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.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe