Why hide the serial number?

[BradS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, tri said:

Isn’t this info in the EXIF data of most posted photos?

Certainly not with any of the more than twenty cameras that I own. 

Edited January 11, 2021 by BradS

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

2 hours ago, andybarton said:

If someone has the serial number of your camera, he or she could go to the police and report it as being stolen. With other information, they could identify who you are. The police then pop round for chat and find the camera with the matching serial number.

Then, you have to find that receipt in the drawer, and confirm that you are the rightful owner.

No one needs this.

There is no good reason why you should share your serial number. If you have a problem with the camera or lens, just xxx out the last three numbers, to make reference to the exact model.

So you honestly think somebody will just take a punt and go to the Police on the basis that they hope and pray you can't find the receipt? To start with they would need a dated receipt of their own that could be easily traced back to where they said it was bought. And then the risk of prison for a £5000 camera? This is some sort of urban myth both that it can happen and that people get away with it. 

[Pyrogallol]

In the next thread I read after this the writer had xxxed out the last three digits of the serial number of the lens being discussed, but then showed good quality pictures of the lens where the whole number can be read.

I understand the reasons for blocking out numbers but there are plenty of occasions, in the historica section, that the whole number is of interest, ie the first or last made in a batch or model. Maybe blocking numbers out is more worthwhile with valuable modern items rather than vintage ones.

[logan2z]

1 hour ago, tri said:

Isn’t this info in the EXIF data of most posted photos?

If so, yet another reason to shoot film 😋

[pop]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb BradS:

Certainly not with any of the more than twenty cameras that I own. 

The Leica CL shows the serial numbers of both lens and camera in the DNG, apparently only the serial number of the lens in the JPG. Since the software I used to display that data had names for those fields, we can be certain that there must be more cameras that can do that, or at least that it's part of the standard for the metadata in the image.

I did just a short check on my current camera. I don't know which of my other cameras do that.

[BradS]

32 minutes ago, pop said:

The Leica CL shows the serial numbers of both lens and camera in the DNG, apparently only the serial number of the lens in the JPG. Since the software I used to display that data had names for those fields, we can be certain that there must be more cameras that can do that, or at least that it's part of the standard for the metadata in the image.

I did just a short check on my current camera. I don't know which of my other cameras do that.

That’s a computer aided imaging issue. 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For many reasons it may or may not be advisable to advertise serial numbers on the web. As an example, it is perfectly possible to track equipment via serial numbers on the web - I have done so. So if you buy a lens, decide that it is not one that you want to keep and as a result you intend to resell it, this can enable potential buyers to find out what you paid for it and where it came from. This in turn may influence the final price you are offered, or are even paid, for it. This may or may not bother you of course.

[BradS]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

So you honestly think somebody will just take a punt and go to the Police on the basis that they hope and pray you can't find the receipt? To start with they would need a dated receipt of their own that could be easily traced back to where they said it was bought. And then the risk of prison for a £5000 camera? This is some sort of urban myth both that it can happen and that people get away with it. 

Agreed. The more I think about it the more absurd it becomes. There would have to be some actual evidence that the item was stolen, like a police report, and I guess the dates would have to be plausible too so the “theft” would have be reported to police in advance of any dated records in the current owner’s possession. Urban myth debunked. 

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

 

So you honestly think somebody will just take a punt and go to the Police on the basis that they hope and pray you can't find the receipt?

...And then the risk of prison for a £5000 camera?

Quote

Agreed. The more I think about it the more absurd it becomes...

The more I think about this, more convinced I become that all this fear about camera and lens serial numbers is just silly. 

What kind of paranoid lunatic would not trust in the innate goodness and altruistic nature of all of humanity in a world that is literally crawling with thieves and criminals who would, given half a chance, gut a person over $5 or €4??

Edited January 11, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Herr Barnack said:

The more I think about this, more convinced I become that all this fear about camera and lens serial numbers is just silly. 

What kind of paranoid lunatic would not trust in the innate goodness and altruistic nature of all of humanity in a world that is literally crawling with thieves and criminals?? 🙄

Well it's like a lot of conspiracy theories doing the rounds at the moment, you need to consider the magnitude of the fraud that would need to be committed to pull off a subterfuge or crime. It's not that it couldn't happen one in a billion times, never say never, but for everything to fall into place based on your cameras serial number, you have to ask how likely it is so you don't lose sleep over it. And yes, some people do lose sleep over lesser things such as do they fall off when they get to the edge of their flat earth.

Edited January 11, 2021 by jaapv
political content removed

[BradS]

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away

[pop]

vor einer Stunde schrieb BradS:

That’s a computer aided imaging issue. 

Sorry, I do not understand.

I said above that my Leica LC writes indeed the serial numbers of both the camera and the lens into the DNG file and the serial number of the lens into the JPEG file. The respective numbers appearing in my image files are the very same numbers stamped on my camera and printed on my lenses.

How is that a computer aided imaging issue?

[BradS]

47 minutes ago, pop said:

Sorry, I do not understand.

I said above that my Leica LC writes indeed the serial numbers of both the camera and the lens into the DNG file and the serial number of the lens into the JPEG file. The respective numbers appearing in my image files are the very same numbers stamped on my camera and printed on my lenses.

How is that a computer aided imaging issue?

How is it not? 
 

For example, Leica M6 has no computer and the issue is not manifest. 
 

Edited January 11, 2021 by BradS

[pop]

No computer aided imaging involved. Every digital camera records information with the content of the actual image (of the image projected by the lens and converted by the sensor to digital data), such as the date and time the picture was taken, the make of the camera and so on. Some cameras record the serial numbers of the camera body and/or the lens.

