D4 Image Authentication
that was claimed to be legal prof that the imaged had not been altered from what was taken by the camera...
It was claimed; but the claim was false.
The private key that the hardware inside the camera used to digitally sign the image file could, with some knowledge, cost and effort, be extracted from the camera, and used on a computer to sign the modified image file. Even before that was demonstrated, I haven't heard of any case where the court placed more faith in that hardware "feature" than it would place in the evidence-custody testimony of a forensic technician that used a digital camera without such cryptographic signature hardware module.
Even if the hardware performed as advertised, what could possibly prevent the forger to photograph a modified image instead of a real-life scene and end up with an apparently valid, camera-signed image file?