|
|
As claimed here, "A few lines of 'digital DNA' could allow the publishers of Harry Potter to find and finger the person apparently responsible for leaking the final adventures of the boy wizard...", may not turn out to be entirely fool-proof.
Taken, the digital DNA (EXIF data) has revealed the camera model [Canon Rebel 350] and the serial number [560151117] and may eventually point out the owner of the camera, but is he/she the person they are really looking for? Noticeable is the fact that the camera has been out for 3 years - and assuming that the 'original owner' would still be the 'owner' of the camera is a bit far-fetched and even if true, provides an escape-route for the 'leaker'.
Simply put, these cases are possible:
Case 1: Original Owner is the Current Owner.
Escape Route #1. Destroy the piece. Say that somebody stole it.
Escape Route #2. Trashed it on 'World Garbage Day' [that weird day when people throw out their old tech items]!
Case 2: Original Owner is NOT the Current Owner.
Escape Route #3. The Original Owner reveals the identity of the Current Owner who in turn employs escape route 1 & 2.
Escape Route #4. The Original Owner and the Current Owner get into a deal, and the Original Owner employs escape route 1 & 2.
Another Case: Original Owner is NOT the Current Owner but IS questioned.
This is where I have my doubts. Is the person responsible for the clicked pics since he is the owner of the camera even if he didn't click them, as is the case in 'Fire-arms'? What does the law (of different countries) have to say about this? What if he clicked them for personal use but claims 'he didn't upload them'? Is he still responsible? If yes, what would happen in a case if in a fight between two, one of them uses a third person's, say 'camera', to hit the other on his head and the latter dies - is the third person an accomplice in murder?
Time to rethink, i guess!
|
|
Loading...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment