The Observation Deck

Stan Austin wrote:You might have read in today's Plain Dealer that Lakewood attorney Dean Boland was detained by the FBI on Friday and his home in Lakewood searched under the authority of a search warrant.

Mr. Boland has developed an expertise in digital photography. He uses that talent to show how photographs can be manipulated so that they in no way portray what they purport to illustrate. This is an important defense for those who are charged with having pictures depicting child pornography.

It is also vitally important for the justice system at large. Banks, hospitals, corporations and others are increasingly reliant on digital images. If those images are permitted to be used without any demonstration of their authenticity, the potential for fraud is great.

This defense is analogous to the use of DNA in recent years to conclusively exonerate those who have been falsely accused of crimes. This technology did not exist a few years ago.

In several cases I am personally aware of, the government has, in fact, admitted they were attempting to use fraudulent evidence. Without digital imaging experts analyzing the evidence in these cases, individuals without any criminal inclinations whatsoever can easily be convicted.

Any technology which shows purported evidence or proof to be wrong should be welcomed and embraced.

Conservatives, of which I am one, and liberals should all agree on this statement.

Apparently, federal prosecutors rather concentrate on a win/loss record that ignores guilt/innocence. County Prosecuting Attorney William Mason is of the same attitude. Several months ago he complained that Boland's demonstrations were hampering prosecutions. He somehow forgot the fact that we depend on him to only prosecute on the facts.

I write this because these prosecutors, federal and local, are depending on a negative public reaction against Mr. Boland to chill his efforts and others who seek only the facts.

This is already occurring. Trust me, many have contacted me wondering how they should proceed, or if they should proceed, for fear of having their home searched as well.

However, if we keep the spotlight on the the slimy and repulsive tactics of the prosecutors this ruse might backfire.

Also, I wish to stand by the side of Mr. Boland so that he knows that there are those who treasure openess and honesty.

I appreciate those comments.

Stanley D. Austin

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I guess before I made any judgement I'd like to know what he was being charged with? Do you happen to have a link to the PD article by chance?

dl meckes wrote:Mr. Boland testifies that people digitally manipulate images?

My testimony is simply this, a jury cannot merely visually examine a digital image and be able to determine whether it was manipulated or not. Prosecutors in these cases are understandably frustrated because they cannot determine if any of the images they are seizing are real. So, to deal with that problem, they are arguing to judges that they ought to be able to merely show the images to the jury and if the jury THINKS they're real, the defendant is convicted. While that is appealing and not really a big concer to those of us with children (including me and my wife) it spells real trouble for the rest of us.

Consider this, your neighbor doesn't like you. They capture images of you mowing the lawn, drinking a coke, whatever. They buy a digital image editing program from the store, manipulate those images with other innocent images of children and, you guessed it, send the CD to the Lakewood Police Department anonymously with information about who you are. Be sure, the police will be at your home and perhaps do more than just ask a few questions.

Or, the reverse. A relative of yours is murdered. You are certain, based upon circumstantial evidence, of who the murderer is. However, at trial, his mother shows up to testify that she found a CD of digital images of the suspect at Disney World on the day the murder occurred in Cleveland. The images show him sitting, reading the paper, USA Today, dated the date of the murder right in front of a well known theme park restaurant.

The prosecutor, of course, demands of the judge that no testimony regarding the images occurs unless someone can testify as to who took the images, when, what day, etc. But, the defense attorney just wants to put on the mother saying that she found the CD and she didn't take the pictures and has no idea who did.

Do you think the judge should merely "let the jury decide" if those images are authentic?

Use your imagination and the possibilities continue.

No one wants to be involved in child pornography cases. Not the lawyers, judges, staff, experts, etc. But, if the law is made here that unauthenticated digital images can just go to the jury for them to decide, everyone is at risk. That is the issue.


Does this mean that Tom Hanks didn't actually meet LBJ in Forrest Gump?

Grace O'Malley wrote:
From what I understand, for a conviction the law requires that the image be of a real child, not just a rendering or fabricated digital image. Because of his (Mr Boland's) testimony, prosecutors have not been getting the convictions they want.

