OneGuyFromBarlick

I have question about photo files on smartphones. On Paul Lewis's `Money Box' radio programme he interviewed an Asian man whose house had been burgled. Like many Asians his family kept their savings in the form of jewellery and they lost about £15,000. He contacted the insurance company because he'd declared the items when he took out the policy and had taken photos of them. The company asked to see the photos and he had to dig out his old Samsung smartphone to find the images. The company saw the photos but then refused to pay out because they said the files were dated after the burglary had happened. Not only that, they contacted the police and accused him of fraud. He got in touch with Samsung about the dates of the files and they said if the phone had been unused for a long time the files would show the date when the phone was fired up again. So the family is now £15,000 worse off and the man is accused of fraud.

On thinking about this I wondered whether only the date of the file was being considered, the one that shows in your file manager. But what about the date in the image EXIF data? I thought that was allocated by the camera and shouldn't change. Or are things different on phones compared with PCs?

I have just checked on images taken on my mobile and all have the date taken when I look at the details of the file. It lists Time, date, width, height, orientation, file size, whether or not flash was used, focal length, white balance and aperture. I have also checked with images taken with my phone and downloaded to the computer. They also retain the original date they were taken but also the date downloaded and the date last time accessed on the computer. My phone is a Motorola Moto G.

I would have thought you are both right. I don't see how EXIF data could be edited. It sounds to me like incompetence or chicanery on the part of an insurance company looking for a get out clause to obviate the payment. No surprise there.....

It seems strange that Samsung say that if the phone has been out of use (presumably the battery would have been flat and would have to be recharged) the photos would show the date you brought it back into use, not the date you took the photos. I guess they just want to cover their backs.

The images are saved along with their date stamping onto non volatile memory, it matters not if the phone runs out of charge if that was the case you would not only loose the time stamping but the image as well. It's nonsense and should be challenged.

I've written to Paul Lewis by email explaining this and it'll be interesting to see if I get a reply. Thanks for the help.

PanBiker wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 10:29 It's nonsense and should be challenged.

I think they have challenged it by refusing the claim, and reporting the matter to the police. We daytime TV watchers see a programme about false insurance claims. The companies are not fools.

Stanley wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 03:46 I would have thought you are both right. I don't see how EXIF data could be edited. It sounds to me like incompetence or chicanery on the part of an insurance company looking for a get out clause to obviate the payment. No surprise there.....

EXIF data is editable...

I didn't know that Kev, thanks for the information.

Paul Lewis has replied to my message about the EXIF data as follows:
-----------------------------------------
Many people have made this point. However, several experts have examined the phone and the images including one used by the BBC and all came to the rather surprising conclusion which we broadcast.
Best wishes
Paul
Paul Lewis
07836 217 311 www.paullewis.co.uk paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk twitter.com/paullewismoney
-----------------------------------------

So it looks like the insurance company is saying the date has been edited or the photos taken after the burglary and the man is saying Samsung told him the date can change when the phone has been out of action and is then re-used. So whether or not his claim is genuine he won't get the money - but will he be found guilty of fraud? We'll have to wait and see.

Just as a postscript, my phone switched off twice last week because the battery had reached total depletion. Any images on the phone were preserved with all their original data when I checked them after a recharge.

Complicated little buggers aren't they...... I shall keep stum in future about matters above my pay grade! (But thanks for the intelligence Kev)

`Driverless car laser ruined camera' LINK

Tizer wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 10:03 `Driverless car laser ruined camera' LINK

A useful bit of info I wasn't aware of

Oh dear.... Another danger to be aware of!

I notice the company claimed that the lasers are harmless to our eyes. I wonder how they can be so sure of that? If I were a motor manufacturer considering using them I'd want to know the evidence. Unfortunately my impression is that they accept whatever the tech companies tell them. I read that the car makers now show the new gizmos at the big Tech exhibitions rather than at car shows.

"I read that the car makers now show the new gizmos at the big Tech exhibitions rather than at car shows."
'Tech' appears to me to be the crack cocaine of the marketing world. It has reached the stage where a few cosmetic changes and a new version of the brand name is enough to trigger sales of 'the latest model'. People instinctively know this is a con but peer pressure forces them into it. As 'tech' is actually science and innovation, is this one of the drivers for the current widespread distrust of real scientific enquiry, say into climate change?

I'm a 'last year's model' when it comes to buying technology, saves me a fortune and if it was 'the best thing since sliced bread' a year ago it's good enough for me now

Not sure if Chinatyke reads this thread but I have a question for him. The, now discontinued, four thirds camera system has been replaced by the micro four thirds (m43) system so the older lenses are becoming harder to find. These original four thirds cameras and lenses were manufactured in China, the question I have is are the lenses still available to buy in China?

If he doesn't pick up here Kev send him a PM.

I'm here! Kev, lenses are available here. If you give me full details I'll have a look on Taobao (like Amazon) and Baopals. A quick look showed hundreds of options, some at mega-bucks. If you give me specific lens model numbers I'll see how much they are and we can take it from there.

Great stuff, I'll sort the details if what I'm looking for. Thank you.

The specific lens I'm looking for is the Olympus 11-22mm f2.8-3.5 zoom lens which fits the Olympus four thirds cameras (Not micro four thirds).

Isn't OG wonderful.........

Sorry, Kev, I've drawn a complete blank on this one. I found one on Amazon so that I could see what you wanted.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss ... +-+22+f2.8

There are plenty on EBay, for example, one at 120 quid:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-Zuiko- ... :rk:1:pf:0