"Jason Cormier" <fjlij@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BCDBF6E6.98C3E%fjlij@hotmail.com...
> On 5/27/04 18:15, in article
> QLttc.57826$S94.16001@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com, "necoandjeff"
> <spam@schrepfer.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> That's the only valid reason I can think of for using that naff
> >> date-stamp "feature" of point-and-shoot cameras. Digital cameras have
> >> EXIF data, which includes the date and time, but maybe that's too
> >> high-tech for landlords to comprehend.
> >>
> >> Of course, both can be diddled by resetting the date of the camera.
> >
> > Yep. Way too easy to fake which means landlords may have a tendency to
> > laugh. Sealed envelope is a little more compelling. So, that means there
is
> > ABSOLUTELY NO reason for those stupid date stamps that people like to
> > plaster all over otherwise perfectly good photographs...
> >
>
>
> If one is going to all that trouble, why not add the front page of a
couple
> of that day's national dailies to each shot?

Because that means nothing. You could buy some newspapers when you move in,
hold on to them for a few years, then use them to take the picture.
Newspapers in photos are only good for showing that the picture was not
taken any *earlier* than the date of the newspaper. They're useless for
proving that the picture was not taking any later.

Jeff