Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
645 views
Skip to first unread message
A. Beck.
Oct 28, 2014, 12:54:15 PM10/28/14
to
How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
http://regex.info/exif.cgi
I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the
purpose of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc)
or for Usenet posts (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal
sharing (iCloud, dropbox, google drive, etc).
The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when
the photo was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of
course, the time and date, etc, the combination of which could
easily reveal intensely personal information.
When I DOWNLOAD those pictures, generally (always?) the
EXIF information seems to be stripped out.
But ... how much of that personal EXIF information is retained by
the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
http://regex.info/exif.cgi
I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the
purpose of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc)
or for Usenet posts (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal
sharing (iCloud, dropbox, google drive, etc).
The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when
the photo was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of
course, the time and date, etc, the combination of which could
easily reveal intensely personal information.
When I DOWNLOAD those pictures, generally (always?) the
EXIF information seems to be stripped out.
But ... how much of that personal EXIF information is retained by
the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
JF Mezei
Oct 28, 2014, 1:04:44 PM10/28/14
to
On 14-10-28 12:54, A. Beck. wrote:
> But ... how much of that personal EXIF information is retained by
> the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
If you upload X, assume the web site has X. If that X contains all your
> But ... how much of that personal EXIF information is retained by
> the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
EXIF data, assume they keep it.
There are utilities to strip EXIF data from a photo. In Photoshop, it
isn't so obvious, you have to export to web. That gives you ability to
strip most of the exif data out.
Martin
Oct 28, 2014, 1:17:38 PM10/28/14
to
On 10/28/2014 05:54 PM, A. Beck. wrote:
> But ... how much of that personal EXIF information is retained by
> the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
Dude, a few years ago nobody would have thought it possible (or even
> But ... how much of that personal EXIF information is retained by
> the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
constitutional) in the western world that social media and cloud
services treat your data as their property, that postal service retain
every sender/recipient address, that secret services read and store all
your e-mails, passwords and browsing profiles. And yet, we were shocked
to learn that all this is common practice today.
So you just have to assume that every bit of information that leaves
your local network is intercepted, stored and evaluated. If it is
encrypted it is either decrypted today, or stored for decryption in the
future.
Sorry to break the news to you.
Savageduck
Oct 28, 2014, 1:34:13 PM10/28/14
to
EXIF data you choose to include or exclude with the exported image file.
Photoshop: None: Copyright; Copyright & Contact Info: All Except Camera
Info: All.
<https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_996.jpg>
Lightroom: Copyright Only; Copyright & Contact Info Only: All Except
Camera & Camera RAW Info: All Metadata
...and an option to "Remove Location information."
<https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_995.jpg>
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
Oct 28, 2014, 1:35:39 PM10/28/14
to
other super secret place, maybe.
Nefarious purpose? Unless sensational, or above, what can they really do
about knowing you shot a photo of Suzie Q in front of the Prado at 14:55
UMT?
A. Beck.
Oct 28, 2014, 1:37:54 PM10/28/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:04:41 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
> If you upload X, assume the web site has X. If that X contains all your
> EXIF data, assume they keep it.
It's one thing to assume, while it's another to actually know.
> If you upload X, assume the web site has X. If that X contains all your
> EXIF data, assume they keep it.
I asked to figure out if anyone actually knows, since I don't.
> There are utilities to strip EXIF data from a photo. In Photoshop, it
> isn't so obvious, you have to export to web. That gives you ability to
> strip most of the exif data out.
$ convert pic.jpg pic.gif
Or, I just strip out the EXIF information:
$ for f in *.{JPG,JPEG,jpg,jpeg}; do convert -strip $f $f; done
But, the purpose of asking here was to figure out if there are any
known cases where the web site made use of the EXIF information.
Certainly if you know of a picture-sharing site that *keeps* the
EXIF information intact, that would be immensely informative.
A. Beck.
Oct 28, 2014, 1:39:54 PM10/28/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:17:35 +0100, Martin wrote:
> postal service retain every sender/recipient address
I didn't know that the (snail mail) post office retains
> postal service retain every sender/recipient address
all from/to information.
Is that really true and verified?
(or just conjecture?)
Sandman
Oct 28, 2014, 2:03:15 PM10/28/14
to
In article <m2ohnh$4r8$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, A. Beck. wrote:
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
> I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the purpose
> of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc) or for Usenet posts
> (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal sharing (iCloud, dropbox,
> google drive, etc).
> The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when the photo
> was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of course, the time
> and date, etc, the combination of which could easily reveal
> intensely personal information.
Sorry, but how is this "intensly personal information"? If you have
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
> I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the purpose
> of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc) or for Usenet posts
> (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal sharing (iCloud, dropbox,
> google drive, etc).
> The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when the photo
> was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of course, the time
> and date, etc, the combination of which could easily reveal
> intensely personal information.
Lightroom set to add your personal details it would certainly be personal
infromation, but hardly "intensly", that would be if you also add your
social security number and other more intimate details about yourself.
> When I DOWNLOAD those pictures, generally (always?) the EXIF
> information seems to be stripped out.
has EXIF stripped, and that's the version you (and maybe others) can
download, meaning they've taken steps to conceal the somewhat personal
information there is in the image.
> But ... how much of that personal EXIF information is retained by
> the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
the image, and toss the original, I'd say most keep the original on disk
for future re-scaling.
And with regards to the supposed "nefarious" purposes, whatever purposes
could they have with knowing your camera model, the date the image was
taken and possibly where it was taken? I mean, in theory it could be used
to give you ads about going back to Thailand a year after, but that's
hardly "nefarious", and if you're the kind of person that thinks targeted
ads are nefarious, then you're also the kind of guy that strips the EXIF
yourself first, and upload it in another name, using a secure email address
:-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Oct 28, 2014, 2:09:07 PM10/28/14
to
In article <m2ok9b$ajm$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, A. Beck. wrote:
> > JF Mezei:
and even the location if you allow it, they also use it to gather
statistics about cameras. Not sure what "nefarious" purposes they COULD be
using it for.
--
Sandman[.net]
> > JF Mezei:
> > If you upload X, assume the web site has X. If that X contains all
> > your EXIF data, assume they keep it.
>
> It's one thing to assume, while it's another to actually know. I
> asked to figure out if anyone actually knows, since I don't.
> > JF Mezei:
> > your EXIF data, assume they keep it.
>
> It's one thing to assume, while it's another to actually know. I
> asked to figure out if anyone actually knows, since I don't.
> > There are utilities to strip EXIF data from a photo. In Photoshop,
> > it isn't so obvious, you have to export to web. That gives you
> > ability to strip most of the exif data out.
>
> Yes. I often convert to GIF, just to get rid of the EXIF
> information: $ convert pic.jpg pic.gif
> Or, I just strip out the EXIF information: $ for f in
> *.{JPG,JPEG,jpg,jpeg}; do convert -strip $f $f; done
> But, the purpose of asking here was to figure out if there are any
> known cases where the web site made use of the EXIF information.
> Certainly if you know of a picture-sharing site that *keeps* the
> EXIF information intact, that would be immensely informative.
Flickr, obviously, keeps the EXIF data. They display it on the photo page
> > it isn't so obvious, you have to export to web. That gives you
> > ability to strip most of the exif data out.
>
> Yes. I often convert to GIF, just to get rid of the EXIF
> information: $ convert pic.jpg pic.gif
> Or, I just strip out the EXIF information: $ for f in
> *.{JPG,JPEG,jpg,jpeg}; do convert -strip $f $f; done
> But, the purpose of asking here was to figure out if there are any
> known cases where the web site made use of the EXIF information.
> Certainly if you know of a picture-sharing site that *keeps* the
> EXIF information intact, that would be immensely informative.
and even the location if you allow it, they also use it to gather
statistics about cameras. Not sure what "nefarious" purposes they COULD be
using it for.
--
Sandman[.net]
A. Beck.
Oct 28, 2014, 2:17:00 PM10/28/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:09:04 +0000, Sandman wrote:
> Flickr, obviously, keeps the EXIF data.
Yikes!
> Flickr, obviously, keeps the EXIF data.
I had downloaded images and *never* saw EXIF data in
those downloaded images.
Are you sure about this?
Usenet Account
Oct 28, 2014, 2:18:59 PM10/28/14
to
"save as" it's kept.
--
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they
do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under
circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
A. Beck.
Oct 28, 2014, 2:19:43 PM10/28/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:03:10 +0000, Sandman wrote:
> how is this "intensly personal information"?
