EXIF says when a file was created. Anyone can change EXIF.
EXIF is the metadata block embedded in JPEGs and most camera-output images: capture date, GPS, device model, exposure settings. People sometimes cite EXIF as proof a photo was taken on a specific date. This is a category error. EXIF is editable in any free tool (ExifTool, online editors, Photoshop) in seconds. Forensic examiners treat EXIF as a starting hint, not as evidence — and any half-competent attacker assumes the same. Receipts.you's signature is cryptographic: SHA-256 over the file bytes, ECDSA over the hash, OpenTimestamps anchor over the signature record. No part of that chain is editable with a free tool — or any tool. EXIF tells you what the file says about itself. The receipt tells you what the file actually was at the timestamp.
EXIF is editable metadata; it's a useful hint but it's not evidence. A receipts.you receipt is cryptographic and externally anchored; it survives every form of post-hoc editing. If your evidence is going anywhere it might be challenged, the receipt is the answer; EXIF is not.
Pick receipts.you if…
- Your evidence will be reviewed by anyone competent (lawyer, journalist, forensic examiner).
- You need the timestamp to be un-editable, not just self-asserted.
- Opposing counsel / a hostile reviewer will challenge EXIF dates.
- You're sealing a screenshot (screenshots typically have no useful EXIF anyway).
- You want the proof to survive across file format conversions that strip EXIF.
Pick EXIF metadata if…
- You're doing first-pass categorization where 'when does the camera say it was taken' is a useful quick hint.
- All parties are cooperative and EXIF will not be challenged.
- You need GPS or device-model context the camera embedded (this is EXIF's primary legitimate value).
- You're a photographer organizing your own library by capture date and you trust your own camera's clock.
Axis by axis
| Axis | receipts.you | EXIF metadata | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editability | Cryptographically un-editable. | Editable in seconds with ExifTool, online editors, or Photoshop. | receipts.you |
| External verification | Signed by our key, anchored to public blockchain. | Self-asserted; no external anchor. | receipts.you |
| Survives format conversion | Yes — receipt URL works regardless of format conversions of the original file. | No — most conversions strip EXIF. | receipts.you |
| Works on screenshots | Yes — primary use case. | Screenshots typically have no useful EXIF date — only the screenshot-tool's output time. | receipts.you |
| Useful for camera-side context | No — we don't capture device metadata. | Yes — GPS, device, exposure settings, etc. | the other tool |
| Forensic-examiner acceptance | Treated as cryptographic evidence (high weight). | Treated as a hint to investigate further (low weight standalone). | receipts.you |
| Cost | Free. | Free (embedded in file). | both / tie |
| Setup | Open URL, drop file. | Comes with the file from the camera. | both / tie |
Specific questions about this comparison
I've seen 'EXIF date' cited in news articles as evidence. Is that wrong?
Often yes. EXIF dates are routinely cited carelessly. A responsible reporter pairs EXIF with corroborating evidence (chain-of-custody documentation, cryptographic timestamps, other witnesses); a careless reporter cites EXIF alone and gets corrected later. The cryptographic primitives behind receipts.you produce the kind of evidence forensic examiners actually trust.
Can I use both — EXIF for context, receipt for proof?
Yes, and that's the right pattern. EXIF is a useful starting point: device, GPS, exposure. The receipt is the proof the file existed in its current form at the timestamp. Together they cover both 'what does the file claim about itself' and 'what does cryptography prove about the file'.
Does receipts.you preserve the file's EXIF?
We don't see or modify the file. The image stays in your browser; we receive only the SHA-256 hash. If your file has EXIF, it has EXIF; if it doesn't, it doesn't. The receipt is about the bytes, not about the metadata. The hash covers the EXIF too — any edit to the EXIF changes the hash and breaks verification, so a sealed file's EXIF is implicitly locked alongside the pixels.
Is there any case where EXIF is the right evidence?
When you control the camera, you trust its clock, you're working with cooperative parties, and the GPS / device fields are what you need. Many photographers' personal-library workflows fit this. The moment your evidence might be challenged by anyone, EXIF stops being sufficient.
Why are people still citing EXIF dates as proof?
Two reasons: (1) EXIF is right there in the file, no extra tooling required, so it feels like proof. (2) Most people have never seen ExifTool's edit command and don't realize how trivial it is to rewrite EXIF. Education on the limits of EXIF is slow; cryptographic alternatives like receipts.you are part of the alternative.
Stop pretending EXIF is evidence.
Seal what matters cryptographically. The fifteen-second free edit nobody can do to a receipt is the difference between evidence and metadata.