How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?

On 11/1/14 PDT, 4:40 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2014-11-01, John McWilliams wrote:

[266 lines snipped]

How about trimming, including the troll marker froup?

Pot, meet kettle.

Mmm, that about sums it up.


Baffled by both replies. Whaddya mean?

On 11/2/14 PDT, 1:27 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 11/1/14 PDT, 4:40 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2014-11-01, John McWilliams wrote:

[266 lines snipped]

How about trimming, including the troll marker froup?

Pot, meet kettle.

Mmm, that about sums it up.


Baffled by both replies. Whaddya mean?

Oooops! Sorry, I see what you mean. I forgot I did not trim anything but
the troll group. I was trying to be too clever, deleting only the troll
group to fool him, but of course, he wouldn't have seen it without - or
until- he looks here. Ugh. My gaffe; sorry.

On 11/1/14 PDT, 4:36 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2014-10-31, PAS wrote:

[251 lines snipped]

By your logic, you are not qualified to have an opinion. You suffer
from a severe case of rectal-cranial inversion.

This from some ****ing retard who quotes 251 lines of material for
a lame 2 line flame.

That's why I deleted: alt.os.linux

Sorry I messed up on my other reply.

In article , A. Beck. wrote:

Sandman:
Again, this isn't "intensly personal information" if it requires
tons of assumptions.

What if I posted an ad in Craigslist, and a lovely lady sends me a
picture, which she took from her living room.

Now, I know where she lives.

That's pretty personal.

Slightly personal, if she took it in her own living room which you may not
know she did.

Either way, it's hardly "intensly personal information".


--
Sandman[.net]

On 11/11/14 PDT, 6:15 AM, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:48:48 -0400, Davoud wrote:

A. Beck:
If I snap a picture of a pink flower in the open-air foyer at the AIDS
clinic while I'm supposed to be at work, and the EXIF information shows
almost exactly when & where I was, that's (by it's very revealing
nature) certainly intensely personal information (it's meta-information
but intensely revealing nonetheless).

How so? By your presence there you have revealed this "intensely
personal information" to your co-workers, your clients, and passers-by
who may have seen you enter the parking lot in the morning. Your bank,
the IRS, the SSA, and various county or parish and state and local
agencies know where you work. Medical insurance companies know where you
work. Your friends, family, and neighbors are likely to know where you
work. People talk, they share information in person and on the Internet.

This is the point where there is a difference. People talk, but you talk
as well. There is a _symmetry_ between the power and influence of talking
people and you. The talking people are also accessible, vulnerable and
susceptible to projection of your power. If someone badmouths you, you
can smack them, or worse. With institutions, be they some shadowy far-
away company or government agency, this symmetry does not exist. This
thread proves it all: we don't know what they do, and - more importantly
- we have no way of finding out. People don't talk anymore and you can't
smack anyone.

EXIF data, as inconspicuous as it is by itself, can be combined with
other data to produce a potent force. Crucially, this force may not be
directed to the photographer.

Say you are a modestly big company, drug lord or government agency and
you want to find someone. A dude is laying low and you want to beat him
up. In the old days, there was not much you could do except hope you run
into him on the street. But nowadays, with all the photos being snapped
and uploaded, you can use facial recognition programs to try to find the
person in question on a random photo, then use EXIF from that photo to
pinpoint the target in time and space. Ofcourse, in real life you
wouldn't scan photos looking for some dude, you would facial-recognition
scan *ALL* photos and store a table describing what faces are on which
photo. Then, you just look up the face you are interested in in the table
database.

The *CORE* problem with the scenario above is that only rich, powerful
and well-connected can mount such an attack. 200 years ago, there was no
fundamental difference between the power of a group of friends and a
state or company. All of our rules of conduct originated in that time.
But now, because of mass information, there is a huuuge difference
between the power of a group of friends and a state or company.

But once more--as pointed out in this thread, there are a number of ways
to keep your affair with the flower secret. The best is to not
photograph the flower. Second is to not share the photograph, but, of
course, the camera or camera phone with which you made the photo could
be stolen with EXIF and other revealing information intact. Best not to
photograph the flower or anything else. Get rid of all cameras that can
record EXIF. Keep your photos to yourself.

Unfortunately, this is so far the only real option.

alt.os.linux removed.