Exactly.

I would suggest that if it is a problem with the law as it is written, that communities take that up with the legislators and make the necessary changes in the law.

Several months ago I sent an email to 50 of Ohio's state representatives with exactly this suggestion and I believe I have figured out how to effectively eliminate the possession of even the fake images yet still not stomp on everyone's constitutional rights. It's really quite an easy solution that parallels the constitutionally acceptable requirement of gun registration. Only two responded and further contact with them has gone unresponded to. Do they really want to tackle the issue?

Why do I get the feeling that there is some behind the scenes political stuff going on here?

dl meckes wrote:Thank you, Mr. Boland for signing on to comment.

I have a tradition of sending cards to friends and family where I insert an image of my face into famous photographs, most recently into pictures of Lauren Bacall & Humphrey Bogart. I have replaced John Glenn in his Time magazine space shuttle cover photo and have "been" such people as Marilyn Monroe, Gloria Swanson, and Elsa Lancaster.

It does take some effort, but we have the capability to alter images pixel by pixel and pretending that it isn't possible is ridiculous.

The Internet and print publications bring us manipulated images every day. TV Guide once rather famously put Oprah's head on Ann Margaret's body for the cover of a publication. It is an indefensible assumption to trust that images are not altered unless there is proof of a secure chain of custody for the camera or memory card.

Dean Boland wrote:....the race is on to the best evidence manipulator.

Joe McClain wrote:
But the topic is manipulation of images in kiddie porn, not making the sky over the Wren Building look nice. If someone robs a bank with a toy gun, how is it different from a real gun? I don't know the exact nature of these images or how they were prepared, but if, as I suspect, they contain the image of a real child Photoshopped into a sexual context, then there's something seriously wrong with the practice.

Joe McClain wrote:The people who traffic in such created images differ from the people who deal in "real" kiddie porn images only in degree.

Joe McClain wrote:(Do constructed pornographic images bear a kind of stamp analogous to the "dolphin-free tuna" pledge?:

Joe McClain wrote:I have no problem with making possession and distribution of kiddie porn--"real" or created--a crime, prima facie.

Joe McClain wrote:I have nothing to say about the FBI's searching of Dean Boland's house other than to reinforce the point that, well, the FBI has been known to be spectacularly wrong before. I hope they are now.

Dean Boland wrote:However, there are many other techniques to make a person who is 25 years old, appear 10 or more years younger.

Dean Boland wrote:And, that is not really the issue in these cases, from a technological standpoint. It is simply this. If someone wanting to use a digital image as evidence does not know if the image has been altered, should they be permitted to have the jury decide if the image has been altered? My answer, no. Juries are incapable of determining, by merely visually examining a digital image, if it is has been altered. My opinion is that any evidence whose authenticity is unknown should not be admissible in court. No matter the subject of the case.

Joe McClain wrote:(Do constructed pornographic images bear a kind of stamp analogous to the "dolphin-free tuna" pledge?:

Dean Boland wrote:No such luck unfortunately. But, I have already contacted Ohio legislatures with draft legislation that would create such a requirement for producers of these images making these images, effectively, illegal while not throwing the judicial system into chaos by having it admit digital images of unknown authenticity.

Dean Boland wrote:However, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that if the image does not contain an ACTUAL minor, it is protected by the First Amendment.

Their logic was that many adult porn materials purposefully have adult actors posing or "appearing to be" minors (i.e. someone under 17 years, 364 days old or younger under the federal law) and they were concerned the appearance of a minor would be regarding as their creating child pornography.

Dean Boland wrote:The FBI has also, reluctantly, admitted in several cases in which I have participated that they either a. have altered evidence they are attempting to use or b. have no idea whether their evidence is authentic at all and still would like the court to permit them to use it. Fine, for a child pornography person, but what about their case against your neighbor or family member or friend or you if it involves, bribery, embezzling, financial fraud, medical fraud, and many other areas that rely on digital images as evidence?