Earlier in this thread I  indicated that people are likely to unknowingly publish serial numbers of their equipment within their images. If you do that, other people can correlate that information with other data and use it to your disadvantage.

The Leica M6 is not a digital camera and will therefore not produce any EXIF data. Publishing pictures taken with an M6 in the internet will, of course, involve scanning the images. Scanners also attach EXIF data to the resulting digital images, conceivably with data identifying the scanner. So, yes, the issue can become manifest, too.

[BradS]

26 minutes ago, pop said:

No computer aided imaging involved. Every digital camera records information with the content of the actual image (of the image projected by the lens and converted by the sensor to digital data), such as the date and time the picture was taken, the make of the camera and so on. Some cameras record the serial numbers of the camera body and/or the lens.

Earlier in this thread I  indicated that people are likely to unknowingly publish serial numbers of their equipment within their images. If you do that, other people can correlate that information with other data and use it to your disadvantage.

The Leica M6 is not a digital camera and will therefore not produce any EXIF data. Publishing pictures taken with an M6 in the internet will, of course, involve scanning the images. Scanners also attach EXIF data to the resulting digital images, conceivably with data identifying the scanner. So, yes, the issue can become manifest, too.

A digital camera is a computer. A very specialized, hand held portable computer. It writes digital files that represent images onto digital storage media and may include metadata. It is therefore a computer aided imaging device.  Thus the hypothetical boogie man tracking you down by your lens serial number is a computer aided imaging issue. 
 

and seriously, if you’re that concerned about it, use your computer to modify or delete the metadata. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by BradS

[pop]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb BradS:

A digital camera is a computer. A very specialized, hand held portable computer. It writes digital files that represent images onto digital storage media and may include metadata. It is therefore a computer aided imaging device.  Thus the hypothetical boogie man tracking you down by your lens serial number is a computer aided imaging issue. 
 

and seriously, if you’re that concerned about it, use your computer to modify or delete the metadata. 

Well, well.

The question which started this thread was whether and why people hid the serial numbers of their gear when showing images in this forum, i.e. the internet.

You can not possibly show physical photographs in the internet. All photographs made visible in the internet have been converted into a digital form, be it in the camera or later from a tangible medium.

Cameras and scanners do store some items of data along with the representation of the image; examples are the date, time, location, exposure details. Some of those devices also store information identifying the gear which made the digital representation of the image.

Once you publish digital images made with the same digitizing equipment in different sites in the internet, you make revealing your identity easier, if those images contain data identifying your gear.

Becoming identifyable in the internet across several platforms is a security issue. It does not matter greatly to the victim if the people who are doing so are the police, some secret services, a criminal organisation, a disgruntled spouse or any kind of crook. They all might use the data they gathered about you against you.

Computer crimes are real crimes and can be as damaging to the victim as any other kind of crime with the exception of physical attacks.There's nothing hypothetical about it, even if many victims would not admit the fact that they've been had.

The services routinely active in the internet such as the search engines and the tracking services (which are used by this very forum, too) make it practiable to correlate texts and images published by one individual across a great number of sites.

So, yes, it is prudent to remove the metadata from the pictures you publish in the internet, as it removes one of several obvious ways of tracking you across many sites in the internet.

An axe ususally has a wooden handle. It is not made of wood. Any modern automobile contains any nomber of computers; even so, an automobile is not a computer and driving one is not computer assisted locomotion. It is quite possible that your body contains a few metal or even electronic parts. This does not turn you into the Tin Man or Tik-Tok.

A digital camera contains one or more computers. So did the SLR I bought in 1985 which exposed film. That does not make it a computer.

In a digital camera the image is formed by an optical lens. You can even use the lenses of 150 year old cameras to make images with a digital camera. The difference lies in the medium recording the image. I have no one heard calling film photography "chemically assisted imaging". That would be equally absurd. The image is not formed by chemical processes. It is formed by the lens or an equivalent optical apparatus.

Computer aided imaging consists of a computer transforming data captured by another device (or merely computed data) into a form which can be visually represented as an image. The image may be presented on a screen or on a permanent medium, but it's a computer generated image. That's a far cry from electronically recording and processing images projected by optical devices.

People who don't realize that they are easily trackable in the internet are vulnerable to a certain extent. It pays to inform oneself before exposing oneself to risks one does not understand.

Knowing the risks involved with any activity makes that activity much less dangerous. That's so with hill climbing, motorized traffic, using any kind of substance and using the internet, and many more.

[RayD28]

I have never posted a picture of my cameras or lenses.  Not saying I will or won't.  Someone I work with once asked why anyone using Facebook would put personal information like name and address for all the world to see.  I said I don't know but you might want to ask someone listed in a phonebook.  

[M9reno]

I own a camera whose serial number was among those reported stolen by a well-known dealership in Scotland.  The camera appears as stolen every time the number is entered into Google.

...the strange thing is, I bought the camera in person at the same establishment. At my insistence, they issued me a letter saying the number was reported stolen by mistake.  But there’s no way now to correct the mistake on-line.  The numbers were widely reported on a number of sites.

I figure, I won’t have a problem if I never intend to sell the camera or show off pictures of its serial number. 😬

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Pyrogallol]

Is this a case where a “right to be forgotten” law would help? But the chances of getting anything removed from the internet are slim.

[Ouroboros]

I obscure my serial numbers purely to thwart geeks who might rush off to check their serial number lists to find out when my MP was made.

I”m cruel like that.