You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 113 users / day
- 519 users / week
- 1.44K users / month
- 4.49K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 4.27K Posts
- 108K Comments
- Modlog
Is it possible to use some kind of random noise algorithm to modify the image so that devices can’t be uniquely identified like this anymore? Or would that not work?
The would have to be enough to obscure the lens’ aberration, that would be an obnoxious amount of noise. Instead I think a better solution is to add micro distortion strategically to make identification ambiguous/inconclusive
perhaps simply putting something like cling wrap over the lens and moving it for each photo would be enough: adding some scratches and roughness that slightly changes each time you move it
Some parts of the image would not be changed enough, and like a partial fingerprint they could still be traced, the entire image has to be micro-distorted digitally to thoroughly jumble up the microblur image signature.
The sensor also has a unique “grain” structure and that has to be dispelled