New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Tracing Photos Back to the Camera That Snapped Them

A unique camera “signature” to identify online criminals

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

New developments in tracing particular photographs to the cameras that snapped them might provide the basis for a forensic method of catching pedophiles who distribute child pornography anonymously on the Internet. It could also help law-enforcement agencies identify smartphone thieves who take pictures with the stolen gadgets and then post the images online.

It has been known since 2006 that tiny variations in the silicon chip–based camera sensors create differences in response to light that leave a signature “noise” pattern (above right) on every photo that can be matched to a specific camera and cannot be removed. “It is not currently possible to perfectly separate the image from the noise, modify the noise and then add it back to the image,” says Riccardo Satta, a scientific officer at the European Commission Joint Research Center's Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen. At a recent privacy conference in Brussels, Satta presented work showing that sensor-pattern noise persists when photos are modified and uploaded to social media.

Investigators have long known of other identifiers that digital cameras insert into images as they convert a stream of light into digital bits. But none are as reliable for tracing the source of an image as sensor-pattern noise.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In a preliminary study of 2,896 images taken from 15 different social networks or blog accounts, Satta and his colleague Pasquale Stirparo found that a photograph could be linked half the time to a specific camera as a most probable match. They also discovered that a set of images could be accurately grouped according to the originating camera 90 percent of the time, with a false positive rate of 2 percent.

These statistics are not good enough to use at a trial. But the technique could help select targets for investigation, especially when presented along with other information found on social networks, such as location and friend lists.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe