AN INCOMPLETE CRASH COURSE IN DIGITAL PRESERVATION [IN 20 MIN]WITH AN EMPHASIS ON THE TRAC CRITERIA & CHECKLIST

• CONTEXT• HISTORIC CASES• OVERVIEW OF TRAC CHECKLIST• TOOLS• PROJECTS OF NOTE

LIBRARIES + ARCHIVESMUSEUMS + GALLERIESGOVERNMENTSSCIENCE & MEDICINEPRIVATE SECTORINDIVIDUALS

CONTEXTSTAKEHOLDERS

AUTHORS + WRITERSARTISTS + COLLECTORSCORPORATE OFFICESSCIENTISTS + DOCTORS

CONTEXTDONOR COMMUNITIES

RARE BOOKS & MANUSCRIPTSFINE ARTPERSONAL PAPERSFINANCIAL / LEGALGEOSPATIAL / MAPSRESEARCH DATA

CONTEXTMATERIALS

HISTORIC CASES

DOOMED

• 1986 DOMESDAY PROJECT• 1999 HARDLY ANY SYSTEMS LEFT• 1999 CAMILEON BEGINS WORK• 2001 ADRIAN PEARCE BEGINS• 2002 CAMILEON EMULATION• 2003 BBC DIGITAL MASTERS• 2004 PEARCE PUBLISHES DATA• 2008 PEARCE DIES, SO DOES SITE• PRESENT: HTTP://WWW.BBC.CO.UK/HISTORY/DOMESDAY

AFTER A LOT OF ££ AND EFFORT

TRAC CRITERIA & CHECKLIST

TRAC CRITERIA & CHECKLISTWHAT IS IT ?

A. ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTUREA.1 GOVERNANCE AND VIABILITY

1. MISSION STATEMENT2. SUCCESSION / CONTINGENCY PLAN

A. ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTUREA.2 STRUCTURE AND STAFFING

1. PROPER STAFF POSITIONS2. ENOUGH STAFF3. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

A. ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTUREA.3 PROCEDURAL ACCOUNTABILITY

1. COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED2. MECHANISMS FOR REVIEW OF PROCEDURE3. WRITTEN LEGAL POLICY RE: PERMISSIONS4. PERIODIC TECH UPDATE5. USER FEEDBACK6. GENERAL TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY

A. ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTUREA.4 FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

1. SHORT & LONG TERM BUSINESS PLAN2. ANNUAL [AT LEAST] REVIEW OF PLAN3. TRANSPARENT & COMPLIANT FINANCIALS

A. ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTUREA.5 CONTRACTS, LICENSES, LIABILITIES

1. DEPOSIT AGREEMENTS [INCLUDING PRESERVATION RIGHTS] 2. TRACK AND MANAGE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

B. DIGITAL OBJECT MANAGEMENTB.1 ACQUISITION AND INGEST

1. IDENTIFY PROPERTIES TO PRESERVE2. SPECIFY METADATA REQUIRED AT INGEST3. ABLE TO AUTHENTICATE SOURCE4. SUFFICIENT PHYSICAL CONTROL5. APPROPRIATE FEEDBACK TO DEPOSITOR7. RECORD OF ALL PRESERVATION ACTIONS

B. DIGITAL OBJECT MANAGEMENTB.2 CREATING AN ARCHIVABLE PACKAGE

1. WRITTEN DEFINITION OF ALL AIP’S2. DOCUMENTATION OF SIP => AIP PROCESS3. NAMING CONVENTION FOR IDENTIFIERS 4. REPRESENTATION / FORMAT INFORMATION5. DOCUMENTED PROCESS FOR ‘RENDER’

B. DIGITAL OBJECT MANAGEMENTB.3 PRESERVATION PLANNING

1. DOCUMENTED PRESERVATION STRATEGIES2. OBSOLESCENCE MONITORING MECHANISMS3. MEANS TO CHANGE 1 BASED ON 24. EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS

B. DIGITAL OBJECT MANAGEMENTB.4 ARCHIVAL STORAGE

1. PRESERVE CONTENT INFORMATION2. ACTIVELY MONITOR FIXITY INFORMATION

B. DIGITAL OBJECT MANAGEMENTB.5 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

1. SPECIFY MINIMUM METADATA REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCOVERABILITY2. MEET THIS REQUIREMENT3. DEMONSTRABLE REFERENTIAL INTEGRITY