If I snap a picture of a pink flower in the open-air foyer
> how is this "intensly personal information"?
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).
JF Mezei
Oct 28, 2014, 2:47:02 PM10/28/14
to
On 14-10-28 13:37, A. Beck. wrote:
> Certainly if you know of a picture-sharing site that *keeps* the
> EXIF information intact, that would be immensely informative.
flickr does. I know someone who routinely posts pictures with the exit
> Certainly if you know of a picture-sharing site that *keeps* the
> EXIF information intact, that would be immensely informative.
data displayed. Perhaps it is an option to display or hide.
JF Mezei
Oct 28, 2014, 2:48:40 PM10/28/14
to
On 14-10-28 14:09, Sandman wrote:
> statistics about cameras. Not sure what "nefarious" purposes they COULD be
> using it for.
Selfies of your privates posted on a porn site. You don't want those to
> statistics about cameras. Not sure what "nefarious" purposes they COULD be
> using it for.
be linked to your bedroom's GPS location :-)
Joe Makowiec
Oct 28, 2014, 2:59:14 PM10/28/14
to
On 28 Oct 2014 in rec.photo.digital, A. Beck. wrote:
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
If you want to alter or get rid of EXIF data, you can use exiftool:
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
Free; binaries available for Windows and Mac, (Perl) source for
everything else. It's a command line tool, although I think that there
are GUI front ends available.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Sandman
Oct 28, 2014, 3:12:21 PM10/28/14
to
In article <m2omil$i54$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, A. Beck. wrote:
> > Sandman:
show it on the photo page:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/15351219105/>
Click "Show Exif".
Also, if you download the original, all the Exif is there.
--
Sandman[.net]
> > Sandman:
> > Flickr, obviously, keeps the EXIF data.
>
> Yikes!
> I had downloaded images and *never* saw EXIF data in those
> downloaded images.
> Are you sure about this?
Seriously? I mean, you snipped away parts of my message where I said they
>
> Yikes!
> I had downloaded images and *never* saw EXIF data in those
> downloaded images.
> Are you sure about this?
show it on the photo page:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/jonaseklundh/15351219105/>
Click "Show Exif".
Also, if you download the original, all the Exif is there.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Oct 28, 2014, 3:17:37 PM10/28/14
to
> > how is this "intensly personal information"?
>
> 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).
And in this supposed "intensly personal information", where can I read:
>
> 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).
1. It was taken by you
2. You are a patient of said clinic
For the all the supposed EXIF-reader knows, it was taken by someone
visiting the clinic because they've sponsored it with money, or they're a
gardener that works in many garens in that area.
Again, this isn't "intensly personal information" if it requires tons of
assumptions.
--
Sandman[.net]
nospam
Oct 28, 2014, 3:17:48 PM10/28/14
to
In article <m2okd3$ajm$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, A. Beck.
they photograph every item mailed.
<a_b...@beck.invalid> wrote:
> > postal service retain every sender/recipient address
>
> I didn't know that the (snail mail) post office retains
> all from/to information.
>
> Is that really true and verified?
> (or just conjecture?)
it's true.
> > postal service retain every sender/recipient address
>
> I didn't know that the (snail mail) post office retains
> all from/to information.
>
> Is that really true and verified?
> (or just conjecture?)
they photograph every item mailed.
Sandman
Oct 28, 2014, 3:19:08 PM10/28/14
to
In article <544fe506$0$12132$b1db1813$7946...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei wrote:
> > Sandman:
:), but what would the purpose be? I mean, Flickr, or such service,
wouldn't make any money from posting this :)
--
Sandman[.net]
> > Sandman:
> > statistics about cameras. Not sure what "nefarious" purposes they
> > COULD be using it for.
>
> Selfies of your privates posted on a porn site. You don't want those
> to be linked to your bedroom's GPS location :-)
That might be slightly nefarious (that is, if my member weren't so glorious
> > COULD be using it for.
>
> Selfies of your privates posted on a porn site. You don't want those
> to be linked to your bedroom's GPS location :-)
:), but what would the purpose be? I mean, Flickr, or such service,
wouldn't make any money from posting this :)
--
Sandman[.net]
A. Beck.
Oct 28, 2014, 3:22:25 PM10/28/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:59:05 +0000, Joe Makowiec wrote:
> If you want to alter or get rid of EXIF data, you can use exiftool:
> http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
Exiftool works nicely.
> If you want to alter or get rid of EXIF data, you can use exiftool:
> http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
Here are some other ways to remove the EXIF data.
$ sudo apt-get install imagemagick
$ convert -strip pic.jpg pic_sansexif.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; convert -strop $i $i;
done
$ sudo apt-get install exiftool libimage-exiftool-perl
$ exiftool -all= foo.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; exiftool -all= "$i";
done
$ sudo apt-get install jhead
$ jhead -purejpg *.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; jhead -purejpg $i;
done
I don't know how to remove EXIF with exiftran (do you?).
$ sudo apt-get install exiftran
$ sudo apt-get install exiv2
$ exiv2 -rm pic.jpg pic.jpg ???
(I'm not sure the sytax to use the "rm" option to remove EXIF data)
Jolly Roger
Oct 28, 2014, 3:32:15 PM10/28/14
to
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
§ńuhwöŁź
Oct 28, 2014, 3:42:41 PM10/28/14
to
In article <slrnm4vr...@irc.sandman.net>,
Penis enlargement pills for sale? Sites usually just use any "info"
about U to serve "targeted" adverts.
--
http://signon.org/sign/protect-americas-wolves
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
about U to serve "targeted" adverts.
--
http://signon.org/sign/protect-americas-wolves
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
Davoud
Oct 28, 2014, 4:05:13 PM10/28/14
to
A. Beck:
I downloaded this photo of mine
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15490456502/in/photostream>
from my Flickr stream. The EXIF is intact.
That's the way I want it. I make and post many photos of small
arthropods for my "clients," who include the Encyclopedia of Life, the
Maryland Biodiversity Project, and anyone in the world with an Internet
connection who would like to view or download my photos and use them
for their own non-commercial purposes under the Creative Commons
license. Once in a while a commercial customer licenses one of my
photos for publication. My income from this is utterly insignificant.
My scientific photos would be useless without accurate date/time and
location information in the EXIF. I have Photoshop set to preserve this
data when I export to JPEG for the Web.
It is possible to set Photoshop to not include EXIF when exporting.
That would be your best bet if you want a certain measure of anonymity.
My first recommendation for those who seek anonymity is that they get
off the Internet. One can't have it both ways; every time one uses the
Internet one sends personal information to a remote server. It is
impossible to be anonymous on the Internet. A person who wishes to hide
should give up their drivers license, their automobile(s), their real
estate, utilities, checking account, job, retirement annuity, and such
like, and consider leaving their home in the developed world for a much
less developed country. Of course, one needs a passport to do that, and
one must supply a considerable amount of personal information to get a
passport. Chances are some of that information passes through Justice
Department computers and is automatically scanned for red flags. It is
extremely difficult and risky to attempt to counterfeit a U.S.
passport.
For what "nefarious purposes" do you think people might use your EXIF?
Might someone learn when you visited the Grand Canyon or the Eiffel
Tower? (Nefarious people already know where these places are.) Got more
than one wife/family? Then you'll definitely want to unplug.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15490456502/in/photostream>
from my Flickr stream. The EXIF is intact.
That's the way I want it. I make and post many photos of small
arthropods for my "clients," who include the Encyclopedia of Life, the
Maryland Biodiversity Project, and anyone in the world with an Internet
connection who would like to view or download my photos and use them
for their own non-commercial purposes under the Creative Commons
license. Once in a while a commercial customer licenses one of my
photos for publication. My income from this is utterly insignificant.
My scientific photos would be useless without accurate date/time and
location information in the EXIF. I have Photoshop set to preserve this
data when I export to JPEG for the Web.
It is possible to set Photoshop to not include EXIF when exporting.
That would be your best bet if you want a certain measure of anonymity.
My first recommendation for those who seek anonymity is that they get
off the Internet. One can't have it both ways; every time one uses the
Internet one sends personal information to a remote server. It is
impossible to be anonymous on the Internet. A person who wishes to hide
should give up their drivers license, their automobile(s), their real
estate, utilities, checking account, job, retirement annuity, and such
like, and consider leaving their home in the developed world for a much
less developed country. Of course, one needs a passport to do that, and
one must supply a considerable amount of personal information to get a
passport. Chances are some of that information passes through Justice
Department computers and is automatically scanned for red flags. It is
extremely difficult and risky to attempt to counterfeit a U.S.
passport.
