• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    1343·
    7 months ago

    Geo guessing is related to open source intelligence techniques, and it’s pretty easy to get surprisingly good at it.
    People who are good at it can take a picture of someone’s room and deduce enough about them (sometimes) to be able to get their name, address and phone number.

    It being automatic is pretty cool, but you were already leaking the information to anyone interested.

    https://www.sans.org/blog/geolocation-resources-for-osint-investigations/

    https://youtu.be/p7_2ZA1HHMo?si=O19_7LA3SoyvZEm1

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    12765·
    7 months ago

    This Just In: Most photos uploaded to the internet are not stripped of their metadata, and one of the common things kept in metadata is… (drumroll please)… your GPS coordinates.

    This is a lot less interesting than it seems to be at first glance, imho.

    • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
      853·
      7 months ago

      Literally just after talking about how people are spouting confident misinformation on another thread I see this one.

      Twitter: Twitter retains minimal EXIF data, primarily focusing on technical details, such as the camera model. GPS data is generally stripped.

      Yes, this is a privacy thing, we strip the EXIF data. As long as you’re not also adding location to your Tweet (which is optional) then there’s no location data associated with the Tweet or the media.

      People replying to a Twitter thread with photos are automatically having the location data stripped.

      God, I can’t wait for LLMs to automate calling out well intentioned total BS in every single comment on social media eventually. It’s increasing at a worrying pace.

      • Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de
        17·
        7 months ago

        Ah shit. Any easy way to determine if your camera’s doing that? Would that normally be in manufacterer specs?

        • firefly@neon.nightbulb.net
          16·
          7 months ago

          No easy way at all. The specs would be in-house manufacturer docs. Recall that digital cameras used to embed date and time visibly in images in a corner. The logical progression was to embed other data such as device serial number, geotag data, etc.

          Regarding the schemes for steganographic identification in devices such as cameras and printers, this information is usually kept a trade secret. The Secret Service would probably already have the spec docs for data hiding. Many manufacturers already have working agreements to provide back door assistance and documentation for the hardware surveillance economy. Ink chemistry profiles are registered with the Secret Service. The subterfuge is to ‘investigate counterfeiting’ but it is also used to identify whistleblowers and objective targets by their printer serial number or ink chemistry, or the data embedded in any images they are naive enough to publish.

          If you are a undercover reporter secretly video recording, unbeknownst to you the video could have metadata encoded using a secret scheme. If you registered that product for a warranty, or bought it online and had it shipped, or paid with a credit card or check, or walked beneath the electronics store cameras without a hat and sunglasses to pay cash, it is easy for the state organs to then follow the breadcrumbs and identify the videographer.

          Almost all ‘free’ wifi hotspots offered by chain restaurants and hotels are logged with the data being stored indefinitely, showing your mac address. It takes only a little bit of investigation and process of elimination to find the user on a camera feed history, to see who was connected when a certain message or leak was sent. If you use a wifi hotspot in a McDonalds, Wendy’s, Starbucks, etc. smile for the surveillance camera which will also have your device’s unique MAC address in the wifi history. This MAC address data is automatically sent to a central station, for example at the Wandering Wifi company, and God only knows how long they store it.

          None of this nonsense makes anyone safer. These people hate us.

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      161·
      7 months ago

      Software that doesnt store private metadata

      • grapheneOS cam
      • opencamera (not by default!)
      • KDE spectacle
      • android GrapheneOS screenshots
      • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
        5·
        7 months ago

        android screenshots

        I think I have read that on some versions it can store the app’s package name in the metadata. Not sure if that counts private but if and when it does so, it’s good to be aware of

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      162·
      7 months ago

      I’m sure most people who would put this to test would strip that data or screen grab the image to do the same thing…. If you know about meta data, so does a large amount of other people mate…

      The people would be labeled as a fraud very fast if this wasn’t actually a real thing dude.

      • weker01@feddit.de
        13·
        7 months ago

        Because people that don’t care about privacy find this to be a nice feature.

        There are gallery apps that let’s you sort by location and it’s nice if you want to search for the cool thing you saw once again.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          2·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, I have it for personal photos that will never be shared. If I am traveling, I want a record of where a given photo was. But those aren’t photos I am sharing, and the ones I do share get their metadata stripped.

  • telep@lemmy.ml
    23·
    7 months ago

    this is extremely scary if true. are these algorithms obtainable by every day people? do they work only in heavily photographed areas or do they infer based on things like climate, foliage, etc? I would love some documentation on these tools if anyone has any.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      14·
      7 months ago

      https://github.com/LukasHaas/PIGEON

      https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05845

      Basically a combination of what the game geoguesser does, and public geotagged images to be able to get a decent shot at approximate location for previously unseen areas.

      It’s more ominous when automated, but with only a little practice it’s easy enough for a human to get significantly better.

      EDIT: yup, looks like this is the guy from the Twitter: https://andrewgao.dev/ and he’s Stanford affiliated with the same department that made the above paper and system.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          7 months ago

          I am not sure it’s the same software, but it’s a fairly good guess I think. Same software capabilities and same lab, with the same area of research.

          Geoguesser is a subset of the skills used for general image geo location for open source intelligence.
          In the specific cases of only using the data present in the image and relying on geographic information, it certainly does better.
          Humans still do better, and can reach decent skill with minimal training, at placing images that require spatial reasoning or referencing multiple data sources.
          AI tools will likely be able to learn those extra skills, but it doesn’t change that it’s the photo that’s the data leak, and not the tool. The tool just makes it vastly more accessible, and part of the task easier for curious human.

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      5·
      7 months ago

      There are tons of machine learning algorithm libraries easily usable by any relatively amateur programmer. Aside from that all they would need is access to a sufficient quantity of geographically tagged photographs to train one with. You could probably scrape a decent corpus from google street view.

      The obtainability of any given AI application is directly proportional to the availability of data sets that model the problem. The algorithms are all packed up into user friendly programs and apis that are mostly freely available.

  • taladar@sh.itjust.works
    201·
    7 months ago

    It really isn’t that hard if anything like a silhouette of mountains are in the background and you have a couple of rough hints that give you an idea where to start or how to narrow down possible locations, no AI needed.

    • ISOmorph@feddit.de
      132·
      7 months ago

      You’re misunderstanding the post. It’s not about whether or not someone could guess your location from a picture. It’s about the automation thereof. As soon as that is possible it becomes another viable vector to compromise your privacy.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        91·
        7 months ago

        And you misunderstand my point, it always has been a way to compromise your privacy. Privacy matters most in the individual case, with people who know you. If you e.g. share a picture taken at your home (outside or looking out of the window in the background) with a friend online you always had to assume that they could figure out where you lived from that if there were any of those kinds of features in there.

        Sure, companies might be able to do it on a larger scale but honestly, AI is just too inefficient for that right now, as in the energy-cost required to apply it to every picture you share just in case your location might be useful isn’t worth it yet.

        • ISOmorph@feddit.de
          54·
          7 months ago

          Privacy matters most in the individual case, with people who know you.

          That statement is subjective at best. My friends and coworkers knowing where I live certainly isn’t my concern. In today’s day and age privacy enthusiasts are definitely more scared of corpos and governments.

          isn’t worth it yet.

          You’re thinking too small. Just in the context of the e2ee ban planned in europe, think what you could do. The new law is set to scan all your messages before/after sending for specific keywords. Imagine you get automatically flagged and now an AI is scanning all your pictures for locations and contacts and what not. Just the thought that might be technically possible is scary as hell.

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            8·
            7 months ago

            Governments won’t scan all your pictures to figure out who you are, they are just going to ask (read: legally force) the website/hoster where you posted that picture for your IP address and/or payment info and then do the same with your ISP/payment provider to convert that into your RL info to figure out who you are.

            And you might not be worried about your RL friends or coworkers but what about people you meet online? Everyone able to see your post on some social media site?

            Nobody is going to scan all the pictures you post for some information that is going to be valid for a long time after it is discovered once. Governments and corporations have had the means to discover who you are once for a long time.

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                61·
                7 months ago

                wait long enough and a technique to unblur will be developed.

                You can’t just program data that doesn’t exist into existence.

                • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
                  3·
                  7 months ago

                  I do remember 1-2 years ago there is a paper (or model?) that reverse blured images. It’s similar to how ML based object remover and inpainting works. Granted it only works for specific blurring algo.

                • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
                  34·
                  7 months ago

                  You do realize that a lot of image recognition was done on scaled down images? Some techniques would even blur the images on purpose to reduce the chance of confusion. Hell, anti-aliasing makes text seem more readable by adding targeted blur.

                  Deblurring is guessing and if you have enough computing power with some brain power (or AI), you can reduce the number of required guesses by erasing improbable guesses.

                  Anti Commercial-AI license

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    51·
    7 months ago

    It’s just sourcing data from Street View or similar. Not that scary. If it picked you out of a crowd in a randomly sourced image from that area, then it’d be scary.