B. DIGITAL OBJECT MANAGEMENTB.6 ACCESS MANAGEMENT

1. COMMUNICATE ACCESS OPTIONS2. POLICY FOR DOCUMENTATION OF ACCESS3. RESPECTFUL OF ACCESS AGREEMENTS4. DOCUMENTED ACCESS POLICIES5. LOG INAPPROPRIATE ACCESS6. DISSEMINATE COPIES OF ORIGINAL OBJECTS TRACEABLE TO THE ORIGINAL

C. TECHNOLOGY, INFRASTRUCTURE, SECURITYC.1 SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE

1. REPOSITORY RUNS ON WELL SUPPORTED SYSTEMS (I.E. LINUX/UNIX)2. ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR BACKUP3. REPOSITORY MANAGES BACKUPS5. MECHANISMS TO DETECT, REPORT, AND ACT UPON CASES OF CORRUPTION6. HARD/SOFTWAREWARE UPGRADE PROCEDURE7. MEANS TO TEST SYSTEM CHANGES

C. TECHNOLOGY, INFRASTRUCTURE, SECURITYC.2 APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES

1. HARDWARE / SOFTWARE APPROPRIATE TO DESIGNATED COMMUNITY & SERVICES

C. TECHNOLOGY, INFRASTRUCTURE, SECURITYC.3 SECURITY

1. SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF DATA, PERSONNEL, PHYSICAL PLANT, AND SECURITY NEEDS.2. STAFF HAVE AUTHORIZATION RELEVANT TO ROLE WITHIN SYSTEM3. WRITTEN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY PLAN.4. OFFSITE BACKUPS. OFFSITE RECOVERY PLAN.

TOOLS

PRESERVATION PLANNINGSUSTAINABLE FORMATS

1. DISCLOSURE2. ADOPTION3. TRANSPARENCY / SELF DOCUMENTATION4. EXTERNAL DEPENDENCIES5. PATENT ISSUES6. DRM

PRESERVATION PLANNINGSUSTAINABLE FORMATS

IDENTIFICATION?

PRESERVATION PLANNINGSUSTAINABLE FORMATS

UNIX FILE UTILITY

DROIDFIDO

FITS

JHOVE

This work was partially supported by the SCAPE Project. The SCAPE project is co-funded by the European Union under FP7 ICT-2009.4.1 (Grant Agreement number 270137).

Evaluation of Characterisation Tools

Part 1: Identification Authors

Johan van der Knijff, National Library of the Netherlands

Carl Wilson, British Library

September 2011

COOL PROJECTS- OR -

OK SO YOU’VE PRESERVED THIRTY YEARS OF DISK IMAGES. NOW WHAT.

EMULATION[DEMO]

Council on Library and Information Resources

Washington, D.C.

Digital Forensics and Born-Digital Content in Cultural Heritage Collections

by Matthew G. Kirschenbaum

Richard Ovenden

Gabriela Redwine

with research assistance from Rachel Donahue

December 2010

Statistical Tools for Digital Forensics

Alin C. Popescu and Hany Farid ?

Department of Computer Science at Dartmouth College

Abstract. A digitally altered photograph, often leaving no visual clues of having been tampered with, canbe indistinguishable from an authentic photograph. As a result, photographs no longer hold the uniquestature as a definitive recording of events. We describe several statistical techniques for detecting traces ofdigital tampering in the absence of any digital watermark or signature. In particular, we quantify statisticalcorrelations that result from specific forms of digital tampering, and devise detection schemes to reveal thesecorrelations.

1 Introduction

The advent of low-cost and high-resolution digital cameras, and sophisticated photo-editing software, hasmade it remarkably easy to manipulate and alter digital images. In addition, digital forgeries, often leaving novisual clues of having been tampered with, can be indistinguishable from authentic photographs. And whilethe technology to manipulate digital media is developing at break-neck speeds, the technology to contend withits ramifications is lagging behind.

