Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Richy_T]

Maybe you're right. I can't remember the exact details, but many years ago a friend of mine sent me a long exposure photo, where the stars had formed trails from their apparent movement in the night sky. I remember I did some calculations based on the size of the trails and then projecting the concentric circles the arcs belonged to, in order to locate Polaris (constellations pointed to the north hemisphere) and then using its position in the sky to compute an approximate latitude. But that's nowhere near an exact location... I had the impression I somehow found the longitude too, but I can't recall the details. He gave me the exposure time (was in the order of minutes) and maybe also the date/time the photo was taken.

Yes, locating Polaris is the trick (or effectively so) as it's a fixed point. You can work it out from star trails but that's not really necessary as the stars are pretty fixed and constellations well known. Angle to the horizon gives you the latitude (though horizon is a bit ambiguous on land). Longitude is tricky though locations of planets or satellites (or the moon) might be the tell there if the picture allows you to locate any.

[OutOfMemory]

If the exact datetime of the picture would be know (via EXIF data leakage), it would be a lot easier, but most image hosting services are stripping the metadata automatically.

Images posted to BTCTalk get proxied automatically so you lose all that anyway. It's a bit of a shame as at one point, I was thinking of custom views for ChartBuddy but it's understandable.

But just on the subject of EXIF data, there is (or was) a browser extension that would show EXIF data present in pictures and it was surprising what people were letting leak out, particularly with location data.

Yes, it's a shame you can't exclude location data from smartphone cameras. I haven't bought a new DSLR in ages, but maybe you can't also on GPS-equipped models, so i hope one can turn off GPS on them (would save a lot of battery, too).
Even if you turn off GPS on smartphones, there's something like network (and wifi) based location, which is unprecise to say the least, which is probably also getting stored as EXIF data.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[AlcoHoDL]

If the exact datetime of the picture would be know (via EXIF data leakage), it would be a lot easier, but most image hosting services are stripping the metadata automatically.

Images posted to BTCTalk get proxied automatically so you lose all that anyway. It's a bit of a shame as at one point, I was thinking of custom views for ChartBuddy but it's understandable.

But just on the subject of EXIF data, there is (or was) a browser extension that would show EXIF data present in pictures and it was surprising what people were letting leak out, particularly with location data.

Yes, it's a shame you can't exclude location data from smartphone cameras. I haven't bought a new DSLR in ages, but maybe you can't also on GPS-equipped models, so i hope one can turn off GPS on them (would save a lot of battery, too).
Even if you turn off GPS on smartphones, there's something like network (and wifi) based location, which is unprecise to say the least, which is probably also getting stored as EXIF data.

I think there is a setting in the camera app that prevents the inclusion of GPS geolocation in EXIF data -- at least on the smartphones I've owned (by Samsung, Huawei, Motorola). I usually like to include GPS data, just so I can recall where I was, for nostalgia reasons, but it's a dangerous setting to have on. I always remove EXIF before posting online, but one mistake is enough to reveal the phone's location to meter-accuracy!

I didn't know EXIF stored Wi-Fi/network data too. Sneaky bastards! I always remove the entire EXIF data block before releasing an image online, but who knows what could be hiding inside the picture file... There's also the possibility of using steganography, which encodes data in the actual pixels (small, deliberate modulation of the R, G, B channels and other image data, imperceivable to the eye, but capable of carrying information). You can't escape the matrix, or so it seems.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[vapourminer]

I didn't know EXIF stored Wi-Fi/network data too.

even with GPS/4G/5G off its getting to the point that pretty much anything with a radio and antenna (which is damn near everything nowadays) can figure out where it is as soon as it gets a sniff of someones wifi and guess what you are now located to within so many hundreds of feet if that wifi AP has been mapped (and you know they have been).

[NeuroticFish]

I didn't know EXIF stored Wi-Fi/network data too. Sneaky bastards!

