 75.2.1 Statistical Model . . . . . . . . . 75.2.2 Classi
cation . . . . . . . . . . . 85.2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.3 Painted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6 Modern Technology 10
6.1 Image-Based Rendering . . . . . . . . . 106.2 3-D Laser Scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.3 3-D Motion Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7 Discussion 11A Exposing Digital Composites 12
A.1 Re-Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12A.2 Double JPEG Compression . . . . . . . . 12A.3 Signal to Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12A.4 Gamma Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1 Introduction
The past decade has seen remarkable growth in ourability to capture, manipulate, and distribute digitalimages. The average user today has access to high-performance computers, high-resolution digital cam-eras, and sophisticated photo-editing and computergraphics software. And while this technology has ledto many exciting advances in art and science, it hasalso led to some complicated legal issues. In 1996, forexample, the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)extended the existing federal criminal laws against childpornography to include certain types of“virtual porn”.In 2002 the United States Supreme Court found thatportions of the CPPA, being overly broad and restric-tive, violated First Amendment rights. The Court ruledthat images containing an actual minor or portions of aminor are not protected, while “computer generated”depicting a
ctitious minor are constitutionally pro-tected. This ruling naturally leads to some importantand complex technological questions – given an imagehow can we determine if it is authentic, has been tam-pered with, or is computer generated?In this report I outline various forms of digital tam-pering, and review computational techniques for de-tecting digitally doctored and virtual (computer gen-erated) images. I also describe more recent and emerg-ing technologies that may further complicate the legalissues surrounding digital images and video.
2 Digital Tampering
It probably wasn’t long after Nic´ephore Nepce cre-ated the
rst permanent photographic image in 1826that tampering with photographs began. Some of themost notorious examples of early photographic tam-pering were instigated by Lenin, when he had “ene-mies of the people” removed from photographs, Fig-ure 1. This type of photographic tampering requireda high degree of technical expertise and specializedequipment. Such tampering is, of course, much eas-ier today. Due to the inherent malleablilty of digitalimages, the advent of low-cost and high-performancecomputers,high-resolution digitalcameras, and sophis-ticated photo-editing and computer graphics software,the average user today can create, manipulate and al-ter digital images with relative ease. There are manydifferent ways in which digital images can be manip-ulated or altered. I describe below six different cate-gories of digital tampering – the distinction betweenthese will be important to the subsequent discussionof the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the CPPA.2
 
Figure 1:
Lenin and Trotsky (top) and the resultof photographic tampering (bottom) that removed,among others, Trotsky.
2.1 Composited
Compositing is perhaps the most common form ofdig-ital tampering, a typical example of which is shownin Figure 2. Shown in the top panel of this
gure isan original image, and shown below is a doctored im-age. In this example, the tampering consisted of over-laying the head of another person (taken from an im-age not shown here), onto the shoulders of the originalkayaker.Beginning with the original image to be altered, thistype of compositing was a fairly simple matter of: (1)
nding a second image containing an appropriatelyposed head; (2)overlaying the new head onto the orig-inal image;(3)removing any background pixels aroundthe new head; and (4) re-touching the pixels betweenthe head and shoulders to create a seamless match.These manipulations were performed in Adobe Photo-shop, and took approximately
30
minutes to complete.The credibility of such a forgery will depend on howwell the image components are matched in terms of size, pose, color, quality, and lighting. Given a wellmatched pair of images, compositing, in the hands of an experienced user, is fairly straight-forward.
Figure 2:
An original image (top) and a compositedimage (bottom). The original images were down-loaded from
freefoto.com
.
2.2 Morphed
Image morphing is a digital technique that graduallytransforms one image into another image. Shown inFigure 3, for example, is the image of a person (thesource image)being morphed into the image ofan aliendoll (the target image). As shown, the shape and ap-pearance of the source slowly takes on the shape andappearance of the target, creating intermediate imagesthat are “part human, part alien”. This morphed se-quence is automatically generated once a user estab-lishes a correspondence between similar features in thesource and target images (top panel of Figure 3). Im-age morphing softwareis commercially and freely avail-able –the software (xmorph) and images used in creat-ing Figure 3are available at
xmorph.sourceforge.net
.It typically takes approximately
20
minutes to createthe required feature correspondence, although severaliterations may be needed to
nd the feature correspon-dence that yields the visually desired morphing effect.3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->