For what "nefarious purposes" do you think people might use your EXIF?
Might someone learn when you visited the Grand Canyon or the Eiffel
Tower? (Nefarious people already know where these places are.) Got more
than one wife/family? Then you'll definitely want to unplug.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Davoud
Oct 28, 2014, 4:17:03 PM10/28/14
to
A. Beck:
authorities a relatively small amount of sender and receiver data.
WaPo, 27 October "In a rare public accounting of its mass surveillance
program, the United States Postal Service reported that it approved
nearly 50,000 requests last year from law enforcement agencies and its
own internal inspection unit to secretly monitor the mail of Americans
for use in criminal and national security investigations."
50,000 out of approximately 212 billion pieces of mail. That's about
2.358x10e-5%.
It is also not true that the NSA has the capability of reading every
e-mail sent in the world or listen to every phone call. SIGINT is labor
intensive; most of the people at NSA are so busy that they don't have
time to read their own e-mails.
> I didn't know that the (snail mail) post office retains
> all from/to information.
> Is that really true and verified?
> (or just conjecture?)
It is verified that the USPS records and reports to security
> all from/to information.
> Is that really true and verified?
> (or just conjecture?)
authorities a relatively small amount of sender and receiver data.
WaPo, 27 October "In a rare public accounting of its mass surveillance
program, the United States Postal Service reported that it approved
nearly 50,000 requests last year from law enforcement agencies and its
own internal inspection unit to secretly monitor the mail of Americans
for use in criminal and national security investigations."
50,000 out of approximately 212 billion pieces of mail. That's about
2.358x10e-5%.
It is also not true that the NSA has the capability of reading every
e-mail sent in the world or listen to every phone call. SIGINT is labor
intensive; most of the people at NSA are so busy that they don't have
time to read their own e-mails.
nospam
Oct 28, 2014, 4:29:22 PM10/28/14
to
In article <281020141616598506%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:
> > I didn't know that the (snail mail) post office retains
> > all from/to information.
>
> > Is that really true and verified?
> > (or just conjecture?)
>
> It is verified that the USPS records and reports to security
> authorities a relatively small amount of sender and receiver data.
> WaPo, 27 October "In a rare public accounting of its mass surveillance
> program, the United States Postal Service reported that it approved
> nearly 50,000 requests last year from law enforcement agencies and its
> own internal inspection unit to secretly monitor the mail of Americans
> for use in criminal and national security investigations."
>
> 50,000 out of approximately 212 billion pieces of mail. That's about
> 2.358x10e-5%.
that's for requests.
the usps photographs *every* piece of mail. every single one. this
began after 9/11.
> It is also not true that the NSA has the capability of reading every
> e-mail sent in the world or listen to every phone call. SIGINT is labor
> intensive; most of the people at NSA are so busy that they don't have
> time to read their own e-mails.
yes they do. they may not read them now, but they are stored 'just in
case'.
wrote:
> > I didn't know that the (snail mail) post office retains
> > all from/to information.
>
> > Is that really true and verified?
> > (or just conjecture?)
>
> It is verified that the USPS records and reports to security
> authorities a relatively small amount of sender and receiver data.
> WaPo, 27 October "In a rare public accounting of its mass surveillance
> program, the United States Postal Service reported that it approved
> nearly 50,000 requests last year from law enforcement agencies and its
> own internal inspection unit to secretly monitor the mail of Americans
> for use in criminal and national security investigations."
>
> 50,000 out of approximately 212 billion pieces of mail. That's about
> 2.358x10e-5%.
the usps photographs *every* piece of mail. every single one. this
began after 9/11.
> It is also not true that the NSA has the capability of reading every
> e-mail sent in the world or listen to every phone call. SIGINT is labor
> intensive; most of the people at NSA are so busy that they don't have
> time to read their own e-mails.
case'.
Davoud
Oct 28, 2014, 4:38:26 PM10/28/14
to
Usenet Account:
2014, saving metadata is an option in the "Save for Web" dialog.
> In Photoshop if you use "Save for web" the EXIF is stripped, if you use
> "save as" it's kept.
Not so, at least for recent versions of Photoshop. In CS6, CC, and CC
> "save as" it's kept.
2014, saving metadata is an option in the "Save for Web" dialog.
Martin Brown
Oct 28, 2014, 5:15:16 PM10/28/14
to
On 28/10/2014 16:54, A. Beck. wrote:
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
>
> I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the
> purpose of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc)
> or for Usenet posts (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal
> sharing (iCloud, dropbox, google drive, etc).
>
> The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when
> the photo was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of
> course, the time and date, etc, the combination of which could
> easily reveal intensely personal information.
You have to assume that any metadata like EXIF or text you post into the
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
>
> I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the
> purpose of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc)
> or for Usenet posts (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal
> sharing (iCloud, dropbox, google drive, etc).
>
> The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when
> the photo was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of
> course, the time and date, etc, the combination of which could
> easily reveal intensely personal information.
internet will be scanned by malevolent agents now or in the future.
Basically if you are worried strip the EXIF data off and/or resample the
image down to a smaller size and watermark it. That way when someone
attempts to use your copyright images without permission you can if
necessary stamp on them. I have only done it a couple of times.
Normally I will grant permission and provide the full resolution image
on condition that I get a copy of the book that is using it. It is
madness to make the full resolution of a valuable image available free.
>
> When I DOWNLOAD those pictures, generally (always?) the
> EXIF information seems to be stripped out.
And probably resampled and compressed to a standard canonical JPEG
> When I DOWNLOAD those pictures, generally (always?) the
> EXIF information seems to be stripped out.
encoding as opposed to the custom qtables out of the camera.
> But ... how much of that personal EXIF information is retained by
> the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
print very carefully many of these photo "sharing" sites will lay claim
to them gaining your image copyright hidden in their terms of use.
Same sort of issues with facebook etc where people often provide enough
information to allow thieves to target empty houses whilst the owners
are mindlessly tweeting and facebooking their holiday snaps.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Davoud
Oct 28, 2014, 5:48:52 PM10/28/14
to
A. Beck:
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.
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.
> 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
> 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).
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.
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.
Message has been deleted
Davoud
Oct 28, 2014, 5:51:32 PM10/28/14
to
A. Beck:
> Certainly if you know of a picture-sharing site that *keeps* the
> EXIF information intact, that would be immensely informative.
That's the idea. Many people, including me, need to make that
information available to persons who view their photos. This is the
Information Age, not the Dark Age.
> But, the purpose of asking here was to figure out if there are any
> known cases where the web site made use of the EXIF information.
Yes. Flickr displays it on demand if it is included with the photo.
> known cases where the web site made use of the EXIF information.
> Certainly if you know of a picture-sharing site that *keeps* the
> EXIF information intact, that would be immensely informative.
information available to persons who view their photos. This is the
Information Age, not the Dark Age.
Savageduck
Oct 28, 2014, 6:44:48 PM10/28/14
to
On 2014-10-28 21:48:48 +0000, Davoud <st...@sky.net> said:
> 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.
>
> 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.
There is just a tad too much paranoia to this. I usually retain full
> 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.
>
> 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.
EXIF data and for many shots I retain GPS Geo tagged location
information as that gives me another sort criterium, and can provide
some interesting data for those I share images with.
So if you open this image and check the EXIF, you will find a whole
bunch of information in the EXIF metadata including location data for
the 1200+ shots I took that particular day.
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared%20Images/Automotive/DNC4947-Edit-1.jpg>
...and
the location from the Lightroom Map Module.
<https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_998.jpg>
...and if you want really detailed EXIF data go to
<http://regex.info/exif.cgi> and enter the image Dropbox URL to see
just how much more info is in that EXIF data.
Just to make that easier for you this should take you right there.
<http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropboxusercontent.com%2Fu%2F1295663%2FShared%2520Images%2FAutomotive%2FDNC4947-Edit-1.jpg>
<http://tinyurl.com/out359m>
If
there is an image I am truly concerned with, I will strip the metadata
before sharing, but I am not particularly paranoid.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Davoud
Oct 28, 2014, 7:29:41 PM10/28/14
to
Savageduck:
Gambrills, Maryland, on DD MMM YYYY." Or other location, as
appropriate. Try to imagine the National Geographic or a newspaper
publishing photos in isolation, not saying where or when they were
taken. That would render most of the photos entirely useless.
> If there is an image I am truly concerned with, I will strip the metadata
> before sharing, but I am not particularly paranoid.