On 11/11/14 PDT, 6:15 AM, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:48:48 -0400, Davoud wrote:

A. Beck:
If I snap a picture of a pink flower in the open-air foyer at the AIDS
clinic while I'm supposed to be at work, and the EXIF information shows
almost exactly when & where I was, that's (by it's very revealing
nature) certainly intensely personal information (it's meta-information
but intensely revealing nonetheless).

How so? By your presence there you have revealed this "intensely
personal information" to your co-workers, your clients, and passers-by
who may have seen you enter the parking lot in the morning. Your bank,
the IRS, the SSA, and various county or parish and state and local
agencies know where you work. Medical insurance companies know where you
work. Your friends, family, and neighbors are likely to know where you
work. People talk, they share information in person and on the Internet.

This is the point where there is a difference. People talk, but you talk
as well. There is a _symmetry_ between the power and influence of talking
people and you. The talking people are also accessible, vulnerable and
susceptible to projection of your power. If someone badmouths you, you
can smack them, or worse. With institutions, be they some shadowy far-
away company or government agency, this symmetry does not exist. This
thread proves it all: we don't know what they do, and - more importantly
- we have no way of finding out. People don't talk anymore and you can't
smack anyone.

EXIF data, as inconspicuous as it is by itself, can be combined with
other data to produce a potent force. Crucially, this force may not be
directed to the photographer.

Say you are a modestly big company, drug lord or government agency and
you want to find someone. A dude is laying low and you want to beat him
up. In the old days, there was not much you could do except hope you run
into him on the street. But nowadays, with all the photos being snapped
and uploaded, you can use facial recognition programs to try to find the
person in question on a random photo, then use EXIF from that photo to
pinpoint the target in time and space. Ofcourse, in real life you
wouldn't scan photos looking for some dude, you would facial-recognition
scan *ALL* photos and store a table describing what faces are on which
photo. Then, you just look up the face you are interested in in the table
database.

The *CORE* problem with the scenario above is that only rich, powerful
and well-connected can mount such an attack. 200 years ago, there was no
fundamental difference between the power of a group of friends and a
state or company. All of our rules of conduct originated in that time.
But now, because of mass information, there is a huuuge difference
between the power of a group of friends and a state or company.

But once more--as pointed out in this thread, there are a number of ways
to keep your affair with the flower secret. The best is to not
photograph the flower. Second is to not share the photograph, but, of
course, the camera or camera phone with which you made the photo could
be stolen with EXIF and other revealing information intact. Best not to
photograph the flower or anything else. Get rid of all cameras that can
record EXIF. Keep your photos to yourself.

Unfortunately, this is so far the only real option.

alt.os.linux removed.

On 11/12/14 PDT, 11:04 PM, Lewis wrote:
And I said:

alt.os.linux removed.

since you were such a jackass as to post this ENTIRE ****ING MESSAGE
with your one line of not-content at the end,

alt.os.linux re-added.

Now **** off.


Stop drooling.

On 11/13/14 PDT, 3:17 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2014-11-13, John McWilliams wrote:

[60 lines snipped]

alt.os.linux removed.

And this pointless and unsnipped nonsense achieved what, exactly?

Attention!

--
Please BE SURE to capitalize IMPORTANT WORDS in case you think your
audience is NOT very bright, or you have a limited vocabulary.

On 11/12/14 PDT, 11:04 PM, Lewis wrote:
Okay, so one time? In band camp? John McWilliams was all, like:

alt.os.linux removed.

since you were such a jackass as to post this ENTIRE ****ING MESSAGE
with your one line of not-content at the end,

As did you.

The point is to pay attention to where you are cross posting. Unless you
like to feed trolls or reply to spam.

On 11/13/14 PDT, 9:18 AM, Lewis wrote:
Okay, so one time? In band camp? John McWilliams was all, like:
On 11/12/14 PDT, 11:04 PM, Lewis wrote:
Okay, so one time? In band camp? John McWilliams was all, like:

alt.os.linux removed.

since you were such a jackass as to post this ENTIRE ****ING MESSAGE
with your one line of not-content at the end,

As did you.

Yes, that was rather the point.

The point is to pay attention to where you are cross posting. Unless you
like to feed trolls or reply to spam.

I would never have seen the post at all if you hadn't cross-posted it
yourself, dumbass.

Don't be such a petulant little prick.