Digital watermarking has been proposed as a means by which an image can be authenticated (see, for ex-ample, [12, 3] for general surveys). Within this broad area, several authentication schemes have been proposed:embedded signatures [10, 24, 25, 18, 2], erasable fragile watermarks [11, 9], semi-fragile watermarks [16, 23, 28,15], robust tell-tale watermarks [27, 14, 28], and self-embedding watermarks [8]. All of these approaches workby either inserting at the time of recording an imperceptible digital code (a watermark) into the image, orextracting at the time of recording a digital code (a signature) from the image and re-inserting it into the im-age. With the assumption that tampering will alter a watermark, an image can be authenticated by verifyingthat the extracted watermark is the same as that which was inserted. The major drawback of this approachis that a watermark must be inserted at precisely the time of recording, which would limit this approach tospecially equipped digital cameras. This method also relies on the assumption that the watermark cannot beeasily removed and reinserted — it is not yet clear whether this is a reasonable assumption (e.g., [4]).

In contrast to these approaches, we describe a class of statistical techniques for detecting traces of digitaltampering in the absence of any watermark or signature. These approaches work on the assumption that al-though digital forgeries may leave no visual clues of having been tampered with, they may, nevertheless, alterthe underlying statistics of an image. Consider, for example, the creation of a digital forgery that shows a pairof famous movie stars, rumored to have a romantic relationship, walking hand-in-hand. Such a photographcould be created by splicing together individual images of each movie star and overlaying the digitally createdcomposite onto a sunset beach. In order to create a convincing match, it is often necessary to (1) re-size, rotate,or stretch portions of the images; (2) apply luminance non-linearities (e.g., gamma correction) to portions ofthe image in order to adjust for brightness differences; (3) add small amounts of noise to conceal evidence oftampering; and (4) re-save the final image (typically with lossy compression such as JPEG). Although thesemanipulations are often imperceptible to the human eye, they may introduce specific correlations into the im-age, which when detected can be used as evidence of digital tampering. In this paper, we quantify statisticalcorrelations that result from each of these specific forms of digital tampering, and devise detection schemesto reveal the correlations. The effectiveness of these techniques is shown on a number of simple syntheticexamples and on perceptually credible forgeries.

? 6211 Sudikoff Lab, Dartmouth College, Hanover NH 03755 USA (email: farid@cs.dartmouth.edu; tel/fax:603.646.2761/603.646.1672). This work was supported by an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, an NSF CAREER Award (IIS-99-83806), an NSF Infrastructure Grant (EIA-98-02068), and under Award No. 2000-DT-CX-K001 from the Office for Do-mestic Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (points of view in this document are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security).

“The Old Version Flickers More”:Digital Preservation from theUser’s PerspectiveMargaret L. Hedstrom, Christopher A. Lee, Judith S. Olson,Clifford A. Lampe

A b s t r a c t

Most criteria for evaluating digital preservation strategies are based on needs and require-ments from the archivist’s perspective. In the CAMiLEON Project, we wanted to learn whatsignificant properties users consider worth preserving. In this article, we present the results of two experiments that used human subjects to learn about user preferences for differentformats of preserved digital objects. We tested subjects’ reactions to digital materials that werepreserved using three common methods: 1) conversion to a “software-independent” format;2) migration; and 3) presenting the original bitstream using emulation. The results of thisexploratory study suggest directions for further research and help archivists understand howuser needs and preferences may inform selection of preservation methods. Further researchon the effectiveness of emulation and migration needs to account for the quality of the emulator, the impact of specific approaches to migration on document attributes and behav-iors, and numerous aspects of the original computing environment that may affect the userexperience. Research on the importance of authenticity should consider how users judgeauthenticity and the tradeoffs they are willing to make between using the original source andthe ease of access and use.

For more than forty years, archivists have debated the best strategies andmethods for preserving digital information. They hold strong opinionsabout the feasibility and effectiveness of different digital preservation

strategies, whether preserving data in software-independent formats, migra-tion, or emulation. Most evaluations of these strategies have been based on therelative merits of theoretical models, pilot projects, or practical experience in

T H E A M E R I C A N A R C H I V I S T

T h e A m e r i c a n A r c h i v i s t , V o l . 6 9 ( S p r i n g / S u m m e r 2 0 0 6 ) : 1 5 9 – 1 8 7 159

SOAA_SP10 23/5/06 3:33 PM Page 159

A FEW PEOPLE TO FOLLOW[INCOMPLETE LIST, BUT OH WELL]

@EUANC

@MKIRSCHENBAUM@TEXTFILES@KARIKRAUS

@DOUGRESIDE

@ITPARCHIVE@AVPRESERVE@UMD_MITH@JUSPAR@JENGUILIANO@JONVOSS@EMORYDISC@READYRESOURCESAND MANY MORE……