Is it possible to restore scrubbed EXIF data? Is there any other metadata hidden in images besides EXIF?

Can't you remove that by re-screenshotting the image? And then editing it to change the rgb scheme ever so slightly.

checked dubs of trips.
Yes, most likely. Though it limits the image resolution and ppi to that of the screenshot. Thrown in a random noise filter for good measure. This makes the assumption that the steganographic EXIF data is encoded via specific pixel quantities (like printer dots) but this is not necessarily the case. For example, if the data is encoded via a frequency across the entire image such measures would not be easily countered.

In the case of video being fingerprinted why not just re-encode the entire video to have a very very slightly different rgb scheme and pitched audio? Provided you give instructions on how to re-encode it to sound normal that is. Pain in the ass but removes fingerprinting. It's kinda like what is done to images here to post the same image. Add garbage to the end of the file and then you can post it. In the case of videos it would be garbage to every frame of the video and the audio.

Actually now that I think of it just simply re-encoding in a different video and audio format should get rid of the audio fingerprinting unless it is done by the actual sound in the video intead of by bit counting. Seems like alot of trouble just to post a video with your phone.

There have been a couple papers on fingerprinting images by sensor noise and how it survives jpeg quantization. So you're fucked even without something like yellow dots. Don't use the same camera for your kikebook profile as you use for destroying daisies.

This presumes that you know the method for data encoding, and if that was the case then removing it would be direct action not a guess at re-encoding. If you don't know how the data is encoded, then you cannot be sure it has been removed after re-encoding, since you cannot verify complete removal - you can only verify that you are no longer able to detect its presence. (e.g. After putting a paper cup of water into a plastic bag, holding it no longer wets your hand, but you cannot verify if there is now no water in the paper cup)

Proper fucked user.

Why are you sending images in anything besides .gif, .bmp, and .png?

god. why can't we have noice things ?

Are you still talking about videos and pictures? If you can't view it in vlc or your favorite image viewer your doing it wrong. Even if there is a image in an image type scenario re-encoding or changing the format will fuck that up. Unless your adversary specifically designed the bits hidden away to be able to transform. But how would you not notice that? Open it up in vi or a hex editor and compare it to a known good video or image.
A special character set or odd character set is going to stand out in such a scenario.

Because devices record jpegs I'd guess?
Though anons point is that even with the lossy modification on every save of the image in the jpeg file format the dox data can survive still.

Follow anons advice in

and not only for taking photos with a camera, but one device to shitpost from and another to kikebook, etc.

No, your assumption is that the data is encoded via a quantized value and not a waveform. This is not necessarily the case as there are methods that survive re-quantization. See

So
0x01 0x02 0x05 0x09 0x04 0x03 0x00 may appear perfectly normal, but only when it is known that the original should have been
0x00 0x02 0x04 0x08 0x04 0x02 0x00 then can the overlay of
0x01 0x00 0x01 0x01 0x00 0x01 0x00 be seen.

I should have clarified further..
..so if dox data can survive a lossy format then surviving a lossless format such as gif bmp png is a simpler task.

You do know that VLC phones home right?
If not, it's time to set your firewall.

Well yea at that point short of editing parts out of the video you will not mess it up. Comparing it to a sine waveform that is simply transformed that is. But wasn't the adversary model of a copyright troll using a program to autoscan for video/audio matching a specific form?

If you're trying to hide from the likes of (((governments))) going apeshit at you then applies. But you presume they have the fingerprint ID for every video recording device in existence. Including ones you make yourself. Then you assume they have a program or will dedicate the time to tracking the specific pecularities of a heavily modified image in every format possible. Simple solution is to make your own video recording device. Before scrubbing the data.

Building Franken(((stein))) equipment might prove profitable in such freedom of speech cases then user.

What are you a kike? The whole point of having it be done as a do it yourself thing is so it is not easily traced by ZOG. If a central distributer starts claiming he doesn't share the pecularities of his created video recorders with ZOG how do you beleive him? Sure he would have the balls to admit what's going on but you can not be sure he is not being coerced in secret.

If you were to start a buisness around such a model it would be in selling howto's on easily created, high quality, easily changed fingerprints, and the software to interface with such video recorders.

tl;dr starting a buisness with the intent of bettering things for the common man/everyone gets you (((suicided))).

The issue with noise fingerprinting is it survives any non-shit encoding. The same X,Y postions with high noise in the source data will stand out in encoded data. To prevent those points standing out you'd need to bring the image up to a uniform noise level which means making the whole image as bad as the worst parts. That would likely fuck up image quality pretty bad on sensors with very uneven noise.

Also, if you're a wedding photog professional photographer, it's trivial to fingerprint your shit by the dead/stuck pixels that are extremely common on high-end Canon/Nikon bodies.

? No I didn't mean shekelization, but building custom equipment from off the shelf parts would be personally useful (perhaps "profitable" was the wrong word) in the pursuit of freedom of speech cases.

Camera fingerprint ID.

underrated post

A nice tip: PNG doesn't support EXIF. If you want to make absolutely sure you have no EXIF save your image as a PNG.
Just remember that this won't do anything about stenographic EXIF.

Tell that to the PNGs I just scanned. They don't yet know EXIF isn't allowed and do contain EXIF info.
$ exiftool testpepe.png ExifTool Version Number : 9.46File Name : testpepe.pngDirectory : .File Size : 119 kBFile Modification Date/Time : ...File Access Date/Time : ...File Inode Change Date/Time : ...File Permissions : rw-rw-r--File Type : PNGMIME Type : image/pngImage Width : 500Image Height : 500Bit Depth : 8Color Type : RGBCompression : Deflate/InflateFilter : AdaptiveInterlace : NoninterlacedExif Byte Order : Little-endian (Intel, II)Orientation : Horizontal (normal)Software : ...Exif Image Width : 500Exif Image Height : 500Coded Character Set : UTF8Application Record Version : 0Copyright Notice : © JoeDaEskimo - redbubble.com/people/JoeDaEskimOriginating Program : ShotwellProgram Version : 0.18.0XMP Toolkit : XMP Core 4.4.0-Exiv2Significant Bits : 8 8 8Image Size : 500x500

...

How the fuck?
Is that in the metadata chunks?

I haven't examined the file in hex editor or looked up the PNG spec. I just ran the exiftool on it.
I remembered I'd used the tool to clean PNGs before and the tool told me the file was modified, so after reading your comment I wanted to confirm I didn't imagine EXIF in the PNG. Output is what the tool found.