Afaik they use the WiFi or even mobile data to find out your possible location. So "only" location info is saved, no matter how (in)accurate, not actual network details.
The common sense photo apps (at least on my phone) usually have a setting to (dis)allow "location tags".

but who knows what could be hiding inside the picture file... There's also the possibility of using steganography, which encodes data in the actual pixels (small, deliberate modulation of the R, G, B channels and other image data, imperceivable to the eye, but capable of carrying information). You can't escape the matrix, or so it seems.

This is a bit too paranoid imho. I mean, there are so many images on the internet, it would be near-impossible to search all of them for that small hidden info.
And if you expect some not-visible info is stored there you can always open the image, resize to smaller (so the not-visible info may get lost between surrounding pixels), printscreen and crop the new image, and publish that one. It's not much extra work after you already open the image to remove EXIF.

I've only unset the location info and I know (I've checked multiple times) that the GPS field is empty. The rest of the info... let'em have it, I don't care.

[d_eddie]

Apparently, the WO is fulfilling the function of OpSec testbed and discussion. Some of the best geolocators I know, all of which have at least some skin in the game, gathered in one place exchanging ideas and test pics.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Lucius]

Six in a row - these guys have more luck than Buddy

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[d_eddie]

Northern lights glowing
Chasing patterns in the stars
A point on the map





#haiku

[AlcoHoDL]

I didn't know EXIF stored Wi-Fi/network data too. Sneaky bastards!

Afaik they use the WiFi or even mobile data to find out your possible location. So "only" location info is saved, no matter how (in)accurate, not actual network details.
The common sense photo apps (at least on my phone) usually have a setting to (dis)allow "location tags".

but who knows what could be hiding inside the picture file... There's also the possibility of using steganography, which encodes data in the actual pixels (small, deliberate modulation of the R, G, B channels and other image data, imperceivable to the eye, but capable of carrying information). You can't escape the matrix, or so it seems.

This is a bit too paranoid imho. I mean, there are so many images on the internet, it would be near-impossible to search all of them for that small hidden info.
And if you expect some not-visible info is stored there you can always open the image, resize to smaller (so the not-visible info may get lost between surrounding pixels), printscreen and crop the new image, and publish that one. It's not much extra work after you already open the image to remove EXIF.

I've only unset the location info and I know (I've checked multiple times) that the GPS field is empty. The rest of the info... let'em have it, I don't care.

Yes, I've thought about altering the image (resizing slightly, or adding noise, or changing brightness/contrast). The thing is, I've read that there are steganography algorithms that are resistant to such manipulation, they have redundancy, so if some part gets corrupted, they can recover data, and also they segment the image into large blocks (say, 16x16 pixels or larger), so even if you resize it, the data can persist.

I know this is too paranoid, even for me. I have accepted that being online means that some information will be leaked one way or the other -- it's a trade-off, and there are tools like Tor and Whonix, which can limit our exposure.

[philipma1957]

Apparently, the WO is fulfilling the function of OpSec testbed and discussion. Some of the best geolocators I know, all of which have at least some skin in the game, gathered in one place exchanging ideas and test pics.

I use a 10 year old canon camera to post here.

 the downside is 4000x3000 is best photo quality.  the upside is no data.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[AlcoHoDL]

Apparently, the WO is fulfilling the function of OpSec testbed and discussion. Some of the best geolocators I know, all of which have at least some skin in the game, gathered in one place exchanging ideas and test pics.

I use a 10 year old canon camera to post here.

the downside is 4000x3000 is best photo quality.  the upside is no data.

I bet your 4000x3000 pixels camera can rival many modern smartphones in lens and image quality.

It's just that it's so much easier with a phone. And that's exactly what they want us to feel.

[asUHWEceyc]

I didn't know EXIF stored Wi-Fi/network data too.

even with GPS/4G/5G off its getting to the point that pretty much anything with a radio and antenna (which is damn near everything nowadays) can figure out where it is as soon as it gets a sniff of someones wifi and guess what you are now located to within so many hundreds of feet if that wifi AP has been mapped (and you know they have been).

cross reference against imaging and wifi sensor rising rates tables and click the drone button for authorization

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com