Nor am I. I label my photos on Facebook and in Flickr with "Made at
> before sharing, but I am not particularly paranoid.
Gambrills, Maryland, on DD MMM YYYY." Or other location, as
appropriate. Try to imagine the National Geographic or a newspaper
publishing photos in isolation, not saying where or when they were
taken. That would render most of the photos entirely useless.
Davoud
Oct 28, 2014, 7:42:24 PM10/28/14
to
Martin Brown:
photograph of a butterfly
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15335834362/in/photostream> at
my home at 39°04'40.61" N 76° 39' 33.46" W? Is that information useful
to ISIS? CIA? NSA? FBI? All three agencies are nearby, and they all
know where I live. So?
> You have to assume that any metadata like EXIF or text you post into the
> internet will be scanned by malevolent agents now or in the future.
Who are these malevolent agents? Why would they care that I made this
> internet will be scanned by malevolent agents now or in the future.
photograph of a butterfly
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15335834362/in/photostream> at
my home at 39°04'40.61" N 76° 39' 33.46" W? Is that information useful
to ISIS? CIA? NSA? FBI? All three agencies are nearby, and they all
know where I live. So?
William Unruh
Oct 28, 2014, 8:03:00 PM10/28/14
to
On 2014-10-28, Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:
> Savageduck:
>> If there is an image I am truly concerned with, I will strip the metadata
>> before sharing, but I am not particularly paranoid.
>
> Nor am I. I label my photos on Facebook and in Flickr with "Made at
> Gambrills, Maryland, on DD MMM YYYY." Or other location, as
> appropriate. Try to imagine the National Geographic or a newspaper
> publishing photos in isolation, not saying where or when they were
> taken. That would render most of the photos entirely useless.
Yes, but then you are not National Geographic, or even a newspaper. Even
> Savageduck:
>> If there is an image I am truly concerned with, I will strip the metadata
>> before sharing, but I am not particularly paranoid.
>
> Nor am I. I label my photos on Facebook and in Flickr with "Made at
> Gambrills, Maryland, on DD MMM YYYY." Or other location, as
> appropriate. Try to imagine the National Geographic or a newspaper
> publishing photos in isolation, not saying where or when they were
> taken. That would render most of the photos entirely useless.
they do not publish all the photos they take.
>
Alan Browne
Oct 28, 2014, 8:32:58 PM10/28/14
to
On 2014.10.28, 12:54 , A. Beck. wrote:
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
>
> I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the
> purpose of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc)
> or for Usenet posts (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal
> sharing (iCloud, dropbox, google drive, etc).
>
> The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when
> the photo was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of
> course, the time and date, etc, the combination of which could
> easily reveal intensely personal information.
>
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
>
> I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the
> purpose of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc)
> or for Usenet posts (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal
> sharing (iCloud, dropbox, google drive, etc).
>
> The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when
> the photo was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of
> course, the time and date, etc, the combination of which could
> easily reveal intensely personal information.
>
> When I DOWNLOAD those pictures, generally (always?) the
> EXIF information seems to be stripped out.
Get Exiftool and search the web for the best commands to clean out
> EXIF information seems to be stripped out.
images in batches.
--
<< Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.”
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.” >>
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA
Don Bruder
Oct 28, 2014, 8:52:57 PM10/28/14
to
In article <m2ohnh$4r8$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
and use *EVERY SCRAP OF INFO THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON*, no matter how
private, trivial, crucial, or otherwise. If you hand them info,
knowingly or not, they're going to use it. Period.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
"A. Beck." <a_b...@beck.invalid> wrote:
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
>
> I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the
> purpose of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc)
> or for Usenet posts (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal
> sharing (iCloud, dropbox, google drive, etc).
>
> The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when
> the photo was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of
> course, the time and date, etc, the combination of which could
> easily reveal intensely personal information.
>
> When I DOWNLOAD those pictures, generally (always?) the
> EXIF information seems to be stripped out.
>
> How much EXIF information is tracked by photo sharing sites?
> http://regex.info/exif.cgi
>
> I often post photos to photo-sharing sites, whether for the
> purpose of social networking (pinterest, facebook, etc)
> or for Usenet posts (tinypic, flickr, etc) or for personal
> sharing (iCloud, dropbox, google drive, etc).
>
> The EXIF, as you know, can reveal exactly where and when
> the photo was taken, and even what camera was used, and, of
> course, the time and date, etc, the combination of which could
> easily reveal intensely personal information.
>
> When I DOWNLOAD those pictures, generally (always?) the
> EXIF information seems to be stripped out.
>
> But ... how much of that personal EXIF information is retained by
> the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
>
>
The *ONLY* safe assumption you can make on that is that they'll collect
> the web site (and used for their possibly nefarious purposes)?
>
>
and use *EVERY SCRAP OF INFO THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON*, no matter how
private, trivial, crucial, or otherwise. If you hand them info,
knowingly or not, they're going to use it. Period.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
Don Bruder
Oct 28, 2014, 8:56:54 PM10/28/14
to
In article <m2ok9b$ajm$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
"A. Beck." <a_b...@beck.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:04:41 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
>
> > If you upload X, assume the web site has X. If that X contains all your
> > EXIF data, assume they keep it.
>
> It's one thing to assume, while it's another to actually know.
> I asked to figure out if anyone actually knows, since I don't.
And unless things change massively, neither you, nor anyone else, will
*EVER* know - Someone *MIGHT* be able to do some sort of commando-style
raid and get it out of somebody at gunpoint, but these outfits that
collect information will *NEVER* willingly reveal how much or how little
they collect and/or try to use. There's even less chance that they'll
tell you how they use it or why.
"A. Beck." <a_b...@beck.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:04:41 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
>
> > If you upload X, assume the web site has X. If that X contains all your
> > EXIF data, assume they keep it.
>
> It's one thing to assume, while it's another to actually know.
> I asked to figure out if anyone actually knows, since I don't.
And unless things change massively, neither you, nor anyone else, will
*EVER* know - Someone *MIGHT* be able to do some sort of commando-style
raid and get it out of somebody at gunpoint, but these outfits that
collect information will *NEVER* willingly reveal how much or how little
they collect and/or try to use. There's even less chance that they'll
tell you how they use it or why.
Jasen Betts
Oct 28, 2014, 9:31:46 PM10/28/14
to
On 2014-10-28, A. Beck. <a_b...@beck.invalid> wrote:
--
umop apisdn
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:09:04 +0000, Sandman wrote:
>
>> Flickr, obviously, keeps the EXIF data.
>
> Yikes!
>
> I had downloaded images and *never* saw EXIF data in
> those downloaded images.
>
> Are you sure about this?
Absolutely! have you never used google maps?
>
>> Flickr, obviously, keeps the EXIF data.
>
> Yikes!
>
> I had downloaded images and *never* saw EXIF data in
> those downloaded images.
>
> Are you sure about this?
--
umop apisdn
Davoud
Oct 28, 2014, 9:54:17 PM10/28/14
to
Davoud:
I make, either. But you missed the point, which was, I think, that
failure to reveal information about the photos that one /does/ publish
diminishes the usefulness of the photos.
> > Try to imagine the National Geographic or a newspaper
> > publishing photos in isolation, not saying where or when they were
> > taken. That would render most of the photos entirely useless.
William Unruh:
> > publishing photos in isolation, not saying where or when they were
> > taken. That would render most of the photos entirely useless.
> Yes, but then you are not National Geographic, or even a newspaper. Even
> they do not publish all the photos they take.
Very perceptive. No, I'm not. And I don't publish all the photoss that
> they do not publish all the photos they take.
I make, either. But you missed the point, which was, I think, that
failure to reveal information about the photos that one /does/ publish
diminishes the usefulness of the photos.
A. Beck.
Oct 29, 2014, 2:10:32 AM10/29/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:29:20 -0400, nospam wrote:
> the usps photographs *every* piece of mail. every single one.
> this began after 9/11.
Nospam is right. They started photographing *every* piece of mail,
> the usps photographs *every* piece of mail. every single one.
> this began after 9/11.
and holding it for 30 days, I think, after the anthrax scares.
It's in the NY Times article from yesterday, which I found after
searching (because, at first, I didn't believe it myself).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/us/us-secretly-monitoring-mail-of-thousands.html?_r=0
A. Beck.
Oct 29, 2014, 2:11:53 AM10/29/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:46:11 +0000, Lewis wrote:
> Not 50,000 pieces of mail. 50,000 request to monitor ALL the mail from/to
> a specific sender.
That's *only* the requests from local law enforcement.
They kept the Federal requests from us, so, you can probably double that number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/us/us-secretly-monitoring-mail-of-thousands.html?_r=0
Also note, that in 2009, the requests were 1/10th what they are today.
> Not 50,000 pieces of mail. 50,000 request to monitor ALL the mail from/to
> a specific sender.
That's *only* the requests from local law enforcement.
They kept the Federal requests from us, so, you can probably double that number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/us/us-secretly-monitoring-mail-of-thousands.html?_r=0
Also note, that in 2009, the requests were 1/10th what they are today.
A. Beck.
Oct 29, 2014, 2:14:53 AM10/29/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:17:34 +0000, Sandman wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
A. Beck.
Oct 29, 2014, 2:15:46 AM10/29/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:05:10 -0400, Davoud wrote:
> For what "nefarious purposes" do you think people might use your EXIF?
What if, say, I posted to LinkedIn, my photo, taken from my living
> For what "nefarious purposes" do you think people might use your EXIF?
room.
Would I really want the entire world to know exactly where I live?
A. Beck.
Oct 29, 2014, 2:16:45 AM10/29/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:32:55 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
> Get Exiftool and search the web for the best commands to clean out images
> in batches.
$ sudo apt-get install imagemagick
> Get Exiftool and search the web for the best commands to clean out images
> in batches.
$ convert -strip pic.jpg pic_sansexif.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; convert -strop $i $i; done
$ sudo apt-get install exiftool libimage-exiftool-perl
$ exiftool -all= foo.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; exiftool -all= "$i"; done
$ sudo apt-get install jhead
$ jhead -purejpg *.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; jhead -purejpg $i; done
I don't know how to remove EXIF with exiftran (do you?).
$ sudo apt-get install exiftran
$ sudo apt-get install exiv2
$ exiv2 -rm pic.jpg pic.jpg ???
(I'm not sure the sytax to use the "rm" option to remove EXIF data)
A. Beck.
Oct 29, 2014, 2:17:51 AM10/29/14
to
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:15:10 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> Probably all of it so be careful what you upload. Also read the small
> print very carefully many of these photo "sharing" sites will lay claim to
> them gaining your image copyright hidden in their terms of use.
Are you sure about that?
> Probably all of it so be careful what you upload. Also read the small
> print very carefully many of these photo "sharing" sites will lay claim to
> them gaining your image copyright hidden in their terms of use.
You're saying Flickr, and LinkedIn, and TinyPic and Facebook *own* your photos?
Message has been deleted
Martin Brown
Oct 29, 2014, 5:25:32 AM10/29/14
to
images hosted on their site for their commercial gain. See for example:
http://www.wiredcanvas.com/2012/12/image-copyright-social-media/
Copyright still remains with you but in signing up with them you have
waived it and they are free to make money from your images.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
John Hasler
Oct 29, 2014, 7:50:34 AM10/29/14
to
Martin Brown writes:
> Several of them lay claim to worldwide rights to exploit your uploaded
> images hosted on their site for their commercial gain.
When they show the pictures to people who visit their site (that's why
> Several of them lay claim to worldwide rights to exploit your uploaded
> images hosted on their site for their commercial gain.
you put the pictures there, right?) they are exploiting them for
commercial gain by accompanying them with ads. Why else would they do
it?
> Copyright still remains with you but in signing up with them you have
> waived it and they are free to make money from your images.
are ones you could have sold (then why did you upload them?) it doesn't
cost you anything to have them make money. You get free hosting for
your photos, they get a chance to make a bit of money: an exchange of
value benefiting both parties.
--
John Hasler
jha...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Davoud
Oct 29, 2014, 9:51:33 AM10/29/14
to
Davoud:
you frightened to death.
Davoud --
<https://www.google.com/maps/place/39°04'40.6%22N+76°39'33.5%22W/@39.077
9472,-76.6592944,715m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0>
> > For what "nefarious purposes" do you think people might use your EXIF?
A. Beck:
> What if, say, I posted to LinkedIn, my photo, taken from my living
> room.
> Would I really want the entire world to know exactly where I live?
Mr. Beck, you really, /really/ need to get off the Internet. It's got
> room.
> Would I really want the entire world to know exactly where I live?
you frightened to death.
Davoud --
<https://www.google.com/maps/place/39°04'40.6%22N+76°39'33.5%22W/@39.077
9472,-76.6592944,715m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0>
Message has been deleted
Wildman
Oct 29, 2014, 10:31:31 AM10/29/14
to
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:56:22 +0000 (UTC)
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? A. Beck. <a_b...@beck.invalid> was
> all, like:
> What is your point?
>
> Yes, your digital cameras record exif data. Yes, if you share that
> data with others they can see the efix data. if this bothers you,
> DON'T share that data.
>
> You've been told many many methods to strip the efix data. Pick one.
This has been another fun game of Why don't you - Yes, but...
--
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? A. Beck. <a_b...@beck.invalid> was
> all, like:
>
> Yes, your digital cameras record exif data. Yes, if you share that
> data with others they can see the efix data. if this bothers you,
> DON'T share that data.
>
> You've been told many many methods to strip the efix data. Pick one.
This has been another fun game of Why don't you - Yes, but...
--
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!
A. Beck.
Oct 29, 2014, 10:48:43 AM10/29/14
to
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:56:22 +0000, Lewis wrote:
> You've been told many many methods to strip the efix data. Pick one.
The question was never *how* to strip EXIF data (that's easy).
> You've been told many many methods to strip the efix data. Pick one.
I habitually stripped EXIF data well before I ever posted the question.
How to remove exif data:
====================================================
$ sudo apt-get install imagemagick
$ convert -strip pic.jpg pic_sansexif.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; convert -strop $i $i; done
====================================================
$ convert -strip pic.jpg pic_sansexif.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; convert -strop $i $i; done
$ sudo apt-get install exiftool libimage-exiftool-perl
$ exiftool -all= foo.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; exiftool -all= "$i"; done
====================================================
$ exiftool -all= foo.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; exiftool -all= "$i"; done
$ sudo apt-get install jhead
$ jhead -purejpg *.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; jhead -purejpg $i; done
====================================================
$ jhead -purejpg *.jpg
$ for i in *.{jpg,JPG}; do echo "Cleaning $i EXIF"; jhead -purejpg $i; done
I don't know how to remove EXIF with exiftran (do you?).
$ sudo apt-get install exiftran
====================================================
$ sudo apt-get install exiftran
(I'm not sure the sytax to use the "rm" option to remove EXIF data)
$ sudo apt-get install exiv2
$ exiv2 -rm pic.jpg pic.jpg ???
====================================================
$ sudo apt-get install exiv2
$ exiv2 -rm pic.jpg pic.jpg ???
A. Beck.
Oct 29, 2014, 11:50:10 AM10/29/14
to
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:25:28 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> Copyright still remains with you but in signing up with them you have
> waived it and they are free to make money from your images
Wow.That's a good reason to stay away from *any* site that does that.
> Copyright still remains with you but in signing up with them you have
> waived it and they are free to make money from your images
William Unruh
Oct 29, 2014, 3:01:39 PM10/29/14
to
you registered.
>
Message has been deleted
Floyd L. Davidson
Oct 29, 2014, 3:40:18 PM10/29/14
to
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>In article <m2rdi8$q2l$1...@dont-email.me>, William Unruh
>Certainly with FB, and some others I have seen, by signing up with them
>you grant them a non-exclusive royalty-free licence allowing them to
>sub-licence your images to whomsoever they please.
>
>That's why I don't do FB.
If people want FB or any other webpage they don't
personally own to display their photos, they will have
to agree to just exactly that.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
>In article <m2rdi8$q2l$1...@dont-email.me>, William Unruh
>you grant them a non-exclusive royalty-free licence allowing them to
>sub-licence your images to whomsoever they please.
>
>That's why I don't do FB.
If people want FB or any other webpage they don't
personally own to display their photos, they will have
to agree to just exactly that.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Message has been deleted
PAS
Oct 30, 2014, 9:13:18 AM10/30/14
to
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87a94ew...@barrow.com...
If you're indicating that anyone who uses a site to display photos that
they don't personally own will be granting that site a royalty-free
license then you are incorrect. I use SmugMug, my use of their site
does not grant them any license to use my photos.
news:87a94ew...@barrow.com...
they don't personally own will be granting that site a royalty-free
license then you are incorrect. I use SmugMug, my use of their site
does not grant them any license to use my photos.
