Government Uses Color Laser Printer Technology to Track Documents

[sleipnir214]

This PCWorld article describes how color laser printer manufacturers are encoding the machine's serial number on every document the printer produces.

This is the first time I've come across this and I'm of two minds about it.

Does anyone have comments on the ethics of this? Are there potential abuses?

 

[alexhu]

Interesting - but how are they going to track who has ownership of the machine - think bulk / discount buying, second users, repaired / returned kit being sold off. Really sounds like a complete waste of effort

Alex

 

[manarth]

As Slashdot article says, Xerox have been doing this for 20 years, "ostensibly...to track down money counterfeiters"

I can't say I'm particularly bothered about this.

<marc> i wonder what will happen if i press this...[ul][li]please tell us if our suggestion has helped[/li][li]need some help? faq581-3339[/li][/ul]

 

[chiph]

I realize that I would never see the faint yellow dots on the paper, but at the same time the purist in me is saying that the printer hasn't faithfully reproduced the document I told it to.

Note to future counterfeiters: Be sure and send in your product registration card. You'll be glad you did.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[Dimandja]

I am not sure this is necessarily a brilliant idea. I mean, how does this affect international commerce? Do you really think this makes foreign or even some local customer want to buy this type of "spyware"?

In fact, I heard China was shunning Microsoft products (in favor of open-source) precisely because of this kind of stupidly "hidden" features.

 

[Thadeus]

Maybe I'm missing the point, but couldn't you just program additional characters to print, making the numbers unusable?

Wouldn't there be other easy methods to make the numbers illegible or unusable so long as you knew the machine was one that printed that way?

As with all of these type "security measures", isn't it really just out there to deter those who might consider counterfeiting as opposed to those that are good at it?

Sort of like the emtpy black camera globes in some stores.
1) There is no camera
or
2) There is no staff to look at monitors even if there is a camera

The black globe keeps those who might shoplift from doing it, but does nothing to stop those that "know" what they are doing......

~Thadeus

 

[skiflyer]

I say there's nothing wrong with it if I'm told upfront during the sales pitch. I personally wouldn't avoid buying a copier with this function in it, but I should be able to choose and vote with my money... or if it's going to be mandated across the board, than I'd like some transparency.

My only issue is that the more I've heard about this lately, the more it sounds like it's been going on for ages and ages without really informing the customers.

 

[sleipnir214]

Yeah, that's the part that bothers me, too.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dollie]

Are the "dots" there if I print a totally black page? If so, it sounds like a defective printer that needs to be returned.


Two thumbs down for this goofy idea.

 

[harebrain]

So do your counterfeiting anonymously at Kinko's!

Seriously, if you use a public printer, the forensic trail ends at the printer. That makes the whole scheme rather easy to defeat.

 

[Dimandja]

>That makes the whole scheme rather easy to defeat.

The clever people who came up with this idea know that all criminals are not bright.

 

[lespaul]

all criminals are not bright.

and working in the criminal justice system, I have proof of this on a consistent basis.

My favorite, the female police officers are undercover on a prostitute sting - arresting the Johns. A group of gang bangers is across the street from the sting and is warning the Johns that it's a bust, "She's a cop - don't do it!!" types of comments.

Well, of course the police go across the street to stop the gang bangers from harrassing them, and bust the gang bangers for selling crack!!!

I would give them a 10 for stupidity!!!



Leslie

 

[willir]

I feel that we need to safe guard ourselves against others who use technology for their slef-serving greedy needs.

Before, counterfittnig was limited to "artists-gone-bad". Although there are a log of bad people out there, very few had the skill set to engrave their own plates.

But with the improvement of scanners and printers, many more of the bad apples can now get into the counterfitting business, and it is costing all of us tons of money. Yea, the bank or government may take the "hit", or we may loose a $20 every once in a while, but as a society, this racket is costing us a lot more than you may think.

I am for it. The "feature" does not interfere with the quality of photographs I print of my kids or my project reports, and "big-brother" is only going try to track down the bad apples. (And how will they track down the bad apples?? Well, maybe the serial number thing may allow the cops to gather evidence and see what the scope is for bad guys they just caught.)

And by the way, companies that sell scanning equipment are apparently also on board for catching the bad guys. Hmmm. let's put a cookie on this PC when I see "$20" and "20 dollars" being scanned or printed alot, perhaps I will this info to Uncle Sam. Hmmm. spyware for a good cause.

But I do draw the line on privacy. For example, I am not real fond of the idea of fingerprinting people at boarder crossings. Yuck!

 

[Dimandja]

>But I do draw the line on privacy. For example, I am not real fond of the idea of fingerprinting people at boarder crossings.

So, you will let Usama into new York City unmolested, but will insist on nailing the occasional gambling boss?

__________________________________________
Try forum1391 for lively discussions

 

[willir]

Dimandja

By saying that I am not keen on finger printing visitors is not the same as me saying that I would welcome Usama to New York. Give me a break.

But finger printing so many people is a huge inconvenience at a huge cost and, in my opinion it is an invasion of privacy.

I feel that finger printing so many people would not be a guarantee to stop another horrifc tradagedy that occurred on 9/11. If you have the finger prints of 100 no-goods on file, there will be the 101st no-good who may get in.

I wish I had an answer to the problem on stoping the bad guys from entering a country or from causing more harm -- I dont. I am truely sorry.

But, have you considered that person doing the counterfitting may not be just a "gambling boss"? It could also be a terrorist in action to a) raise money for his evil cause, and b) frustrate the police, banks, business and public.

 

[sleipnir214]

willir:
You're right -- fingerprinting people entering a nation's border will not necessarily stop the bad guys from entering that nation.

But I think a nation has the responsibility to deterministically identify the people who enter its borders.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[langleymass]

Eventually, we are going to have to split up. Those who want to be slaves can live as slaves in a slave society. If that's what you want, then fine. Those of us who don't want that will end up starting a colony someplace. Your desire to live as a slave does not give you the right to demand that others choose the same life.

The potential for abuse with something like this is pretty dangerous indeed. I will certainly look into it the next time I buy a printer of any type.

 

[CajunCenturion]

The potential for abuse with something like this is pretty dangerous indeed.

The potential for abuse exists with virtually everything. Where do you draw the line?

How do you distinguish between 'invasion of privacy' and 'provide for the common defense'? Can you distinguish? Are they, at least to some degree, mutually exclusive?

The USA government is chided for allowing 9/11 to happen and for failures in the intelligence community, and for failures in law enforcement to prevent it. Ok. But then you don't allow the intelligence tools or law enforcement the use of tools to properly investigate because it is an invasion of privacy, or has the potential for abuse. Where do you draw the line?

I wish I knew. I wish somebody knew.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[craigsboyd]

But then you don't allow the intelligence tools or law enforcement the use of tools to properly investigate because it is an invasion of privacy, or has the potential for abuse. Where do you draw the line?

It's a good question and one of the reasons that a democracy works so well. We all draw the line where we think it should be... then those lines are either averaged out or they are compared to a serious of predefined line choices and the one closest to the majority is chosen and implemented. For me, if a line becomes blurry due to good arguments for both defense and privacy, I side with privacy. Why? Well, the right to privacy is ultimately more important to me than being kept safe. It also prevents me from indecision when it's 50-50.

I don't/didn't chide the government for 9-11, though I know many do/did. I beleive for the most part that we are all doing the best we can with the cards dealt. That's the optimist in me.

This encoding added to documents does not strike me as a privacy issue (or at least that's not what bothers me about it). I am sure that will be/is the biggest outcry against it, but I side with those above who have expressed a little consternation at an apparatus that is not functioning the way it should and is not reproducing documents/images accurately.

http://www.sweetpotatosoftware.com

 

[willir]

Very interesting thread.

From photocopies / laser printing with micro-encoding to 9/11.

At the risk of being shot down again, perhaps a lesson learned from our past.

My wife was American, at it amazed me how liberal she and her friends were in sharing their SSN, social security number. Later, I worked for a US company, and they used the SSN number for identification within IT, security access, etc. I have also seen it where the number was requested during loan applications, and even when purchasing something frmo a store - with cash! This makes sense from one perspective since everyone has only one SSN -- there are no duplicates, and you have the same number for life -- you wont forget it.

This still amazed me since the SSN is so critical to taxation, salary, banking info, etc. I gre up in an environment where the taxation number was not shared except only to those who had a business need to have the number -- banks (taxes on earning, retirement savings, etc), government and the employer -- nobody else.

That was then. Now people have learned that by sharing such an important and very personal number, they leave themselves vulnerable to identity theft. While I worked for the US company, towards the end of my term, there was a sudden turn in policy where the SSN number was not used. (Another argument I won after 3 or more years)

...Movin on
Things change. The problem with a policy or procedure is that it is cultivated out of a current need. For example, old laws still on the books for days gone by. (Hand turn signals while in a car because way back when, there were no turn indicators.) But people may forget the history or culture which lead to a certain dicsion -- made sense then, but unless you have an idea of what lead to the decision, the decision may seem very weird.

The other thing that changes is how people take advantage of policies or procedures that were adopted for one reason way back when.

Using the SSN identification number as an example, it made sense to use this unique number to identify a person. But as time moved on, the number was then used for a different purpose.

I feel the threat for finger printing visitors to a country, or the use of other biometrics has the same risk. Yes, a finger print uniquely identifies me. So does my iris pattern. But my passport with photo or a requried visa also identifies me.

I know, you say that a passport can be forged. Well, crooks and other nasty's have also learned to forge bar codes, duplicate magentic cards, etc. If finger printing becomes important to identification, the nasty's will then turn their attention to forging this too. Maybe not today, but much sooner than you may think.

So I have three complaints about this approach.
- I personally feel it is an invasion of my personal privacy. My finger print is mine. I am not a crook and I have not done anything wrong to be treated like one. This makes me shudder with thoughts of "1984" by George Orwell.
- What ever is used to identify a person for transportation or finacial purposes will become a focus point for forgery. I would personally not want a "part of me" to be forged.
- Would this finger printing be used for other purposes? For example, by using finger printing, let say in the future, stores could perform their market surveys by seeing who touched what display model followed by a successful purchase.

...Moving on.
The original question was about micro-encoding laser printing. I do not have a problem with this since...
- It is not a personal part of me. I may print a report for management, photos for the in-laws, or birthday invitations for my kids. These could be public documents -- it would not bother me. (Now early love letters would be another matter, so I will hand write these;-)
- I have nothing to be afraid of since I do not break the law.
- For the time being, it may help incriminate some bad guys "out there" before the bad guys figure a way around the technical problem.