J. Clarke
Oct 30, 2014, 9:32:40 AM10/30/14
to
In article <281020141942204586%st...@sky.net>, st...@sky.net says...
>
> Martin Brown:
> > You have to assume that any metadata like EXIF or text you post into the
> > internet will be scanned by malevolent agents now or in the future.
>
> Who are these malevolent agents? Why would they care that I made this
> photograph of a butterfly
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15335834362/in/photostream> at
> my home at 39°04'40.61" N 76° 39' 33.46" W? Is that information useful
> to ISIS? CIA? NSA? FBI? All three agencies are nearby, and they all
> know where I live. So?
>
> Martin Brown:
> > You have to assume that any metadata like EXIF or text you post into the
> > internet will be scanned by malevolent agents now or in the future.
>
> Who are these malevolent agents? Why would they care that I made this
> photograph of a butterfly
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15335834362/in/photostream> at
> my home at 39°04'40.61" N 76° 39' 33.46" W? Is that information useful
> to ISIS? CIA? NSA? FBI? All three agencies are nearby, and they all
> know where I live. So?
Floyd L. Davidson
Oct 30, 2014, 10:16:40 AM10/30/14
to
First, they do not authorized you to post photos that
you do not own or otherwise have legal copyright license
to. Hence they of course do not ask for a license for
such! And they may permanently ban you from the site if
they descover you've posted such materials.
As to your photos, where you do have copyright
ownershipt, the TERMS say "by uploading and/or posting
any User Content to the Site or otherwise by using the
Services, you grant SmugMug a perpetual, nonexclusive
and royalty-free right to use the User Content ..."
They clearly do have a licence to use your
photos. (Otherwise they would not be legally able to
display them to any user other than you!)
Alan Browne
Oct 30, 2014, 11:38:26 AM10/30/14
to
On 2014.10.28, 19:42 , Davoud wrote:
> to ISIS? CIA? NSA? FBI? All three agencies are nearby, and they all
> know where I live. So?
While 99.9999% of the information collected is useless, there is
> to ISIS? CIA? NSA? FBI? All three agencies are nearby, and they all
> know where I live. So?
something in there useful to someone regarding someone else.
That 0.00001 % is the Paydirt.
It is so cheap to collect the data and so cheap to keep the data that it
is 'profitable' in the long term. (Profitable may mean money wise,
tactically, politically ...) And it's only getting easier and cheaper.
--
<< Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.”
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.” >>
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA
PAS
Oct 30, 2014, 11:42:47 AM10/30/14
to
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:8761f1w...@barrow.com...
> They clearly do have a licence to use your
> photos. (Otherwise they would not be legally able to
> display them to any user other than you!)
the license is so that they may display the photos on the website which
is what I am paying them to do.
You responded to this: "Certainly with FB, and some others I have seen,
by signing up with them you grant them a non-exclusive royalty-free
licence allowing them to sub-licence your images to whomsoever they
please" by saying "If people want FB or any other webpage they don't
licence allowing them to sub-licence your images to whomsoever they
personally own to display their photos, they will have to agree to just
exactly that." You are wrong, there is no agreement that SmugMug has a
license to sub-license my photos to whomever they please.
Savageduck
Oct 30, 2014, 11:51:40 AM10/30/14
to
No EXIF, no FB, not too much paranoia.
<https://db.tt/e9kJ1MjY>
--
Regards,
Savageduck
PAS
Oct 30, 2014, 12:03:06 PM10/30/14
to
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2014103008513745802-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
No thanks, I prefer to use a hosting site like SmugMug. I'm not
paranoid about it either.
news:2014103008513745802-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
paranoid about it either.
Message has been deleted
Don Bruder
Oct 30, 2014, 12:24:27 PM10/30/14
to
In article <m2tm9d$mhs$1...@dont-email.me>, "PAS" <nto...@optonline.net>
Wrong. It has *EVERYTHING* to do with it. Without it, there *IS* no
discussion.
"...right to use..." are all thats required to legally allow them (Any
"them", be it Facebook, SmugMug, Flickr, or whomever) to do *ANYTHING
THEY WANT* with whatever image you hand them. While they may (and in the
case of SmugMug, it looks as though they do) go on to try to "explain"
what they're planning to do, that explanation *IS NOT* a restriction on
what they *MAY* do, should they decide they want to.
Put another way, when you upload an image to some site with a user
agreement that contains similarly worded terms that don't *SPECIFICALLY*
prohibit them doing <pick a something> with your image, then you've just
handed them the rights to do anything they might care to do with it.
*ANYTHING*. If you don't like that fact, don't upload an image to them.
That's really your only option, since no for-profit outfit is going to
(or more accurately, their lawyers won't *LET* them) close the door on
any possibility of exploiting anything they can get their hands on to
make a buck off it.
On the other hand, it's *POSSIBLE* that someone with deep enough pockets
may some day manage to bring a case that blows such crap out of the
water - A while back, a precedent was set that effectively shot holes in
so-called "shrink-wrap licensing" - Licenses that basically say "by
opening the package, you agree to whatever we damn well please, and if
you don't like that, tough shit". Website TOS statements are a form of
of SWL, at least in my non-lawyerly opinion. The problem is this: Do
*YOU* have what's needed (in terms of time, money, lawyers, etc, etc,
etc) to chase this to a conclusion that stops websites form doing such
things?
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
discussion.
>
> > They clearly do have a licence to use your
> > photos. (Otherwise they would not be legally able to
> > display them to any user other than you!)
>
> You should have posted the remainder of the terms where it states that
> the license is so that they may display the photos on the website which
> is what I am paying them to do.
>
> You responded to this: "Certainly with FB, and some others I have seen,
> by signing up with them you grant them a non-exclusive royalty-free
> licence allowing them to sub-licence your images to whomsoever they
> please" by saying "If people want FB or any other webpage they don't
> personally own to display their photos, they will have to agree to just
> exactly that." You are wrong, there is no agreement that SmugMug has a
> license to sub-license my photos to whomever they please.
Actually, you're the one who's wrong. The words "You grant..." and
> > They clearly do have a licence to use your
> > photos. (Otherwise they would not be legally able to
> > display them to any user other than you!)
>
> You should have posted the remainder of the terms where it states that
> the license is so that they may display the photos on the website which
> is what I am paying them to do.
>
> You responded to this: "Certainly with FB, and some others I have seen,
> by signing up with them you grant them a non-exclusive royalty-free
> licence allowing them to sub-licence your images to whomsoever they
> please" by saying "If people want FB or any other webpage they don't
> personally own to display their photos, they will have to agree to just
> exactly that." You are wrong, there is no agreement that SmugMug has a
> license to sub-license my photos to whomever they please.
"...right to use..." are all thats required to legally allow them (Any
"them", be it Facebook, SmugMug, Flickr, or whomever) to do *ANYTHING
THEY WANT* with whatever image you hand them. While they may (and in the
case of SmugMug, it looks as though they do) go on to try to "explain"
what they're planning to do, that explanation *IS NOT* a restriction on
what they *MAY* do, should they decide they want to.
Put another way, when you upload an image to some site with a user
agreement that contains similarly worded terms that don't *SPECIFICALLY*
prohibit them doing <pick a something> with your image, then you've just
handed them the rights to do anything they might care to do with it.
*ANYTHING*. If you don't like that fact, don't upload an image to them.
That's really your only option, since no for-profit outfit is going to
(or more accurately, their lawyers won't *LET* them) close the door on
any possibility of exploiting anything they can get their hands on to
make a buck off it.
On the other hand, it's *POSSIBLE* that someone with deep enough pockets
may some day manage to bring a case that blows such crap out of the
water - A while back, a precedent was set that effectively shot holes in
so-called "shrink-wrap licensing" - Licenses that basically say "by
opening the package, you agree to whatever we damn well please, and if
you don't like that, tough shit". Website TOS statements are a form of
of SWL, at least in my non-lawyerly opinion. The problem is this: Do
*YOU* have what's needed (in terms of time, money, lawyers, etc, etc,
etc) to chase this to a conclusion that stops websites form doing such
things?
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
PAS
Oct 30, 2014, 12:28:38 PM10/30/14
to
"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:301020141612124932%timst...@greenbee.net...
> In article <m2tm9d$mhs$1...@dont-email.me>, PAS <nto...@optonline.net>
> The salient section of the FB Ts&Cs is:
>
> "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable,
> royalty-free, worldwide licence to use any IP content that you post on
> or in connection with Facebook (IP Licence)."
>
> Note the use of the expression "sub-licensable". I interpret that to
> mean that they can sell a licence to use your content to any
> publication, f'rinstance.
>
> I'll leave you to check the Smugmug Tc&Cs for similar wording, and to
> decide how that may affect you. Note also that the FB Tc&Cs say that
> the licence you grant them ceases when you delete the content, unless
> you've shared it. I see that Smugmug uses the word "perpetual", which
> FB does not.
>
> But either way, it's bad enough. Best to set up your own site, then
> the
> issue doesn't arise.
The claim was made that using ANY site one doesn't own will result in
having to agree to the same terms FB has. That is not true. As I
noted, SmugMug does not have any terms stating they have the right to
sub-license user's photos. That is the point I made.
news:301020141612124932%timst...@greenbee.net...
> In article <m2tm9d$mhs$1...@dont-email.me>, PAS <nto...@optonline.net>
>
> "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable,
> royalty-free, worldwide licence to use any IP content that you post on
> or in connection with Facebook (IP Licence)."
>
> Note the use of the expression "sub-licensable". I interpret that to
> mean that they can sell a licence to use your content to any
> publication, f'rinstance.
>
> I'll leave you to check the Smugmug Tc&Cs for similar wording, and to
> decide how that may affect you. Note also that the FB Tc&Cs say that
> the licence you grant them ceases when you delete the content, unless
> you've shared it. I see that Smugmug uses the word "perpetual", which
> FB does not.
>
> But either way, it's bad enough. Best to set up your own site, then
> the
> issue doesn't arise.
The claim was made that using ANY site one doesn't own will result in
having to agree to the same terms FB has. That is not true. As I
noted, SmugMug does not have any terms stating they have the right to
sub-license user's photos. That is the point I made.
PAS
Oct 30, 2014, 12:35:00 PM10/30/14
to
"Don Bruder" <dak...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:m2tong$or6$1...@dont-email.me...
Read SmugMug's terms of use. Nowhere does it state that they are
granted the right to sub-license their customer's images. It states
that the license the customer grants is for the purpose of them
providing the service the customer's pay for which is displaying the
images in their site. They state what the customer is granting them,
not stating something doesn't give them the license to do what they are
not stating..
news:m2tong$or6$1...@dont-email.me...
granted the right to sub-license their customer's images. It states
that the license the customer grants is for the purpose of them
providing the service the customer's pay for which is displaying the
images in their site. They state what the customer is granting them,
not stating something doesn't give them the license to do what they are
not stating..
Savageduck
Oct 30, 2014, 12:44:25 PM10/30/14
to
several different privacy levels. With the mp4 suggestion above, I was
making a tongue-in-cheek jest at some of the unnecessary paranoia for
what are mostly snapshots. Any photographer producing valuable,
saleable, copyrighted work is probably going to use an option giving
him/her more control and protection, leaving the social media sharing
for those images he/she is deliberately making public.
Most of my shots shared in various NGs usually contain full EXIF data.
and very often are GPS geotagged. What I do for those going to NGs is
use a metadata template to change "Creator" & "Copyright" to Savageduck.
...and all of those images I share online have a Creative Commons:
Attribute-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en_US>
So if you check the metadata of this shot, you will find that it was
shot by Savageduck at Paso Robles Airport, with a D300S, and that
Savageduck is sharing it with a CC BY-NC-SA license.
<https://db.tt/v2nVoRrh>
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
PAS
Oct 30, 2014, 2:12:39 PM10/30/14
to
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:201410300944222501-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
further than I do in how I use SmugMug. Until then, I really don't
worry that anyone would want my photos anyway. I don't post full-size
so if someone were to "steal" an image, it would have limited use to
them in that state.
William Unruh
Oct 30, 2014, 2:46:12 PM10/30/14
to
On 2014-10-30, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <m2tm9d$mhs$1...@dont-email.me>, "PAS" <nto...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>> news:8761f1w...@barrow.com...
>> > "PAS" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> In article <m2tm9d$mhs$1...@dont-email.me>, "PAS" <nto...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>> news:8761f1w...@barrow.com...
>> > "PAS" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> Actually, you're the one who's wrong. The words "You grant..." and
> "...right to use..." are all thats required to legally allow them (Any
Well, not quite. It depends on the words around those phrases as to what
> "...right to use..." are all thats required to legally allow them (Any
it is you grant them. For example you could simply grant them the right
to store your photos on their computer and the right to make backups of
that storage. Or you could grant them the exclusive right to sell your
photos, and right to use could equally be modified.
> "them", be it Facebook, SmugMug, Flickr, or whomever) to do *ANYTHING
> THEY WANT* with whatever image you hand them. While they may (and in the
right to do anything, then yes, they have the right to do anything.
> case of SmugMug, it looks as though they do) go on to try to "explain"
> what they're planning to do, that explanation *IS NOT* a restriction on
> what they *MAY* do, should they decide they want to.
agreement, a court will in general interpret it in the most restrictive
way for them, since they were the ones that would have had the
opportunity to spell out the details. Those examples are somewhat
restrictive.
>
> Put another way, when you upload an image to some site with a user
> agreement that contains similarly worded terms that don't *SPECIFICALLY*
> prohibit them doing <pick a something> with your image, then you've just
> handed them the rights to do anything they might care to do with it.
Not really. It is to an extent up to them to specify what their
> Put another way, when you upload an image to some site with a user
> agreement that contains similarly worded terms that don't *SPECIFICALLY*
> prohibit them doing <pick a something> with your image, then you've just
> handed them the rights to do anything they might care to do with it.
agreement covers. But it is true that many are pretty broad.
William Unruh
Oct 30, 2014, 2:51:33 PM10/30/14
to
On 2014-10-30, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? A. Beck. <a_b...@beck.invalid> was all, like:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? A. Beck. <a_b...@beck.invalid> was all, like:
> viewable then you MUST agree to allow that web site to use your photos.
No. You can allow that web site to show your photos under restricted
circumstances to others.
> Otherwise, every time they showed your photos, it would violate your
> copyright.
The problem is that their lawyers, in order to protect them, will try to
make the contract be as broad as possible. (In scinetific publishing for
example, may journals demand that you hand the copyright over to them)
But that does not mean that that broad permission is needed to do
certain things. Only permission to do those certain things is needed.
>
> If that site has advertising, Then you must allow them to use your
> photos "for commercial gain".
>
Again, false. You can allow them specific permissions. Eg to show your
photos in conjunction with advertisements.
PAS
Oct 30, 2014, 2:51:51 PM10/30/14
to
"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnm54vlv....@amelia.local...
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? PAS <nto...@optonline.net> was all,
> like:
> You're not a lawyer, are you?
>
> When you grant a right to someone, the stated reasons are meaningless,
> the RIGHT has been granted.
>
> For example, consider these two statements:
>
> "A durable power of attorney is granted to ____ from ___. In order to
> complete financial instruments and execute loan paperwork fro loan
> #8912341 a power of attorney is required."
>
> "A limited power of attorney is granted to ____ from ___ for the sole
> purpose of completing financial instruments and executing loan
> paperwork for the loan #8912341 describe herein."
>
> The first one allows the "granted to" to do *anything* on your behalf,
> including marry you to a third person (or divorce you from your
> spouse),
> sell or buy property in your name, enter into any and all contracts,
> and
> even plead guilty to a crime.
>
> To a non-lawyer, they seem to say the same thing.
Are you a lawyer?
SmugMug sets the terms of use that a customer agrees to, what court
would allow them to expand on what they specifically state you are
licensing them to do which is display your images on their site and
nothing more than that?
news:slrnm54vlv....@amelia.local...
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? PAS <nto...@optonline.net> was all,
> like:
>
> When you grant a right to someone, the stated reasons are meaningless,
> the RIGHT has been granted.
>
> For example, consider these two statements:
>
> "A durable power of attorney is granted to ____ from ___. In order to
> complete financial instruments and execute loan paperwork fro loan
> #8912341 a power of attorney is required."
>
> "A limited power of attorney is granted to ____ from ___ for the sole
> purpose of completing financial instruments and executing loan
> paperwork for the loan #8912341 describe herein."
>
> The first one allows the "granted to" to do *anything* on your behalf,
> including marry you to a third person (or divorce you from your
> spouse),
> sell or buy property in your name, enter into any and all contracts,
> and
> even plead guilty to a crime.
>
> To a non-lawyer, they seem to say the same thing.
Are you a lawyer?
SmugMug sets the terms of use that a customer agrees to, what court
would allow them to expand on what they specifically state you are
licensing them to do which is display your images on their site and
nothing more than that?
PeterN
Oct 30, 2014, 3:22:42 PM10/30/14
to
On 10/29/2014 2:14 AM, A. Beck. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:17:34 +0000, Sandman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
If the photo was a response to your ad, eventually you would have to
know where she lived.
--
PeterN
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:17:34 +0000, Sandman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
If the photo was a response to your ad, eventually you would have to
know where she lived.
--
PeterN
Message has been deleted
PAS
Oct 30, 2014, 3:58:09 PM10/30/14
to
"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnm554i9....@amelia.local...
> has already been litigated then what your OPINION is on what the
> contract allows is worth less than the paper the contract is not
> printed
> on.
>
> $1200/hour lawyers will argue over what a contract means and even they
> cannot agree.
You're not a lawyer then. But you'll ask me that question and then
proceed to give me your opinion as if it holds any more weight than
mine.
nospam
Oct 30, 2014, 4:04:09 PM10/30/14
to
In article <m2u34...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN <pe...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> > 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.
>
> If the photo was a response to your ad, eventually you would have to
> know where she lived.
only for the person buying the item, not everyone.
wrote:
> > 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.
>
> If the photo was a response to your ad, eventually you would have to
> know where she lived.
A. Beck.
Oct 30, 2014, 5:13:59 PM10/30/14
to
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:22:10 -0400, PeterN wrote:
> If the photo was a response to your ad, eventually you would have to
> know where she lived.
Not really. We could meet at a Starbucks.
> If the photo was a response to your ad, eventually you would have to
> know where she lived.
But, I'm working on removing all EXIF information from all photos
as we speak ...
J. Clarke
Oct 30, 2014, 6:22:43 PM10/30/14
to
In article <m2r2ba$8td$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, a_b...@beck.invalid says...
license to use your images in certain specific ways.
>
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:25:28 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> > Copyright still remains with you but in signing up with them you have
> > waived it and they are free to make money from your images
>
> Wow.That's a good reason to stay away from *any* site that does that.
You haven't "waived copyright", you've granted them a nonexclusive
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:25:28 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> > Copyright still remains with you but in signing up with them you have
> > waived it and they are free to make money from your images
>
> Wow.That's a good reason to stay away from *any* site that does that.
license to use your images in certain specific ways.
William Unruh
Oct 30, 2014, 6:43:59 PM10/30/14
to
rights granted. But it could well be used by the courts to limit those
rights if that example was written by the party that set the terms of
the contract. However, terms could be used which make it clear that the
example itself does not limit the breadth of the rights granted.
But that could be dependent of the specific judge.
>
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
PAS
Oct 31, 2014, 9:21:03 AM10/31/14
to
"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnm565l7....@amelia.local...
> what the contract means because 1) you are not a lawyer and 2) the
> contract hasn't been litigated so even a lawyer would not be able to
> speak with certainty."
>
> So, when you claim that a TOS is "better" because it permits "less"
> and
> protects you "more" you are taking out your ass.
By your logic, you are not qualified to have an opinion. You suffer
from a severe case of rectal-cranial inversion.
Message has been deleted
John McWilliams
Nov 1, 2014, 12:46:15 AM11/1/14
to
> issues, unlike you. Just because you *think* a license is better than
> another license doesn't make it so. Just because a contract *appears* to
> limit what someone can do, doesn't mean it does. There are people every
> day--hell, every second of every day--who are shocked by what a contract
> ACTUALLY says as opposed to what they think it 'obviously' says.
>
> But sure, go on living in your precious imaginary world of rainbows and
> puppies and unicorns that fart rainbows. Good luck.
>
How about trimming, including the troll marker froup?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
John McWilliams
Nov 2, 2014, 3:27:07 PM11/2/14
to
On 11/1/14 PDT, 4:40 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <cbjrff...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
> <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-11-01, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> [266 lines snipped]
>
> Mmm, that about sums it up.
>
Baffled by both replies. Whaddya mean?
> In article <cbjrff...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
> <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-11-01, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> [266 lines snipped]
>>
>> > How about trimming, including the troll marker froup?
>>
>> Pot, meet kettle.
>> > How about trimming, including the troll marker froup?
>>
>
> Mmm, that about sums it up.
>
Baffled by both replies. Whaddya mean?
John McWilliams
Nov 2, 2014, 3:39:22 PM11/2/14
to
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.
John McWilliams
Nov 2, 2014, 3:40:26 PM11/2/14
to
On 11/1/14 PDT, 4:36 AM, Huge wrote:
> On 2014-10-31, PAS <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> [251 lines snipped]
> a lame 2 line flame.
That's why I deleted: alt.os.linux
Sorry I messed up on my other reply.
> On 2014-10-31, PAS <nto...@optonline.net> 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 fucking retard who quotes 251 lines of material for
>> By your logic, you are not qualified to have an opinion. You suffer
>> from a severe case of rectal-cranial inversion.
>
> a lame 2 line flame.
That's why I deleted: alt.os.linux
Sorry I messed up on my other reply.
Sandman
Nov 4, 2014, 3:38:49 AM11/4/14
to
In article <snuhwolf-845991...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, §ñuhwö£Ÿ wrote:
> > > > statistics about cameras. Not sure what "nefarious"
> > > > purposes they COULD be using it for.
> > >
> > > JF Mezei:
> > > Selfies of your privates posted on a porn site. You don't want
> > > those to be linked to your bedroom's GPS location :-)
> >
> > Sandman:
> > That might be slightly nefarious (that is, if my member weren't so
> > glorious :), but what would the purpose be? I mean, Flickr, or
> > such service, wouldn't make any money from posting this :)
>
> Penis enlargement pills for sale? Sites usually just use any "info"
> about U to serve "targeted" adverts.
But ad images don't have EXIF data, right? I mean, we're talking about a
scenario where you take a picture of your dick in your bedroom with a
GPS-enabled camera, upload it to Flickr and Flickr (i.e. Yahoo) take that
image and use it to seel penis-enlargement pills by uploading it as an
advert on porn sites.
Now, it would be stupid and odd if that image still had your bedroom GPS
data embedded in it, but even if it did - it would still not be
Flickr/Yahoo using your *exif* data for nefarious purposes. They're
obviously using your private images for "nefarious" purposes, but that
purpose wouldn't be thwarted by you stripping your GPS/EXIF data. :)
Plus, your dick is on a porn site and used as example for penis
enlargement, congratulations man! :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
> > > > statistics about cameras. Not sure what "nefarious"
> > > > purposes they COULD be using it for.
> > >
> > > JF Mezei:
> > > Selfies of your privates posted on a porn site. You don't want
> > > those to be linked to your bedroom's GPS location :-)
> >
> > Sandman:
> > That might be slightly nefarious (that is, if my member weren't so
> > glorious :), but what would the purpose be? I mean, Flickr, or
> > such service, wouldn't make any money from posting this :)
>
> Penis enlargement pills for sale? Sites usually just use any "info"
> about U to serve "targeted" adverts.
But ad images don't have EXIF data, right? I mean, we're talking about a
scenario where you take a picture of your dick in your bedroom with a
GPS-enabled camera, upload it to Flickr and Flickr (i.e. Yahoo) take that
image and use it to seel penis-enlargement pills by uploading it as an
advert on porn sites.
Now, it would be stupid and odd if that image still had your bedroom GPS
data embedded in it, but even if it did - it would still not be
Flickr/Yahoo using your *exif* data for nefarious purposes. They're
obviously using your private images for "nefarious" purposes, but that
purpose wouldn't be thwarted by you stripping your GPS/EXIF data. :)
Plus, your dick is on a porn site and used as example for penis
enlargement, congratulations man! :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Nov 4, 2014, 3:40:22 AM11/4/14
to
In article <m2q0kp$9sp$3...@speranza.aioe.org>, A. Beck. wrote:
> > Sandman:
know she did.
Either way, it's hardly "intensly personal information".
--
Sandman[.net]
> > Sandman:
> > Again, this isn't "intensly personal information" if it requires
> > tons of assumptions.
>
> > 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
> picture, which she took from her living room.
> Now, I know where she lives.
> That's pretty personal.
know she did.
Either way, it's hardly "intensly personal information".
--
Sandman[.net]
Aleksandar Kuktin
Nov 11, 2014, 9:15:54 AM11/11/14
to
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.
> 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.
John McWilliams
Nov 12, 2014, 11:36:17 PM11/12/14
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages