Currency Detection Discovered in More Products

it's a test... by dirtyboot · 2004-01-20 07:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's actually just a test for the true roll-out, which will prevent the reproduction and distribution of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Re:it's a test... by Metallic+Matty · 2004-01-20 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's actually just a test for the true roll-out, which will prevent the reproduction and distribution of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It is not, however, blocking the patirot act reproductions at this time.
Re:it's a test... by Thud457 · 2004-01-20 07:19 · Score: 0
1. Scan in currency
2. Print out 1000 copies
3. PROFIT!!! errrr.... Get a visit from the secret service!!
--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:it's a test... by ArmenTanzarian · 2004-01-20 07:20 · Score: 1

and instead will direct you to diebold.com
Re:it's a test... by cubicledrone · 2004-01-20 07:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Would anyone recognize them?

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Re:it's a test... by Stripe7 · 2004-01-20 07:27 · Score: 1

The true rollout will attempt to send am message to counterfit@secretservice.gov logging who you are and when you attempted to scan the notes in. :)
Re:it's a test... by Jucius+Maximus · 2004-01-20 07:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't know if this is too new. One guy living in England told some me years ago that you can't photocopy currency on photocopiers. They just come out black.

In all honesty, I think that something like this is a bad idea because it relieves governments of the responsibility of making currency that is hard to counterfeit. Sooner or later, someone hardcore (probably a crime ring) with their own equipment will come along and duplicate poorly designed currency, making a whole bunch of fake currency that is undetectable.

This is the same as what's going on with the DMCA. People are afraid to reveal vulnerabilities they have found in software so the things go unpatched, and then someone with a very evil agenda will come along exploit the problems that were not fixed due to silly restrictions.

The 'release now, patch later' doctrine is widely used in software ... but I would not want to see it applied in something like currency.
Re:it's a test... by jasonditz · 2004-01-20 07:32 · Score: 1, Flamebait

" It's actually just a test for the true roll-out, which will prevent the reproduction and distribution of the Constitution and Bill of Rights."

I find that highly doubtful, as it would assume those initiating this roll-out were aware of the existance of a Bill of Rights to begin with, a highly dubious proposition.
Re:it's a test... by bigman2003 · 2004-01-20 07:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

This has been going on for a long time. In fact, I had a Kodak color copier back in 1995 that did the same thing.

--
No reason to lie.
Re:it's a test... by Winkhorst · 2004-01-20 07:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

As a former photoengraver and member of the IPEU, now the GCIU, I can assure you that at one time it was illegal to make ANY kind of reproduction of American currency. The rules have now been relaxed a bit, but I personally would never do it. It's just too difficult to prove you weren't trying to counterfeit. My father worked with a fellow who claimed he was just "seeing if he could do it" after someone found a plate he left sitting in the water tank in the etching room overnight. He ended up with a long vacation to Leavenworth, Kansas. This is not a joke, and the Feds have no sense of humor about it at all.

--
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Re:it's a test... by great_flaming_foo · 2004-01-20 07:41 · Score: 1

The 'release now, patch later' doctrine is widely used in software ... but I would not want to see it applied in something like currency
Hell, I don't even want to see it applied to software! Seriosly, they are trampling they rights of ordinary citizens in an effort that is not even effective.
Re:it's a test... by Smidge204 · 2004-01-20 07:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think that the inability to photocopy the currency is due to how the note was made (special inks) and not so much a mechanism in the copier itself.

I don't think the government is looking to relevie themselves of the responsibility, just taking it to the next logical (?) step... their concern is to make the money hard to duplicate. This is just another mecanism to do that.

Doesn't mean I like it, though.
=Smidge=
Re:it's a test... by Woody77 · 2004-01-20 07:44 · Score: 1

It's not new at all, as others have said.

However, the REAL counterfitters, the ones that make lots of money at it, invest in it. They buy the same printing presses, the same paper, and they do it right.

If someone scans/prints (US) money, you should easily be able to tell the difference by feel of the paper alone, due to the cotton content of real money. Although that's work-aroundable.
Re:it's a test... by Woody77 · 2004-01-20 07:47 · Score: 1

The 'release now, patch later' doctrine is widely used in software ...

And now due to Sorbanes-Oaxley (or however you spell/pronounce the damn thing), software companies that do this have to be very careful about deferred income reporting in the US. It's really, really ugly.

If you tell a customer that you're going to fix problem X in an upcoming patch, you have to defer the income from their buying the software until you release the patch, because they *might* have only bought the software when they did because they knew the patch was coming.
Re:it's a test... by Short+Circuit · 2004-01-20 07:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I agree that it's a bad idea, but I disagree why. I don't like the idea of software I pay for not doing what I instruct it to do.

From a government (and a practical) standpoint, however, it's a good idea. After all, when solving any problem, two prongs are better than one.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:54 · Score: 0

you can't photocopy currency anywhere on any photocopiers, I'm reasonably sure. just like checks. they have 'security features' and they all come out blank or black or whith large black spots.
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:54 · Score: 0

This has nothing to do with Sarbane's/Oxley. That's an overstatement of the accounting principles being enforced.
Re:it's a test... by gnu-generation-one · 2004-01-20 07:57 · Score: 2, Funny

"One guy living in England told some me years ago that you can't photocopy currency on photocopiers. They just come out black."

I hear you can buy colour copiers in England now...
Re:it's a test... by pbox · 2004-01-20 07:57 · Score: 1

That makes me wonder if GIMP has this "featurette". If yes, who put it there?

--
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:00 · Score: 0

I call BS.

I have, in fact, copied and used those same duplicated bills in low-end vending machines. The crappier ones just look for light/dark patterns in the corners. it works fine.
Re:it's a test... by seanscottrogers · 2004-01-20 08:07 · Score: 1

The latest 8+ megapixel cameras constitue a threat against copying money as well. Should my holiday vacation photos come out black because someone in the background had their wallet out?
Re:it's a test... by adrianbaugh · 2004-01-20 08:10 · Score: 1

That sounds dumb. What's to stop you releasing software and claiming that there will be a patch issued to correct the fact that the Help -> About function has a whole heap of spelling mistakes.
Later, the patch turns into vaporware, but you keep having to defer the income so your balance sheet shows no profit. Bang! No taxes due.

I assume the IRS have thought of this?

--
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Re:it's a test... by tepples · 2004-01-20 08:12 · Score: 1

Some resume papers, especially those made by Crane, feel just like U.S. currency paper but don't have embedded red and blue fibers.
Re:it's a test... by Safety+Cap · 2004-01-20 08:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

~ you can't photocopy currency on photocopiers. They just come out black.
That is an urban legend.
My first job while in High School was working at a print shop. After hours, the printer (this 1,000 year old man who knew...everything about printing) would show me how to do all kinds of things. One day we made red one-dollar bills (so that if somehow we got caught, we'd only get 5 years instead of 20 :)) to see if we could do it. What we came up with was very close, and considering that we used last-century's technology, very impressive. After the experiment was over, we burned the results.
If you want to get going with a major operation, you'd need plates (a home printer/professional printer can't get the fine dots that you get from plates) and a good supply of the special rag bond they use. The most important thing, and the hardest to reproduce, is the seal where they imprint two colors (green and black) in the same spot. Now with the watermark and embedded strip, you'd need to treat the paper to get those features before you printed the image.
EVEN EASIER: (I've seen this happen several times) Take a twenty and a ten. Rip the short edges off (the part that has the denomination numbers) and swap. Now your bill with 70% ten and 30% twenty is a twenty. Take the rest of the twenty to the bank to get a new one (as long as it is 51%+, they'll do it), and use the franken-bill at a shop for $20 worth of goods!

--
Yeah, right.
Re:it's a test... by localhost00 · 2004-01-20 08:20 · Score: 1

Ooops. DMCA Violation. Expect the Feds to come pounding on your door.

--
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Re:it's a test... by Dave2+Wickham · 2004-01-20 08:21 · Score: 1

What rights, exactly?
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:22 · Score: 0

Step 1: Remove Ethernet cable from Ethernet Card
Step 2: Scan Currency.......... Awe crap, the Feds are at my door.........
Re:it's a test... by ePhil_One · 2004-01-20 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

But its new to the Slashdot home page, which makes it current and exciting news. Besides, pointing out that Canon refered to this feature in their marketing materials for their color photocopiers 8 years ago makes it difficult to pin on the Patriot act.
The reality is they are trying to remove the temptation from the casual counterfiter, cranking out a few cheezy twenties on the office copier to stretch their paycheck a few more beers. Most of these dumbasses are too stupid to realize they're commiting a serious fedral crime, and that often they are just waiting for you to cross that magical barrier that makes it a serious crime.
Sorta like the clerks skimming twenties from the drawer thinking they are getting away with it when management is waiting for the $$ amount to hit the "felony" level, recording everything on videotape.

--
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Re:it's a test... by travd · 2004-01-20 08:39 · Score: 1

I call shenanigans on that 51% thing. If that were true you could just rip up two bills such that you turn in two-thrids of a bill three times, increasing your cash by 50% in the process. I think the real criteria used by banks includes the presence of the serial numbers, etc.
Re:it's a test... by bshort404 · 2004-01-20 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny

You're either a troll or an idiot.

The 51% has to be from the same bill. You can't mix and match. i.e. you couldn't take 51 bills, shave a 1% slice off the edge and then spend the 51 bills while turning in the 51 shavings for a brand new dollar.

--
-B
Re:it's a test... by travdaddy · 2004-01-20 08:53 · Score: 1

Of course, the bank would probably get suspicious if you did the franken-trick several times...

--
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
Re:it's a test... by LarryX · 2004-01-20 09:01 · Score: 2, Informative

51% is right. The gov employes people to carefully go through and count money from accidents (fire exposed, roted, etc.) Then refunds the money as long as 51% is there.
Re:it's a test... by chill · 2004-01-20 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bzzzt! Wrong. The bank doesn't want 51% of the bill, they want both serial numbers. Your 51% must show both serial numbers or they should deny your request for a replacement.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:it's a test... by Wingie · 2004-01-20 09:03 · Score: 1

Currently the design department I work for uses an older model Canon color copier that has conterfiet protection built in, so if you try to photocopy American currency it will come out black and green. Personally, I don't really see why it was installed, since the photocopier's quality isn't all that good to begin with. The problem is just that--the copier sucks. So it thinks EVERYTHING that has some green in it is American currency. (Oh, if only people thought the same.) So we have to bypass all protection by copying everything at 100.5%. Yes, apprantly Canon thinks that people cannot tell the difference between a real dollar bill and one printed on lower-quality paper and is signifigantly different in tone and color, while anyone can tell that a dollar bill that is 100.5% bigger is a fake. It's annoying, but we deal with it--we spent the money on an $4000 G5 instead. Mmmm...

--
read the bunni comic
Re:it's a test... by Carewolf · 2004-01-20 09:03 · Score: 1

It is not in the copier. It is in the currency. It simply cannot be read by the scanner in an old-fashioned photo-copier.
Re:it's a test... by Safety+Cap · 2004-01-20 09:04 · Score: 1

Okay, whatever. You're still not ripping off the serial numbers, so by your criteria, you'll still get your $20 back.

--
Yeah, right.
Re:it's a test... by camusflage · 2004-01-20 09:11 · Score: 2, Funny

It is not, however, blocking the patirot act reproductions at this time.

As I understand, this code is actually actively encouraging the reproduction of the PATRIOT Act by allowing reproductions with updated version numbers to be copied at will.

--
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Re:it's a test... by chill · 2004-01-20 09:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

I had this discussion over Christmas. A friend of mine's wife has been a bank teller for several years. They get lots of training on this sort of thing.

They're not supposed to take bills like the ones you describe -- with the ends ripped off. That scam is decades old. Of course, some most certainly do, but they aren't supposed to. There are a few other things that tip them off, too. I can't remember a lot of them now, but if they're busy a lot of it just slides by.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:20 · Score: 0

" It's actually just a test for the true roll-out, which will prevent the reproduction and distribution of the Constitution and Bill of Rights."

The constitution and bill of rights have no copyright. It is a felony to copy US currency. What leap of irrational logic got you from preventing the copying of US currentcy to preventing copying of the Constitution or bill of rights, I'll never understand. It's not funny if it doesn't make sense.
Re:it's a test... by Marillion · 2004-01-20 09:27 · Score: 1

According to some of the articles I've read, Adobe was provided binary code that implements the feature by the US Treasury.
Given the Open Source nature of Gimp, I'd be hard pressed to see that the feature would RUN on my DEC Alpha workstation FreeBSD much less in GIMP which I had to compile myself.

--
This is a boring sig
Re:it's a test... by Xoder · 2004-01-20 09:38 · Score: 1

You know things are messed up when something that (IMHO) was meant in jest is rated as Insightful.

Like how the Onion often becomes oddly prophetic.

--
The previous sig has been removed due to /. protecting your best interests
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:47 · Score: 0

The right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't breach any law, fucktard.
Re:it's a test... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2004-01-20 09:54 · Score: 1

>In all honesty, I think that something like this is a bad idea because it relieves governments of the responsibility of making currency that is hard to counterfeit.

Only if they think a single security measure is enough. Fortunately, governments continue to put hard-to-copy features into their currency. Adding currency detection to programs like Photoshop makes sense (ONLY!) as part of a package of measures including special paper, undercover Secret Service agents, trained bank tellers etc.

The threat countered by changing Photoshop is that of medium-dumb counterfeiters planning to pass small quantities at vending machines and McDonalds. There's a completely different set of deterrent measures targeted at professionals.

Seriously, anyone in security should look at banknote protection (especially outside the US) as a good example to learn from. A lot of hard-won experience went into controlling forgery and the effort has been successful at keeping the counterfeiting problem at a tolerable level.

For a quick overview, see the chapter in Ross Anderson's _Security Engineering_.
Re:it's a test... by zapp · 2004-01-20 09:55 · Score: 1

I doubt that anyone ... well, almost anyone... is dumb enough to accept a bill clearly marked $10 as a $20. Just because the plastic strip inside says it's a 20, the visible and highly recognizable part of the bill still has $10 written all over it.

--
no comment
Re:it's a test... by cfuse · 2004-01-20 09:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

... and a good supply of the special rag bond they use ...
Not in Australia. Why? I'm glad you asked: It's because our money is made from plastic.
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:00 · Score: 0

Why not? The current aadministration already prohibits it's enforcement . . . .
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

then you have obviously never worked in a mall at christmas. people at the front of a line which stretches from the back of the store to the front hand you piles of mangled bills. you will not notice until you sort your drawer at midnight that one of these bills has washington in the middle and $20 at the four corners. they don't try this on a wednesday morning in june, though. money changers spend hours practicing their various scams. clerks usually get fooled badly once, then never again.
Re:it's a test... by Dave2+Wickham · 2004-01-20 10:08 · Score: 1

You mean the right to put currency detection functions in your products? Doesn't breach any law...
Re:it's a test... by Safety+Cap · 2004-01-20 10:13 · Score: 1

I doubt that anyone ... well, almost anyone... is dumb enough to accept a bill clearly marked $10 as a $20.
It is very easy. Ever been to a football game? Ever try to get to the concessions stand at 1/2-time? Imagine in all that crush of people that you slip a frankenbill to the worker? Think he'll notice? Heck no--he's too busy trying to add up the cost of your Pretzel, Hot Dog, Chips, Candy and Beer. This is why some places have different people handle the cash than those who take the orders.

--
Yeah, right.
Re:it's a test... by sunking2 · 2004-01-20 10:16 · Score: 1

In all honesty, I think that something like this is a bad idea because it relieves governments of the responsibility of making currency that is hard to counterfeit. Sooner or later, someone hardcore (probably a crime ring) with their own equipment will come along and duplicate poorly designed currency, making a whole bunch of fake currency that is undetectable.

I really don't see how you come to this conclusion. Did I miss the part where they are laying off half of the secret service because the govt is realying completely on this?

All this does is creates a really cheap way to keep people (like a bunch of kids just goofing around) from doing something and getting into a bunch of trouble. In the long run it saves money. What kid with access to a scanner hasn't thought of the old scan the money scam. Everyone does. Even if a very small percetage actually were to do it do you really want to spend the time and energy stopping it after the fact?
Re:it's a test... by SacredNaCl · 2004-01-20 10:26 · Score: 1

So we have to bypass all protection by copying everything at 100.5%. Yes, apprantly Canon thinks that people cannot tell the difference between a real dollar bill and one printed on lower-quality paper and is signifigantly different in tone and color, while anyone can tell that a dollar bill that is 100.5% bigger is a fake.

This isn't to stop those bills being used against humans, it's to stop those bills being used against machines. In the not too distant past you could use a simple black and white copier to run one side of a bill and use them in whatever vending machines you wanted. Some of the machines that were simply there to provide quarters (say at car washes) got hosed royally. Enough people were doing it that it created a serious drain on resources for the secret service. (They would much rather be busting teenage hackers, threatening the presidents enemies, and going after major players in the counterfeit game.) Some of those machines that will accept that are still around, but the ability to make the copies as easily has decreased.

My understanding of the "law" in regards to copying money was that you have to blow it up to 150% of it's size for it to be legal.(I hope this is still correct, don't take it as gospel, I'm not a lawyer.) Tons of reporters and photographers take pictures of money and have to comply with that.

--
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 11:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

:: ~ you can't photocopy currency on photocopiers. They just come out black.

: ~ That is an urban legend.

Some currencies simply do not photocopy. Not because of what the photocopier manufacturer has put in to the copier machine but because of the limitations of the technology.

Do you ever remember news readers wearing stripey shirts or ties and they'd flicker on the screen because of the interlace effect. Something similar with photocopiers happens - the detail is too fine for the scanners to pick up and they get it messed up.

About 15 years ago I did a project at school on the security features of Bank of Scotland notes and it was quite amazing. Under an ultra-violet light a hidden thistle (the national flower of Scotland) would illuminate. The metal strip through the note weaved between the front and back. The pattern of the weave was morse code for B.O.S. The picture was made up of hundreds of lines swirling like the contour lines on a map (if you take a powerful magnifying glass you'll see that the lines are not solid but made up of the words "Bank Of Scotland" in a minute font.

The original posters comments about Bank of England notes photocopying black in a photocopier may be correct. I vaguely remember something about a coating they put on notes in England that absorbs certain frequencies of light. Under a UV lamp the note goes very dark whereas if you take normal paper it goes very bright because of the bleach they put in the paper.

So, although I've never tried it I would suspect that it is not possible to photocopy a BofE note.
Re:it's a test... by Alan+Cox · 2004-01-20 11:47 · Score: 3, Funny

The bank and currency people know its only one small item in the arsenal, but until they get rfid in money with digital authentication and biometrics in passports it raises the barriers when its in a printer.

In software its plain dangerous. If you are going to rob a bank remember to wear $20 notes blown up in various sizes all over your shirt, and be happy law enforcement can't open the footage 8)
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 11:51 · Score: 0

Are all australians so smug and quick to brag?

Not in Australia. Why? I'm glad you asked: It's because our money is made from plastic.

Which is perfect. Since no one ever uses plastic in any other way, it'll be much harder to get ahold of.
Re:it's a test... by sessyargc · 2004-01-20 11:55 · Score: 1

actually here in the Philippines import of COLORED PRINTERS are controlled!

--
- not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted
Re:it's a test... by cheekyboy · 2004-01-20 12:24 · Score: 1

The government is the biggest counterfeiter around, every year they 'print' more cash out of thin air, disguised as 'credit' which manifests itself in 'inflation' of 2-3% (200billion). This 3% increase in actuallity causes a 3% decrease in value of the other 6.6trillion $ in cash floating around in peoples pockets. Just check the m1.2.3 money supply charts at the FED or financialsense.com

So in one step the govt/fed prints cash out of thin air, and steals 3% from everyone aswell.

Welcome to the real crooks in charge.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Re:it's a test... by cheekyboy · 2004-01-20 12:34 · Score: 0

Nothing more evil than what the fed/banks do daily in printing cash out of thin air, except its legal for them, but not legal for YOU.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 13:08 · Score: 0

banks do not print their own money. currency production belongs to the US government, treasury department
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 13:24 · Score: 0

Of course, the bank would probably get suspicious if you did the franken-trick several times...

Umm, you do realize there is more than one bank out there, right?
Re:it's a test... by lucifer_666 · 2004-01-20 13:41 · Score: 1

In the US? Nope, look at that note in your pocket again. See Federal Reserve? That's who prints your notes. A private corporation, the Federal Reserve, owned by about 15 guys.
It started in 1938. You to learn more about your own history. It started when a private club got together, put in private funds and said to the US government "we'll get you out of financial trouble. but you must use our notes."
Hence, US banknotes are intrinsicly worth nothing. They're literally only worth what someone else is willing to give you for them.
You can't even swap them for gold.
Re:it's a test... by sootman · 2004-01-20 15:19 · Score: 1

>>you can't photocopy currency on photocopiers. They just come out black.

>That is an urban legend.

Not entirely. At the publishing company where I have worked for 8 years, we have had many Canon color laser copiers. (CLC 700, 800, 1000, 3100, and others.) A rep told me (and I tested it) that if you photocopy a bill it will pour a bunch of cyan and yellow and some black over the whole page, making the whole thing a deep green. You could still make out the bill but it was the wrong color. And once, while photocopying some art of a forest with similar colors, I had the same result. Not all copiers do this, but some definitely do.

Speaking of which, we publish school textbooks. No word from Adobe yet how we're supposed to produce our next math books. As other threads have pointed out, we are 100% allowed to use images of real money, as long as it is smaller (75%) or larger (150%) than real, and used for informative (as opposed to decorative) purposes.

No restrictions on printing coins, AFAIK.

And another way to pass bad bills: take four $20s and cut one corner off each. Tape the corners to a $1. The $20s are still usable and the $1 will probably fly, since it feels real, since you used real paper. Note: I have never done this, just saw someone accept one at an old workplace once.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:it's a test... by rpresser · 2004-01-20 16:12 · Score: 1

Gold is intrinsically worth nothing, either. In a community where there is a famine but everyone has plenty of gold, just try swapping gold for food.

Value is a mental concept, not a physical property.
Re:it's a test... by _Stryker · 2004-01-20 16:33 · Score: 1

And here is a link supporting the 51% claim.
Re:it's a test... by lucifer_666 · 2004-01-20 16:34 · Score: 1

I've not heard of the community that has more gold than food.
No, golds value lies in:
1. It's a shiny metal, thats yellow
2. It is a strong and durable material
3. While strong, it is also a soft metal
4. It is a great conductor
5. Main reason: it's reasonably rare and limited.
That's the real value of gold. In fact, number 5 really sums up "value"
Say you're a country.
If you print more notes, the "value" of each note is less. You are "worth" the same. It's just you have more notes to represent the same worth. Just printing notes, and thereby diluting their value, is called "inflation." Because the US keeps printing more Federal Reserve notes, each "dollar" is "worth" less in terms of "value." That's why many prices double every 20 years or so.
You can't print more gold, it's a scarce and limited resource. But if you can find more gold, dig it up or something, the "value" of the original gold remains the same, and as you have more gold, you are "worth" more.
Re:it's a test... by fred911 · 2004-01-20 16:35 · Score: 1

Real US dollars are embossed. Blind people can easily tell the difference between printed currency and currency bond.

Ya gotta laugh at the drones that use an iodine (or starch forget which) pen to test if the bill is real.

Anyone with 1/2 their wits can tell by feel.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:it's a test... by urtica · 2004-01-20 16:35 · Score: 1

More Info on security features in Australian currency, from the Reserve Bank.
Re:it's a test... by rpresser · 2004-01-20 17:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Reason 1 is silly. Reason 2, 3, and 4 make sense but only to prove the utility of gold, not its value. And reason five ...

5. Main reason: it's reasonably rare and limited.

So is dinosaur shit.

Look, I'm not trying to seriously say that gold is of no worth in the real world. I'm just trying to say that it is worth something because people have decided it's worth something. I'm trying to draw a distinction between worth (aka value) and utility (aka usefulness). (The aka equivalences are my own, and probably imprecise or inaccurate if you ask an economist.)

You can't print more gold, it's a scarce and limited resource. But if you can find more gold, dig it up or something, the "value" of the original gold remains the same, and as you have more gold, you are "worth" more.

Nitrates used to be extremely, extremely valuable. Own a guano island and you had it made. The value was there because guano islands were rare. But fertilizers are useful, not valuable. The value of guano dropped quite a bit when artificial fertilizers were developed. The utility remains; the value has dropped.

If someone had a reliable method to produce gold in enormous quantity (a transmuter, or mining the asteroids, or filtering seawater ...) gold's value would disappear. Its utility would not.

Petroleum was nearly worthless before the industrial revolution. Its value changed because its utility changed. The value was not inherent in the material the whole time; it changed because people decided it was worth more.

I know I'm beginning to wade quite out of my depth here, since I have no real understanding of modern economics. But I still think that value is what people are willing to say it is.
Re:it's a test... by lucifer_666 · 2004-01-20 17:37 · Score: 1

...since I have no real understanding of modern economics
Yeah, neither do I, but lets keep going anyway, I'm having fun :-)
If someone had a reliable method to produce gold in enormous quantity (a transmuter, or mining the asteroids, or filtering seawater ...) gold's value would disappear. Its utility would not.
This, I think, is the key. There is no method to produce gold, reliably or unreliably, in enormous quantity or small quantity.
However, to produce bank notes, all one requires is the correct press, plates, ink and paper. All rare and hard to come by, sure, but producable. Unlike gold.
I aggree that value is what people are willing to say it is. But if you have one ounce of gold today, you can buy, say, 100 bags of wheat. That same wheat may cost you say $350 in US dollars today.
In ten years, the 100 bags of wheat will still cost you one ounce of gold. But if you're paying in US dollars, the price may be $700.
The buying power of each dollar is less with each dollar printed, whereas the buying power of each ounce of gold remains the same, regardless of how much is dug out of the ground.
I think ;-)
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 20:04 · Score: 0

I imagine that there would be at least a huge amount of card carrying red necks... I mean trigger happy f-ers.... sorry, I'll try again, this typing torrets is a pain.

I imagine that there would be at least a huge amount of card carrying NRA members that would recognize if the second ammendment was altered. Of course, they'd prefer the copy protection to alter it to say :

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. All arms may be field tested against any liberal who excercises the previous ammendment in a manor which may attack this ammendment.
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 20:15 · Score: 0

Does a $10 or $20 bill merit anyones attention anymore. I mean even a $50 isn't really that valuable anymore, but, it's where I would imagine paying attention may start.

Let's face it, at least here in norway, it's not unusal to pay $20(135kr)for a sandwich at Subway. That's a double meat BMT with bacon.

Or for example, a Music CD in the store costs about $30 U.S., if I were to buy 2 CD's (which is what'd I buy once per year to last the year), if I were to pay with a 500kr bill (about $75), the clerk wouldn't think anything of it any time of the day.

So really, I can't imagine that the store clerks in the U.S. would even care about a $10 or a $20
Re:it's a test... by Safety+Cap · 2004-01-21 02:12 · Score: 1

So, technically if it is 50.0001%, then it is good :)
Officer, this here fibre is part of the 1/2 bill I showed you, so give me my money!

--
Yeah, right.
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 03:03 · Score: 0

1. You arent allowed to have full-sized reproductions of Currency.
2. You arent allowed to have Green-colored
reproductions of Currency.
3. You must clearly write "Reproduction" on the currency.

Otherwise, its counterfeiting. Fair use, schmair use.
Re:it's a test... by God!+Awful+2 · 2004-01-21 05:21 · Score: 1

In all honesty, I think that something like this is a bad idea because it relieves governments of the responsibility of making currency that is hard to counterfeit. Sooner or later, someone hardcore (probably a crime ring) with their own equipment will come along and duplicate poorly designed currency, making a whole bunch of fake currency that is undetectable.

If counterfeiting photocopiers were illegal, only criminals would have counterfeiting photocopiers?

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 06:43 · Score: 0

> In ten years, the 100 bags of wheat will still cost you one ounce of gold [whereas it'll cost more $].

That's the incorrect assumption, I think. Both gold and the US Dollar have fluctuating market value, although gold tends to fluctutate less. If more gold is dug up, the value of the existing gold, doesn't stay the same -- it changes.

Diamonds are another good example. The value of the diamond is not a fixed point, it's set artificially by DeBeers, who controls the world's diamonds. Artificial diamonds flooding the market WILL affect this value (which is happening, as we've all read).

Point: Value is always arbitrary, determined by demand. Even if something's value has been constant for thousands of years, it doesn't mean it's inherent.
Re:it's a test... by Bumbledum · 2004-01-21 10:22 · Score: 1

Hahahahaha! The Constitution and Bill of Rights were abandoned first at the time of Abraham Lincoln, then with W. Wilson and income tax/federal reserve, then with FDR with social security, prosecution of "gold hoarders" and japanese "camps", then Johnson with Medicare, Medicaid, dept of Education, etc. Nixon gave us illegal "federal districts" and now Bush Jr. with the "Patriot Act" and "homeland security." Are you just now figuring this out? If so, good. If not, it's too late. Tuck

--
Keep on pondering, and suddenly the flower of mind will bloom with enlightenment, illuminating the whole universe.
Re:it's a test... by karit · 2004-01-21 21:49 · Score: 1

Well here in New Zealand our notes are plastic and they are also textured, so I would really like to see on try to copy our notes.

--
http://blog.karit.geek.nz/
Re:it's a test... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-22 05:59 · Score: 0

Also, the market value of 100 bags of wheat flucuates much more wildly than either the dollar or gold. Since it's so climate and pest control depedent, it will probably drop dramatically in price over time as farmers learn to control those two variables, so your ounce of gold might get you two or three hundred bags of wheat instead of just the same amount...
Re:it's a test... by mrquicknet · 2004-01-26 05:16 · Score: 1

Its not an urban legend but its not always true either. I "know" of someone who would test out copiers just to see if they could. They never did the backsides hoping to show they weren't really trying to counterfeit if they got caught. Some machines do copy just black. If you cover up most of the bill the rest of the bill copies fine. This has been going on for years but I only know of it working on color copiers.

--
--------- Steve Martin once said, "Sex is the most natural, most beautiful, most wonderful thing that money can buy."

note design changes by geoff+lane · 2004-01-20 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

what happens when the note design changes?

Re:note design changes by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:15 · Score: 0

maybe they add the new design to their drivers?
Re:note design changes by hookedup · 2004-01-20 07:15 · Score: 1

The next 'update' of the software would more than likely remedy the situation.
Re:note design changes by pla · 2004-01-20 07:23 · Score: 5, Informative

what happens when the note design changes?

As many people have pointed out, in every Slashdot FP on this topic, the detection algorithm works by finding a pattern of five small circles in a particular configuration (which looks vaguely like the Cingular logo, without the head-dot).

This same pattern occurs on US, Canadian, EU, and presumeably many other forms of world currency, so the same algorithm can detect all of them, without modification (and more usefully, without a huge library of bill designs that needs constant updating as various countries change the pictures on their money).

To make a new bill design fit the detection algorithm, the government needs only include that pattern of five circles somewhere in the design.

I included a link to a PDF of the pattern in a Slashdot post from a few days ago, if you want to see it.
Re:note design changes by kidgenius · 2004-01-20 07:23 · Score: 1

When they design new currency, the designers try as best as possible to re-create the patterns, in the same spots, that certain machines look for. Granted, they can't know about every piece of software/hardware, etc., but they will try to cover the wide majority of everything.
Re:note design changes by eggoeater · 2004-01-20 07:29 · Score: 1

RTFA:

I have an HP 130 photo printer and found the string "http://www.rulesforuse.org" embedded in the driver.

--
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
Re:note design changes by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2004-01-20 07:29 · Score: 0

Same as any game with items. New update, you have about 2 weeks where its legit, then they start duping again.

--
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Re:note design changes by Quixadhal · 2004-01-20 07:35 · Score: 1

Soooooo, you mean I can no longer print out my own Monopoly Money???? Bastards!

Seriously, what if I'm a game designer (I wish!) and wanted to print out samples of a game currancy to play-test something? My printer decides it's real money and won't do it?

Why is everyone suddenly convinced that products need to protect themselves? There are ALREADY laws making counterfeit a crime. There are already laws making the use of counterfeit currency a crime. There is this thing called a court system, where they used to hold things called trials... and if guilt can be established (yeah, they used to have to PROVE guilt, weird huh?) people went to jail.

Now, everyone is a criminal, so the products just don't let you use them for anything that MIGHT be a crime. I can only assume that Thought Crime is almost ready, and that anyone who might even be thinki...

Yes officer! No Sir! I was only&#**.,as83f

NO CARRIER
Re:note design changes by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2004-01-20 07:37 · Score: 1

Phase 1) get nude pictures of britney spears with currency logo imprinted over it
phase 2) ???
phase 3) mass annoyance!

--
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Re:note design changes by Planesdragon · 2004-01-20 07:41 · Score: 1

Seriously, what if I'm a game designer (I wish!) and wanted to print out samples of a game currancy to play-test something?

You make your own play design, don't include the "this is money" bit, and it's all fine and good.

(sheesh. Some people.)
Re:note design changes by planetmn · 2004-01-20 07:45 · Score: 1

Why is everyone suddenly convinced that products need to protect themselves? There are ALREADY laws making counterfeit a crime. There are already laws making the use of counterfeit currency a crime. There is this thing called a court system, where they used to hold things called trials... and if guilt can be established (yeah, they used to have to PROVE guilt, weird huh?) people went to jail.

And it is illegal to steal someone's belongings, yet you probably lock your doors/windows, possibly have a security system, and probably have insurance in case somebody wipes you out. Why is everyone on slashdot convinced that by having a law alone is enough protection and that no other measures should be taken?

It is also illegal to shoot the President, but we have the Secret Service protect him. Same principle.

Repeat after me: the world is not a huge conspiracy theory.

--
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
Re:note design changes by Xesdeeni · 2004-01-20 07:55 · Score: 1

I don't see this pattern on the new $20. Is it there?

Xesdeeni
Re:note design changes by Short+Circuit · 2004-01-20 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just because there's already a law making something illegal doesn't mean that additional steps can't be taken to make enforcement easier.

The problem is when these additional steps clash against civil liberties and fair/non-illegal use. (That is to say, there's almost always something wrong with the scheme.)

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:note design changes by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

So something like this is used (and probably a handful of ther things we don't know about)...
I would think that any suitably motivated person could find away around this problem ---who says the dots can't be blocked or altered to make the pattern disappear? Make a copy without the dot pattern. Big deal.

I don't know about you, but I don't even notice the dot constellation on the currency I hand over...and I don't have any pattern recognition software getting input from my retina....Yet.

Slippery slopes anyone?
Re:note design changes by ChrisKnight · 2004-01-20 08:17 · Score: 1

>As many people have pointed out, in every Slashdot
>FP on this topic, the detection algorithm works by
>finding a pattern of five small circles in a
>particular configuration (which looks vaguely like
>the Cingular logo, without the head-dot).

So, if you want to use your softare to print legally modified graphics, you just need to white out this pattern before scanning. Or, erase/obscure the pattern in the image before printing.

Sounds like a simple solution to allow graphics designers to create fair use graphics that would fail a counterfeit detector for lack of the expected pattern.

-Chris

--
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Re:note design changes by bugnuts · 2004-01-20 08:28 · Score: 1

These designs aren't necessarily trying to protect themselves, but make it more difficult for someone to experimentally do something nasty. It's like locking up a bicycle -- it won't stop a determined thief.

Recently a couple teens were arrested for photocopying $5 bills and trying to pass them. This technology would stop the idiot that doesn't really belong in jail, from being more of an idiot.

One other thing it does: it makes it more easily prosecutable. If the counterfeiter had to go through many hoops to create the fake currency, there's much less chance there will be any doubt as to intent.
Re:note design changes by rworne · 2004-01-20 08:30 · Score: 1

On the very newest bill design?

I don't have one of them in front of me, but I noticed them earlier when my bank was handing them out via the ATM.

Look closely at the bill, the circles are in a faint yellow color all over the surface to the right of the picture on the front. You can barely see them, but they are there.

--
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Re:note design changes by Buran · 2004-01-20 08:33 · Score: 1

It's on the back, in the form of the zeros in the little yellow "20" symbols floating around. It's low-contrast and hard to see.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:note design changes by localhost00 · 2004-01-20 08:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are ALREADY laws making counterfeit a crime. There are already laws making the use of counterfeit currency a crime.
True criminals don't give a shit if Action X is illegal. They just do it.

--
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Re:note design changes by supergreentriangle · 2004-01-20 08:36 · Score: 0

I am on a 12month round the world holiday, and I have pulled out some of the currency i have managed to collect along the way. I have found the circles on the Euro, the Pound, and Canadian dollar. These circles only appear on one side of the note. Coming from Australia, we have plastic money. All our notes are made of a polymer which increases the life of a note by 4 times. http://www.noteprinting.com/sc02_home.html
Re:note design changes by localhost00 · 2004-01-20 08:37 · Score: 1

Look on the back and study the gold 20s. The zeros make up the patterns.

--
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Re:note design changes by Sir+Holo · 2004-01-20 08:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

five small circles in a particular configuration

But, there must be more. Photoshop CS won't open a scan of the front of a new US $20, either. I can't find the pattern of circles there anywhere.
Re:note design changes by uberdave · 2004-01-20 08:43 · Score: 1

I've seen some of the currency from down under. Brilliant job. Incredibly tear resistant. Some places are completely transparent. Durable, and difficult to fake. Good on ya.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Re:note design changes by localhost00 · 2004-01-20 08:44 · Score: 1

Maybe if you look on the right side, you have that green seal with the word TWENTY printed over it. That may be where the dots are.

--
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Re:note design changes by Heraklit · 2004-01-20 09:15 · Score: 1

So, if everything works that simple, someone will soon create a GIMP plugin for watermarking and thereby copy-protecting arbitrary pictures.

What happens? There will be masses of print-protected pictures on the web. Everybody goes crazy, and the protection will have to be backed out of printer drivers because of heavy customer demand...
Re:note design changes by High+Hat · 2004-01-20 09:46 · Score: 1

And what if someone simply uses GIMP (which probably won't include this kind of DRM until it is a law to do so) to replace one of the circles in the pattern with, say, white noise?
Re:note design changes by Xesdeeni · 2004-01-20 09:59 · Score: 1

So, what, we can copy the front but not the back?

Xesdeeni
Re:note design changes by budgenator · 2004-01-20 10:48 · Score: 2, Informative

The website is owned by the european central bank and has linked listing rules of use for currency images for numerous countries.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:note design changes by spaceyhackerlady · 2004-01-20 10:51 · Score: 1

The patterns are subtle on the new Canadian $5 and $10 notes, but as far as I can tell:
Front: the circular pattern that's the background for the signatures.
Back, $10: the yellow floral pattern between the peacekeeper and the dove.
Back, $5: the yellow pattern next to the toboggan.
...laura
Re:note design changes by CastrTroy · 2004-01-20 10:54 · Score: 1

Back? how do we determine which side is the back? I'm assuming you mean the side without the picture of some dead president on it. How is it really determined that this is the back though?

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:note design changes by Pseudonym · 2004-01-20 12:28 · Score: 1

Closer to home, have a look at the new (well, not that new) Australian $5 note. You'll see the circles on the wattle to the right of Catherine Helen Spence's head. Bottom branch, half-way along.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:note design changes by Sevn · 2004-01-20 12:44 · Score: 1

This is why gun laws are pretty stupid.

--
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Re:note design changes by onevista · 2004-01-20 14:36 · Score: 1

So what happens when someone puts a small inkdot on the five circle pattern?
Re:note design changes by ejdmoo · 2004-01-20 16:58 · Score: 1

Hence the term, greenbacks. The back side is green. Simpler than you thought, huh? :)

Nothing new by Uber+Banker · 2004-01-20 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

What is also interesting is that these products block fair uses of currency images which do not break the law.

Just like most machines, they will minimise the chance of taking a fake rather than maximising not refecting a non-fake. They probably have some kind of level of statistical signigicance of 'error' they are happy with. New tech is not fool-proof tech.

Re:Nothing new by canthusus · 2004-01-20 07:20 · Score: 1

What is also interesting is that these products block fair uses of currency images which do not break the law
And the exported products block copying US currency in non-US parts of the world. Now... does it just block dollars, or also euros? What about dinars?
Re:Nothing new by __past__ · 2004-01-20 07:30 · Score: 1

Euros too, and many more. I guess at least all that are mentioned at rulesforuse.org

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.

When they... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:15 · Score: 0, Funny

When they counterfit scanners only counterfitters will have scanne... er, um never mind.

We can use this ourselves by h4rm0ny · 2004-01-20 07:15 · Score: 4, Funny

What I really want to be able to do is to incorporate this signature into my own images. It could be used to provide a modicum of image protection from the technophobes, or else to annoy people. I found a few details on how it works here. I particularly like a comment from one guy about how it blocks scanning of $20 bills...

"You can still scan a $10 bill twice."

:D

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.

Re:We can use this ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually, I've thought about this. I don't have complete information about the Eurion pattern, but if it's scalable to larger sizes, it could be interesting.

I was thinking of T-shirts with this design on them so that photographs of you (think driver's license, passport) can't be photocopied.

A little rubber stamp with this pattern on it so that you can copy-proof any document you want (do you want the IRS photocopying your 1040? Nah!)

Anyway, not terribly handy I admit, but a great way to wrench up the works.
Re:We can use this ourselves by torpor · 2004-01-20 07:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its a good point. I'd really like to know how to create an image which cannot be opened in Photoshop, legally. This could be a *significant* means of civil disobedience over this issue.

Hell, give me a 'no-open' watermark, and I'll go ahead and add it to -every- image I have write access to ...

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:We can use this ourselves by Jim_Maryland · 2004-01-20 07:50 · Score: 1

Imagine the fun you could have adding these marks to documents that are typically scanned.

...pictures two students taking SAT's. First student goes to the restroom, second student adds circular marks to first students SAT paper.

Really though, the ability to create anti-copy documents would be kind of interesting. I wonder is someone like Reuters or Associated Press has considered using this to control distribution of their photos. They can give out a copy with the marks, but in order to use it, they need one without the marks.

Jim
Re:We can use this ourselves by wideBlueSkies · 2004-01-20 07:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

>> little rubber stamp with this pattern on it so that you can copy-proof any document you want (do you want the IRS photocopying your 1040? Nah!)

Yeah, but you can bet that the IRS, Police, FBI, Military, and every other government agency will have copiers and scanners that don't look for the symbol.

wbs.

--
Huh?
Re:We can use this ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:55 · Score: 0

Well, seeing as most of the government now purchases off the shelf, there goes that idea.
Re:We can use this ourselves by cgenman · 2004-01-20 07:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

do you want the IRS photocopying your 1040? Nah

My interactions with the IRS lead me to believe that they would simply throw it out and claim that you never sent it in, all the while cashing your check and filing a claim against you.

Never underestimate the power of laziness.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:We can use this ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:59 · Score: 0

You underestimate the self-defeating power of cocky self-righteousness. I'm sure the feds really think that this feature will never hinder normal use and can only hinder counterfeiting. Since the feds don't counterfeit, why would they need special copiers?

Not to mention, the IRS in particular is just like any other office environment. They're not all men in black flying around in black helecopters, you know.
Re:We can use this ourselves by Politburo · 2004-01-20 07:59 · Score: 1

iirc, from previous articles, this only applies to color copiers/printers/etc. i seriously hope the irs isn't using color copiers to copy forms.
Re:We can use this ourselves by phorm · 2004-01-20 08:06 · Score: 1

To heck with that... too bad I can't tattoo it, but maybe I'll just have it inscribed with felt-marker on my forehead before going through areas which I don't want my picture being recorded.
Re:We can use this ourselves by gnu-generation-one · 2004-01-20 08:11 · Score: 1

"I was thinking of T-shirts with this design on them so that photographs of you (think driver's license, passport) can't be photocopied."

Put it on cafe press, and post a link here... Somebody with a digital camera, a recent copy of photoshop, and a marker pen should be able to find out the right size...

I wonder how good the size tolerance needs to be? Exactly 1mm when scanned, we think?

In fact, a digital camera might not have the detection facility, it might need to be something that can be scanned...
Re:We can use this ourselves by dogdaze · 2004-01-20 08:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Or put the pattern on your car license plate and stop those pesky red light cameras from printing images.
Re:We can use this ourselves by anticypher · 2004-01-20 08:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

At last year's CeBIT trade show there was a company selling paper they claimed could not be photocopied. It was about 50euros for a box of 25 sheets, or I'd have bought some (I'm going again this year, so if I see that booth again I'm buying a box). The pages appeared to be covered with pale yellow circles that would trigger the anti-currency algorithms in photocopiers. There was also some moire-pattern thin blue lines around the corners, very thin but probably enough to be picked up by the optics.

Supposedly the exact spacing and pattern of circles is trademarked and copyrighted. But I could see making it a watermark pattern for my important documents, but now I'll have to make sure I use a printer which doesn't have anti-currency technology. As a matter of fact, that would make a good test document to screw with sales droid's heads. Now I'll have to DL a pirate copy of photoshop CS so I can test the pattern and spacing :-)

An even cooler application would be a rubber stamp with a pad of pale yellow ink that fluoresces. Stamp it all over documents you don't want government departments to easily photocopy. The circles would be almost invisible to the naked eye, the poor civil service drones would probably give up the case after a few attempts keep breaking their machines.

the AC
There goes my evening...

--
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Re:We can use this ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:21 · Score: 0

That's a pretty good idea, espically when the cop cams have this kind of anti-copy stuff in them (it whites out the entire frame, or just the area). Then you've basically got a T-Shirt of Invisibility (+5 to hit). And yes, it's been done in sci-fi of course.
Re:We can use this ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:09 · Score: 0

One flaw with your plan, at least in the US: Most photos for photo-id have requirements for the picture (i.e. picture must be a certain size; your face must be a certain size in the frame, etc...). Your T-shirt won't be showing up in frame.
Re:We can use this ourselves by Tassach · 2004-01-20 10:25 · Score: 1

maybe I'll just have it inscribed with felt-marker on my forehead
Hmmm. I recall a relevant quote: "... no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or name of the beast, or the number of his name."
Just goes to show you that you can prove just about any point you want to make by selectively quoting the Bible.

--
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Re:We can use this ourselves by Witchblade · 2004-01-20 10:37 · Score: 1

I think most geeks already have DO NOT REPRODUCE marks. Pimples, black trench coats, or threadbare Star Wars t-shirts all appear to be very effective.
Re:We can use this ourselves by HiThere · 2004-01-20 10:46 · Score: 1

So you take the rubber stamp, and apply it to your forhead and your hand.

(Well, the forehead makes some sense, but putting the mark on your hand seems a bit strange.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:We can use this ourselves by HiThere · 2004-01-20 10:49 · Score: 1

Does it say (tm) next to the pattern? I think that's required for trademarks. And I don't think that copyright could be legally used to protect this. A patent, perhaps? That would work. (But you may still need to display a mark showing that is't patented. At least, all the Kleenex boxes did [the pop-up design I'm guessing, but I never checked].)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:We can use this ourselves by GMFTatsujin · 2004-01-20 11:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Supposedly the exact spacing and pattern of circles is trademarked and copyrighted.
As in they control who can make a copy of the pattern?

Talk about self-referencial. They got a copyright on an uncopiable design. I'm laughing my ass off.
Re:We can use this ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 11:23 · Score: 0

Meh, I can still copy a 2001 series $20 as well. Or 1999, or 1996, each of which I just found in my wallet, and I got those out of the ATM outside my bank.
Re:We can use this ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 11:29 · Score: 0

All I have to say to that is o o o o o
Re:We can use this ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 11:37 · Score: 0

We buy the same stuff you do
Re:We can use this ourselves by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2004-01-20 12:32 · Score: 1

Forehead.
Tattoo.

And when Digicam's have this technology embedded, no one will be able to photograph you! CCTV camera will simply show a shadow where you were.

The downside is that if they upgrade the software you've gotta get your tattoo laser-removed and re done.

Oh, and plus you look really stupid with five circles on your head!
Re:We can use this ourselves by fruitbatUK · 2004-01-20 12:53 · Score: 1

I wonder how good the size tolerance needs to be? Exactly 1mm when scanned, we think?

I don't think size tolerance can be too important, though relative positioning of the circles will be. People have reported that they can't load certain images which contain part of a dollar bill into photoshop. If the image was scanned outside of photoshop then it can't know the DPI used for scanning (or printing, if done outside of photoshop).

I haven't found any software which I have which contains the anti-counterfeiting code. From a scanned and enlarged image I calculated the coordinates and came up with a PS file which looks to have the right pattern when compared with 10 pound and 10 Euro notes. Anyone want to check for me?

%!PS-Adobe-3.0 %%Pages: 0 %%BoundingBox: 60 30 100 70 %%EndComments %%EndProlog .4 setlinewidth newpath 76.059952 59.850120 1.083513 0 360 arc closepath stroke newpath 88.536771 57.223421 1.083513 0 360 arc closepath stroke newpath 80.000000 50.000000 1.083513 0 360 arc closepath stroke newpath 73.433253 47.701639 1.083513 0 360 arc closepath stroke newpath 81.313349 43.301918 1.083513 0 360 arc closepath stroke showpage %%Trailer
Re:We can use this ourselves by sootman · 2004-01-20 15:27 · Score: 1

Your shirt isn't visible much in a license photo. OTOH, you could put it on your resume so companies can't scan & OCR it looking for "MCSE", etc. :-)

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:We can use this ourselves by metamatic · 2004-01-23 02:25 · Score: 1

My plan is to print it out on stickers and posters and put them up in places where people take vacation photos.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Quick Google Search by SiliconJesus · 2004-01-20 07:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

And I came up with this obviously acedemic images of the Euro. I'm sure that no matter what is put into place by the creators of the drivers, there will always be a way around them.

--
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.

Re:Quick Google Search by avij · 2004-01-20 07:51 · Score: 1

Sorry, but those images are not scanned Euro notes. They are probably some early drafts of the early Euro notes. The EU stars on the backside are different, and the stripe on the right edge of the note is only visible on the 5, 10 and 20 Euro notes. It's a hologram stripe, btw. For comparison, see this wikipedia entry.

--

Follow your Euro bills at EBT
Re:Quick Google Search by PhB95 · 2004-01-20 11:36 · Score: 1

You're right, the images are the early versions put out by the ECB before introducing the currency. They were deliberately grossly unaccurate, in order to complicate counterfeiters life and thus delay the appearance of counterfeit Euros. In particular, the colours are totally false.
The pictures you pointed to, have also somewhat faulty colours, but they are very closer to the real thing

--
One of those Europeans...

Just use an old version.. by junkymailbox · 2004-01-20 07:16 · Score: 2, Funny

dont support the new version and be done with it ..

Spyware? Wrong term I think. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is this software/hardware reporting back to someone that you're trying to duplicate currency? I doubt it, so it's likely not spyware. The incentive they have is simply to help the government fight counterfeit currency. Do you want your goods to be purchased with fake money? I don't.

All ready slow! by nubbie · 2004-01-20 07:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

To: BugTraq
Subject: HP printers and currency anti-copying measures
Date: Jan 17 2004 5:10PM
Author: Richard M. Smith
Message-ID:

Hi,

Last week, the Associated Press reported that Adobe has incorporated
anti-copying technology in their Photoshop CS software which prevents users
from opening image files of U.S. and European currency. Here's the article:

Adobe admits to currency blocker
http://tinyurl.com/2xnno

(http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,14 13 ,87~11271~1882929,00.html)

I did some investigating on my own computer and discovered that HP has also
been shipping currency anti-copying software in their printer drives since
at least the summer of 2002. I have an HP 130 photo printer and found the
string "http://www.rulesforuse.org" embedded in the driver.

According to a few newsgroup messages posted in 2002 and 2003, folks are
seeing this URL printed out when they attempt to print images of certain
types of bills. An HP printer with this anti-copying technology only prints
out an inch of a currency image before aborting the print job.

Here is a list of HP printers which appear to have this anti-copy technology
embedded in their Windows printer drivers:

HP 130
HP 230
HP 7150
HP 7345
HP 7350
HP 7550

I suspect the list of affected HP printers is much longer.

I located these printer drivers simply by searching all files in my Windows
and Program Files directories for the string "rulesforuse". If other folks
run this same experiment, please let me know of other programs which appear
to contain currency anti-copy technology.

There are some unanswered questions raised by this quiet effort by U.S. and
European governments to turn home computers into anti-counterfeiting "cops":

1. Besides graphic programs and printer drivers, what
other kinds of software is this currency anti-copy
technology being embedded in?

2. Are companies being required to include currency
anti-copying technology in their products? If not,
what incentives are being offered to companies to
include the technology on a voluntary basis?

3. Will future versions of this technology, "phone home"
to the rulesforuse.org Web site with details about
a violation of the currency copying rules? It would
be very easy to include an email address, name of the
image file, software version number, etc. embedded in
a URL to the rulesforuse.org when a violation has been
detected.

Richard M. Smith
http://www.ComputerBytesMan.com

--
'Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes, aaarrrrrrrr!' -- Minsc

Re:All ready slow! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

In Canada this was reported bigtime in mainstream news in 2003 with the introduction of our new currency. Our bills now remind me of the old dutch guilders.

The news stated that _ALL_ coping equipment would come with the detection devices by 2004. Some people have tested this and it has resulted in loss of equipment, it actually causes photo copy machines to self-destruct when they detect the money. You then have to call for service, and the technician gets a nice message about how it self-destructed....and why. Lucy, you have some 'splain to do!!
Re:All ready slow! by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-20 07:40 · Score: 1

Here is a list of HP printers which appear to have this anti-copy technology embedded in their Windows printer drivers: This could have a negative effect on open source drivers. Look at it from the perspective of a paranoid legal department: "We want to limit our liability by putting this technology in our printers. It would be easy to remove the technology from open source drivers. Therefore, no open source drivers." They might also think, "The technology is proprietary, so we can't make open source drivers.
They would be forgetting that they aren't (or shouldn't be) liable for the use of their printers, that it's also possible to remove the technology from binary drivers, that it would be possible to put it in a binary library, and that the whole thing is stupid anyway. But these are exactly the types of factors legal departments always overlook, so I think it will be a bad thing for open drivers.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:All ready slow! by Phillup · 2004-01-20 08:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

How can I justify to management that I bought a printer that won't print what I told it to print?

As far as I'm concerned, the product is defective.

Looks like it is time to remove HP from my printer supplier list...

Any others?

--

--Phillip

Can you say BIRTH TAX
Re:All ready slow! by pHDNgell · 2004-01-20 08:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Do you work for the mob?

The printers don't refuse to print money, they refuse to print what they think might be money.

Also, keep in mind, it's legal to produce one-sided color images of US currency as long as it's big or small enough.

--
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
Re:All ready slow! by Frizzle+Fry · 2004-01-20 08:20 · Score: 1

But these are exactly the types of factors legal departments always overlook

I'm not sure you should blame them. These are also the types of factors courts may overlook, and the legal department can't take that risk. I think the problem here is that the legal department isn't being unduly paranoid. The change needs to come from our laws (or how laws are enforced) first.

--
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Re:All ready slow! by Total_Wimp · 2004-01-20 08:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's what makes using DRM (which this is, basically) vs. using open source such a battle. You can't simultaneously have modifiable source code and un-modifiable DRM.

Possibility 1: Because open source flourishes, DRM will be marginalized.

Possibility 2: Because DRM flourishes, open source will be marginalized.

Possibility 3: There is no possibility 3. One or the other is going to be slowly die down to irrelevance. Right now open source actually seems to be winning. I hope it stays that way.

TW
Re:All ready slow! by Phillup · 2004-01-20 08:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you work for the mob?

No... much worse.

;-)

I'm one of those people that expects machines to do what they are told to do... *exactly* what they are told to do.

More importantly, I expect my machines to do exactly what I tell them to do.

Any machine that doesn't, I consider defective.

Might have something to do with why I don't do Windows too...(unless I'm paid for it)

--

--Phillip

Can you say BIRTH TAX
Re:All ready slow! by Marillion · 2004-01-20 09:43 · Score: 1

I recall an article from a previous Slashdot Post on the subject about Adobe that Adobe was provided a pre-compiled binary from the government that implemented the detection algorithm. Adobe engineers absolutely couldn't see the code.
It stands to reason, that HP would be in a similar situation which is probably why this feature is implemented in the driver. The Windows driver and presumably MacOS too.
The significance of this is that it's not really part of the printer firmware. The detection algorithm is on the same side of the printer cable as the OS. Okay, I'm splitting hairs because many users won't or can't make a distinction between their computer refusing to print and the printer refusing to print.

--
This is a boring sig
Re:All ready slow! by Thomasje · 2004-01-20 09:44 · Score: 1

Possibility 1: Because open source flourishes, DRM will be marginalized.
Oh, please.
Compare the following wishful-thinking statement from the 1970's:
Because so many people are having fun doing drugs, draconian anti-drug laws will disappear.
Check your dictionary and look for the word repression.
Re:All ready slow! by Total_Wimp · 2004-01-20 10:03 · Score: 1

Check your dictionary and look for the word repression.

Or simply check my post and look for "possibility 2"

:-)

TW
Re:All ready slow! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:39 · Score: 0

I expect my machines to do exactly what I tell them to do.

Any machine that doesn't, I consider defective.

Might have something to do with why I don't do Windows too...

I've never had any problems getting Windows to do what I tell it.

Me: "Fuck off and die, you piece of crap software!"

* Windows dies *
Re:All ready slow! by bobbozzo · 2004-01-20 11:20 · Score: 1

How would everyone feel if car manufacturers put limiters in all their new cars that prevented them from going over 75MPH, so you wouldn't be able to break the law (at least on Interstates)??

--
Nothing to see here; Move along.
Re:All ready slow! by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-20 11:38 · Score: 1

Interesting. So even the government is relying on security through obscurity. *cough* constellation of blue circles *cough*
I did infer that from grandparent, but its interesting to know (thirdhand) that the binary comes from the government. I wonder if they would provide Linux object files if asked. Frankly, I'd prefer it to be in firmware - it would be more effective, and somewhat more obscure. And it wouldn't interfere in the politics of whether a company writes open drivers.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:All ready slow! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 18:21 · Score: 0

I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical, but people who aren't into cars may be surprised to learn that some high-end vehicles do indeed have electronic speed limiters. The limit's generally around 130 mph to 160 mph, so it's probably more of a safety issue rather than
Re:All ready slow! by Asprin · 2004-01-21 05:19 · Score: 1

IIRC, some manufacturers already have those, but I think the limit is 95MPH or 110MPH or so. My Ford won't rev over 4000RPM because of an arrestor, but that's when it's not in gear and I believe it's to prevent damage to the engine.

--
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Re:All ready slow! by bobbozzo · 2004-01-21 06:38 · Score: 1

Most cars are limited at 130 because HR tires aren't rated to go any faster, and manufacturers don't want to be liable if the tires come apart.

However, that is different than making the car unable to speed.

--
Nothing to see here; Move along.

What incentive?!?!? by koreth · 2004-01-20 07:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, first of all, the government has a compelling...

Hey, look! Over there! A terrorist!

What were you asking me again, you traitor?

Not a legal expert... by inode_buddha · 2004-01-20 07:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

but could printer and scanner mfgrs unwittingly "aid and abett" counterfeiters? Therefore becoming liable? Or is there some "big brother" pressure being applied.

--
C|N>K

Re:Not a legal expert... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:26 · Score: 0

Um... no... at least they shouldn't be able to. Isn't it generally established that the manufacturer of the technology is not responsible for the way in which it is used, as long as it has legitimate uses?

I would think that they're opening up a bigger can of worms by blocking it... I mean, then one could construe that they're culpable if inside information leaked out to the wrong people about how to get around it.
Re:Not a legal expert... by Rude+Turnip · 2004-01-20 07:33 · Score: 1

Only as much as GM and Ford could be held accountable for the getaway car in a bank robbery.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:Not a legal expert... by FroMan · 2004-01-20 07:50 · Score: 1

In the US we have stupid people suing for spilling coffee on their laps.

In the US we have smokers suing tobacco producers.

In the US we have anti-gun nuts trying to make gun manufacturers liable for how the weapons are used.

If I were a company that worked on high end image manipulation software or high end printing devices, yes, I would put anti-counterfitting into my products. Negligence does not mean what it used to. At one point negligence required the consumer of the product to take a certain amount of personal responsibility, evidently that is not a trait well liked by many folks out there now.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Re:Not a legal expert... by inode_buddha · 2004-01-20 08:27 · Score: 1

IIRC the anti-gun nuts actually succeeded, forcing Colt into receivership wrt manufacturing the AR-15/M-16. Also bringing some hardship to Smith and Wesson. FWIW, I usually put a few ice cubes in the coffee just so I can slam it down before work; I also smoke and understand the ramifications. So does my private health insurer.
Getting back on topic somewhat, I agree 100% with your comment about negligence and wish I could shout it from the rooftops. I was simply wondering if similar legal pressure was being brought to bear against scanner and printer companies.

--
C|N>K
Re:Not a legal expert... by drig · 2004-01-20 09:26 · Score: 1

I probably shouldn't be responding to such a blatant troll, but you have hit upon a vein in many of the ignorant's rants.

http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/lawoffice/coffee/ truth.html tells about the McDonalds coffee case. The fact is that McDonalds had many complaints about its dangerously hot coffee and did nothing about it. The "stupid people" (well, in this case "person") opened her coffee in a stopped car and received 3rd degree burns for it.

It is a standard of US law to control products which are damaging to their consumers and have a high addiction rate. But, what the tobacco companies were sued for was consistently and knowingly lying about the damage their products caused. You may be a bit young to remember this, but the US recently impeached a President because he lied about a personal problem. Logic insists that we be allowed to sue those who lie in a way that actively damages a huge number of people.

"Anti-gun nuts", who think of themselves as "parents of slaughtered children", are not suing the gun manufacturers because their kids were shot. They are asking the US government to mandate simple, cheap and effective safety controls. These protections are just like the safety features now mandatory in cars, childrens toys, medicines, and packaged foods.

The only real difference in today's political climate is that 6-digit slashdot fanboys are allowed to shoot their mouths off in public.

--
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
Re:Not a legal expert... by nytes · 2004-01-20 12:10 · Score: 1

I'm reminded of the judge's order to Napster (during their fight with the RIAA) as she ordered them to implement some way of detecting copyrighted work: "You created this monster, you figure it out."

Yeah, it sounds like some judge would probably find them liable.

--
-- I have monkeys in my pants.

As usual, easily defeatable by elan · 2004-01-20 07:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Search on the usual suspect newsgroups and you'll find a "patch" that can easily be applied to Photoshop CS to turn the currency detection off.

Re:As usual, easily defeatable by Endive4Ever · 2004-01-20 07:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yes, but you fail to understand the purpose of this anti-copying feature. It isn't to make it impossible for determined criminals to copy currency, it's to make it difficult enough that only determined criminals will try.

The court system would be clogged with newbs and 'regular folk' who copied a few $20 and/or their 10 year old son did it.

By implementing a layer of 'prohibition' like this they filter those folks out, which means there will be more resources available to hammer hard on the people who need the hammering (the people conterfeiting on a large scale). Which is a good thing, unless you're some sort of fringe character who thinks counterfeiting is kewl.

--
---
Re:As usual, easily defeatable by Peaker · 2004-01-20 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Putting restrictions in software is never appropriate.

Not only because it cannot really work correctly, but because freedom is more important than such anti-crime measures, especially when they're so futile.
Re:As usual, easily defeatable by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-20 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Furthermore, once software starts including restrictions, especially as a result of government influence, then any software that doesn't or can't include the restrictions will look like counterfeiter's tools. This means whichever system is most closed will be favored.
For example, Microsoft's future Palladium-enabled PictureIt could be virtually hack-proof compared to Photoshop, which is distributed in hacker-friendly binary form. Microsoft could then say, "Only counterfeiters use software that can be so easily hacked, when a plusuncrime solution exists."

--
Litigious bastards
Re:As usual, easily defeatable by Phillup · 2004-01-20 08:09 · Score: 1

What if you are one of those "fringe" persons that believes freedom means the ability to break the law as long as you are willing to pay the consequences?

When a government goes out of it's way to protect itself from it's own citizens... can it truly be considered representative of the people's will?

Wouldn't it be better to have a justice system that was flexible enough to apply the appropriate sentences to the people that show up in the system?

It really seems to me a case of patching a failure with a bad idea.

--

--Phillip

Can you say BIRTH TAX
Re:As usual, easily defeatable by Solandri · 2004-01-20 08:59 · Score: 1

Putting restrictions in software is never appropriate.
Not only because it cannot really work correctly, but because freedom is more important than such anti-crime measures, especially when they're so futile.
Replace "software" with "networks" or "servers" or "actions" or "use of my personal info" and I think you'll see the fallacy of your statements.
Re:As usual, easily defeatable by Peaker · 2004-01-20 10:02 · Score: 1

Replace 'Replace "software" with "networks" or "servers" or "actions" or "use of my personal info" and I think you'll see the fallacy of your statements.' with 'This is a fallacy' and I think you will see the fallacy of your statements.

Seriously though, networks/servers are different from software. A server/network is a physical entity that belongs to someone who can restrict it as he may. Software is information which can be copied virtually infinitely. Restricting the software is restricting a virtually infinite amount of copies that belong to multiple different entities.
Re:As usual, easily defeatable by Tassach · 2004-01-20 10:57 · Score: 1

Putting restrictions in software is never appropriate.
Not only because it cannot really work correctly, but because freedom is more important than such anti-crime measures, especially when they're so futile.
Replace "software" with "networks" or "servers" or "actions" or "use of my personal info" and I think you'll see the fallacy of your statements.
Actually, I see that substitution as supporting the original comment, not exposing a fallacy.
Putting artificial restrictions on $TOOL to prevent $CRIME is never appropriate because those restrictions can never accomplish their stated purpose and always have unintended side effects which hamper legitimate users. All too often, the side effects are as bad as, or worse than, the original problem. Any system devised by man can be circumvented by man. Stop blaming the tool the criminal uses and start blaming the criminal who uses the tool. You will never create a crime-free utopia by regulating technology, because technology is not the source of the problem - people are. It is a wasted effort, effort which is better spent on actually holding criminals accountable for their actions and/or identifying and addressing the underlying root causes of crime.

--
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?

what incentive? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:17 · Score: 0

> What incentive do printer manufacturers have to
> treat their customers like criminals?

They don't want to be sued.

well... by CGP314 · 2004-01-20 07:17 · Score: 1

What incentive do printer manufacturers have to treat their customers like criminals?

High profit margins on the printer refills for starters.

--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?

American Weblog in London

Bushwa. by SirFozzie · 2004-01-20 07:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

If they didn't DRM it, they could be found liable whn a counterfitter uses their programs to counterfit money.

Should there be an exemption for folks who have legitimate use? Sure. But it should be very limited. Just like in the old days, very few people had access to the template plates money was issued from, the ability to restrict people that would make money that would fool even a cursory glance is a good thing, not a bad thing

--
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!

Re:Bushwa. by CantGetAUserName · 2004-01-20 07:26 · Score: 1

The sad thing is while I believe this is another 'make the tools illegal, not the crime' kind of thing I firmly believe this is where the world is headed these days. This does unfortunately eliminate fair use - the intended use of the tool is of no importantance if the tool itself is banned (I mean banned in the commercial, corporate enforced sense as in you can't buy it, rather than the government regulated sense)

--
Semper en excreta sumus solum profundum
Re:Bushwa. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:26 · Score: 0

If they didn't DRM it, they could be found liable whn a counterfitter uses their programs to counterfit money.

well then I am going out to sue Stanley tools because they did not put a car window detector on their hammers so that a criminal can use that hammer to break into cars.

your comment is purely silly, a tool used for bad uses is NOT liable for anything.

If this world is getting to the point that anything can be sued for any reason then we either need to A. kill all the lawyers and ex Lawyers and put in place some sane people to deal with it.

or B. allow a judge to shoot and kill the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer there on the spot whenever a silly case is brought up in the court.
Re:Bushwa. by Xzzy · 2004-01-20 07:30 · Score: 2, Flamebait

> Should there be an exemption for folks who have legitimate use? Sure.

Screw that, there should be an exemption for the folks who made the software. I'm not a fan of big government but if this currency detection really is just a CYA policy then perhaps a law protecting software houses from prosecution is in order. Provided said company is not "supporting" the crime in question of course (aka Napster).

We don't take gun companies to court do we? Automobile makers don't get fined when a drunk driver kills someone do they? Why should software companies be awarded the rare worry of being slapped for what their customers do?
Re:Bushwa. by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-20 07:52 · Score: 1

If they didn't DRM it, they could be found liable whn a counterfitter uses their programs to counterfit money.
As cynical as I am, I don't think the courts would stand for this. Sure, they could be sued, but I don't think they'd be found liable. If the mere imagined threat of such a baseless lawsuit causes them to act stupidly, then (a) they have no balls, and (b) the legal system is broken. (Both are true, unfortunately.)
Photocopiers are an interesting case - when they first came out, there was a big legal battle, and the Supreme Court ruled to the effect that they weren't liable for the copyright infringement that their machines facilitated. Likewise for tape recorders, VCRs, and MP3 players. I don't see why this lack of liability wouldn't carry over from copyright to anti-counterfeiting laws. It's not like Photoshop doesn't have siginficant non-counterfeiting use.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:Bushwa. by SiliconJesus101 · 2004-01-20 07:57 · Score: 1

"We don't take gun companies to court do we? Automobile makers don't get fined when a drunk driver kills someone do they?"
Shhhh....don't give them any ideas!!

--
"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides
Re:Bushwa. by smalloy · 2004-01-20 08:15 · Score: 1

> We don't take gun companies to court do we? Actually, yes, more and more often, they do.
Re:Bushwa. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:42 · Score: 0

The little thing in your sig, that comes from a song. I have an MP3 of it somewhere, but where did that come from? Do you know the band/person/or whatever who did it? Just wondering.
--MBCook, kurious and kareful with karma
Re:Bushwa. by poot_rootbeer · 2004-01-20 09:03 · Score: 1

We don't take gun companies to court do we?

Um, yes we do in fact.

Automobile makers don't get fined when a drunk driver kills someone do they?

Auto manufacturers get sued all the time when people get killed in motor vehicle accidents.

I live in America, where anyone can be sued for any reason!
Re:Bushwa. by SirFozzie · 2004-01-20 09:18 · Score: 1

Sure.

The band is called The Frantics, and the song is called Tie Kwan Leep/Boot to the Head.

They use the Boot to the Head bit in another one of their skits, "LAST WILL AND TEMPERAMENT"

It helps sometime at work.. to quote the student from Tie Kwan Leep... "I want to boot some head too" :)

--
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
Re:Bushwa. by Mhtsos · 2004-01-20 09:44 · Score: 1

Let the sueing begin then. Software companies should get sued over this, they added a limitation no one knew about and no one expected. If I bought a car to discover later that I couldn't go over 60km/h because there are 60km/h speed limits I'd want my money back. Now I can't print a specific pattern because I might break the law printing something thay might look too much like a bill. Plus there is nothing on the documentation warning me about it. IANAL but it looks like a pretty strong case. Ahhh...the sight of dollar signs in people's eyes. It makes it all worth while.
Re:Bushwa. by budgenator · 2004-01-20 11:40 · Score: 1

If I bought a car to discover later that I couldn't go over 60km/h because there are 60km/h speed limits I'd want my money back.

It's not unusual for a car's computer to limit the cars speed to the speed rating of the stock tires, and engine rpms to there design limits. People who race their street cars, sometimes have to recalibrate their speedometers, so that thier MPH are correct when the speedometer is set for KMPH, the computer thinks they are going 100KMPH or 62MPH but the driver knows he going 100MPH.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Bushwa. by S.Lemmon · 2004-01-20 11:47 · Score: 1

One small point - lawmakers would *never* pass a law making it impossible to speed - never! Speeding tickets are a major source of revenue after all.

Now, I could see them requiring all cars to have something that automatically reports you any time you speed...

dear idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:17 · Score: 0, Insightful

unlike the hypocritical open sores hippies here, some people actually voluntarily do things to keep people from doing bad stuff. I know around here, it is expected that free speech means anything from pictures of kiddie porn to rape stories, in fact it means anything except saying you like President Bush or Microsoft I think. But some people actually voluntarily try to prevent their products from being misused. Just like some people try to get people to use gun locks so little kids don't find them and hurt themselves. If you don't like it - then go make your scat photos or counterfeit money in GIMP.

Duh by NanoGator · 2004-01-20 07:17 · Score: 1

They preemptively and voluntarily responded to a problem before it became one. It sure beats DMCA'esque over-regulation. I can't believe Slashdot is taking the view that these companies are being villified over it.

--
"Derp de derp."

Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:25 · Score: 0

are you new here? Wait until you see how they complain if someone finds a way to block kiddie porn or tentacle porn. Any time anyone does something they don't like, it is always some violation of the constitution, usually Bush/Hitler's fault, and always a vindication of their belief that we are marching towards a 1984/totalitarian/facist state.

Mind you, they are in full support of totalitarian dictatorships like Iraq/Cuba/China/North Korea - they just have to be communist, or at least anti-American.
Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:27 · Score: 0

I agree. It would be nice if other industries would take such a far-sighted outlook. For example:

-Car manufacturers should limit cars to the maximum speed limit in the area the car is to be sold in.
-CD writer manufacturers should ensure that their products cannot write an image that matches an industry-maintained list of copywrited CDs.
-Webservers should be modified so that they cannot transmit cd images that match the same list above, and any files ending in .mp3 should be completely disallowed.
-Baseball bat manufacturers should force anyone buying a bat to undergo precautions similiar to someone buying a gun. Ditto for tool manufacturers.
-Books should be printed on paper that prevents scanning or copying.
[....]
Re:Duh by NanoGator · 2004-01-20 09:08 · Score: 1

"You're wrong because other places can take to unrealistic extremes."

--
"Derp de derp."

CYA by FortKnox · 2004-01-20 07:18 · Score: 1

Its as simple as a 3 letter acronym:
CYA:
Cover Your Arse.

They don't want to be the target of a government investigation if someone starts printing out currency. They aren't treating their customers like criminals, they are trying, themselves, not to be treated like criminals.

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

Preemptive Obedience by Rhubarb+Crumble · 2004-01-20 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Germans have a phrase for this sort of thing - "Preemptive Obedience". Question is, who are they obeying, and why? Colour photocopiers have been around for ages and photocopies of banknotes haven't been a huge problem so far. So what's new?

Maybe this is another example of the kind of initiative that bureaucrats dream up all the time and usual get binned immediately, but are nowadays somehow seeing the light of day due to some "homeland security" paranoia. Like telling airline customers not to queue for the toilets in planes or whatever.

Re:Preemptive Obedience by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:35 · Score: 0

Yes color copiers have been around for years. When Xerox first came out with one, it somehow managed to exactly duplicate the "Top Secret ink formula" used in the old $20 bills. They were forced to alter this color to a different shade. (My old college professor was a Xerox manager)

Also, anyone know why we have new bills comming out? The US sold a printing machine to IRAN years ago, who in the 90's started using it to print US currency. This currency was getting passed the scanners the Federal Reserve branches use to check incomming money. The "SuperNotes" as they are called, could not be detected as conterfit.
Re:Preemptive Obedience by torpor · 2004-01-20 07:36 · Score: 1

Question is, who are they obeying, and why?

First, lets just clear up the 'they' part. 'They' are the US Government, enforcing this in the industry. Target Adobe over this, and you're targetting the wrong entity.

As to who is driving this, its not just the US gov't. Its The World Bank, and International Monetary Fund, who require these sorts of actions, regardless of the laws, traditions and policies of the countries involved.

Because they are required to enforce DRM and currency control as a condition for the billions of [insert_currency_here] ($, Eu, Yen) which the IMF is pumping into failing economies, world governments are degrading civil rights.

If your country has a loan from the World Bank (very few -don't-), then WB and IMF policies have priority over all local laws, by default, and governments found to not be in compliance will find themselves facing heat.

You don't want to be on the end of the WB/IMF heat stick, believe me ...

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:Preemptive Obedience by GoodNicsTken · 2004-01-20 07:41 · Score: 1

Yes color copiers have been around for years. When Xerox first came out with one, it somehow managed to exactly duplicate the "Top Secret ink formula" used in the old $20 bills. They were forced to alter this color to a different shade. (My old college professor was a Xerox manager)

Also, anyone know why we have new bills comming out? The US sold a printing machine to IRAN years ago, who in the 90's started using it to print US currency. This currency was getting passed the scanners the Federal Reserve branches use to check incomming money. The "SuperNotes" as they are called, could not be detected as conterfit.

This would keep some stupid kids from printing up currency and getting into a lot of trouble.
Re:Preemptive Obedience by dan+dan+the+dna+man · 2004-01-20 07:48 · Score: 1

The thing is - counterfeiting with inkjets is on the rise. I'm not sure I believe the stats quoted here or here and here but theyre just some of many such stories I've seen in the last 5 years claiming this is a real problem.

--
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
Re:Preemptive Obedience by Erick+the+Red · 2004-01-20 07:51 · Score: 1

Colour photocopiers have been around for ages and photocopies of banknotes haven't been a huge problem so far. So what's new?
Colour photocopiers have had the anti-money copying thing installed for a while.

--
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
ok
Re:Preemptive Obedience by hojo · 2004-01-20 07:53 · Score: 1

In English, I believe we call it a "Clockwork Orange."

-h
Re:Preemptive Obedience by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:59 · Score: 0

Lisa: Do you know what Schadenfreude is?

Homer: Those Germans have a word for everything.

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/7F23.html
Re:Preemptive Obedience by vijayiyer · 2004-01-20 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

The difference between the copier and Photoshop is that the copier is an output device. As soon as the copier outputs a picture of currency near actual size, the law has been broken. Photoshop, however, cannot be used in and of itself to commit a crime and is thus further up the chain (and further along the slippery slope of crime-preemption).
Re:Preemptive Obedience by Zork+the+Almighty · 2004-01-20 08:13 · Score: 1

You've hit the nail quite squarely on the head here, but are we really free if we can't break laws ?

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Re:Preemptive Obedience by m0rph3us0 · 2004-01-20 08:33 · Score: 1

If they couldn't be detected how do we know about them?
Re:Preemptive Obedience by Idarubicin · 2004-01-20 09:05 · Score: 1

You've hit the nail quite squarely on the head here, but are we really free if we can't break laws ?
The city transit authority puts fences at the end of subway platforms to keep people from walking into the tunnels. You have to go climb over or around the fence to get into the tunnel. The government has restricted your ability to break the law. Are you no longer free?
I've already seen posts here regarding patches to Photoshop that disable currency detection. It's just like a fence--a deterrent to the casual criminal, but not something to stop a dedicated individual.

--
~Idarubicin
Re:Preemptive Obedience by Zork+the+Almighty · 2004-01-20 16:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wow, I didn't expect such a good response. For the subway fences, certainly we are less free, but I'd like to point out what I feel are the most important distinctions. The fences protect people from physical harm, Photoshop controls do not. The fences also protect public property from trespass, whereas Photoshop controls restrict what people can do with their own property, in their own home.

It's like a car that won't move unless you're wearing a seatbelt, or a photocopier that you bought that won't copy money. Let me say I that agree with photocopiers having counterfeit-prevention circuitry - I just think the owners ought to be able to switch it off. Afterall, wasn't the point to stop some dipshit from doing this at Kinkos ? You're not going to stop any real criminals. If they have $5000 to buy a high end colour copier, or if they have the resources to steal one, they aren't going to be deterred anyway.

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!

Currency Watermarking.. by molo · 2004-01-20 07:19 · Score: 5, Informative

It has been public information for a long time that there have been currency detection in digital color copiers. When I worked at Xerox this was publicly acknowledged (~4 years ago).

The currency detection was used to imprint a watermark into the reproduction image. That watermark identified the copier model and serial number that made the photocopy. The result was that the secret service could track down photocopied currency to the exact machine it came from. This supposedly worked for US bills, but I don't know if it recognized other foreign bills.

All thats changed now is that some devices stop printing the currency and instead print out some informational junk in its place. HP apparently does this in its Windows drivers, while Xerox did its watermarking in firmware on the actual device.

-molo

--
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.

Re:Currency Watermarking.. by Thud457 · 2004-01-20 07:52 · Score: 1

"HP apparently does this in its Windows drivers, while Xerox did its watermarking in firmware on the actual device."
So open source proponents should start strongly supporting Xerox!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Currency Watermarking.. by phorm · 2004-01-20 08:11 · Score: 1

Actually, the watermarking sounds like a much better idea in comparison. Actually, all you'd really need is something that embeds a piece of text such as "photocopy" or "not legitimate currency" in section of the bill that is unobtrusive yet still easily visible.

It's not that there's a problem with something to help prevent the forgeries, the problem is that it isn't made very apparent to those that purchase the product. Having a "duplicate" tag on a copied bill is much nicer than wasting a bunch of ink only to discover that your printer has been rejecting the anti-copy marks.
Re:Currency Watermarking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:30 · Score: 0

A friend who worked in a digital pre-press studio demonstrated currency detection to my on a hulking Canon colour laser printer/copier. Any attemt to copy a Canadian bill would produce an accurate rendering of the first third, then a quick fade to black for the rest of the rectangle.

The silly part was that circumvention consisted of placing the bill at a non-right angle to the scanning bar -- the bills copied fine like this.

This was ~10 years ago.
Re:Currency Watermarking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:24 · Score: 0

placing the bill at a non-right angle to the scanning bar
Some simple Linear Algebra will fix that circumvention.
Re:Currency Watermarking.. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2004-01-20 10:34 · Score: 1

Don't some devices destroy themselves when you try to print currency?

Or at least refuse to do anything until "serviced".

Is a self-destruct "feature" also mandated/encouraged by the gov't? Is an anti-copying "feature" mandated/encouraged by the gov't (without self-destruct)?

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!

Done this for years and years by onyxruby · 2004-01-20 07:20 · Score: 1

HP Scanjet 4p used to do this, and this was back in 95 or so. I tried a brand new crisp bill and it would only scan gray scale. For a scanner that was capable of millions of colors I was perplexed. It wasn't until we tried a slightly worn bill that we finally got the scanner to scan in the color of money. The test was consistently repeatable with new and slightly worn money. Note for government type reading this, I had no printer, so I couldn't have printed it if I wanted to.

Re:Also just discovered... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:20 · Score: 0

What next? News/Journal sites blocking or refusing to display first posts?

This = good by DNS-and-BIND · 2004-01-20 07:20 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This is a good thing, people. This prevents Rufus T. Redneck's son from landing himself a 20-year stretch in federal prison because he thought it would be a fun idea to run off a few copies of money and use it to pay for frito pies and cow testicles and whatever the fuck else hicks eat in their squalid hovels in flyover territory. Professional counterfeiters won't use HP printers to do their counterfeiting, and anyone amateur enough to do so will be caught quickly. It's like passing a law mandating an intelligence test before a computer can be purchased.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

Re:This = good by Aardpig · 2004-01-20 07:26 · Score: 2, Funny

It's like passing a law mandating an intelligence test before a computer can be purchased.

Agreed. If a law like this were already in place, we would be spared stupid posts like yours.

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Re:This = good by duffbeer703 · 2004-01-20 07:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Absolutely.

A 14 year old kid at my little brother's high school is going to be in a youth camp until he's 21 because he made one sided photocopies of a $5 bill in the library and tried to buy a snack with it.

A life destroyed over $5.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:This = good by randomdef · 2004-01-20 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

This comes across as total bullshit to me. a 14 year old makes a shit copy of a bill and his teachers, parents, judges and lawyers and etc cannot come up with a better solution then to lock the kid up for 7 years? did he set someone on fire in the process or are you just outright lying?

come on, even in this post 9/11 age we arent locking kids up forever for stupid kid mistakes.
Re:This = good by Endive4Ever · 2004-01-20 07:38 · Score: 1

whatever the fuck else hicks eat in their squalid hovels in flyover territory.

Hopefully a few earthquakes will shake off the crusty scum that tends to built up on the edges of the North American continent.

--
---
Re:This = good by blamanj · 2004-01-20 07:45 · Score: 1

Brilliant. Who'd have thought a software patch was capable of fixing the judicial system.
Re:This = good by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-01-20 07:47 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but unless the kid is Special Ed, by age 14 he should damn well know that trying to buy something with counterfeit money is WRONG. Seven years does seem like a long time, but seriously, how stupid would you have to be to try something like this?

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Re:This = good by Teun · 2004-01-20 07:50 · Score: 1

If "Justice" works that way around your place it's time to move on.
When that kid comes back after a few years in the camp he'll be trained to do a lot more damage than $5.
I sure hope you were joking!

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:This = good by gstovall · 2004-01-20 07:53 · Score: 1

I guess some people might consider a 4000sqft house on a beautiful 13 acre ridgetop in a quiet, pastoral setting a "squalid hovel", but I'm kinda fond of my residence...BTW, the favorite food in this household is filet mignon, lobster tail, and broccoli salad...
Re:This = good by 91degrees · 2004-01-20 07:54 · Score: 1

Forgery is a serious crime. Not only does it defraud people, but it destabilises the economy. If there was anything like as much forgery as there is commercial piracy, the nation would probably be bankrupt.
Re:This = good by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:56 · Score: 0

don't have any kids in public schools, do you?

the zero tolerance policies are going to incopacitate a whole generation of our youth. I only mention one generation because I beleive that these byzantine, illogical policies can't stay in place much longer.
Re:This = good by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:56 · Score: 1, Informative

In most civilized countries, telling his parents would probably be the appropriate penalty.
Re:This = good by ivan256 · 2004-01-20 08:06 · Score: 1

He's likely lying or leaving a signifigant portion of the story out. There's nothing illegal about a single sided black and white copy of a $5 bill. If there were, then half of all the little kids that ever got left alone with the copier in their public library, a $5 and a few nickles would be in jail by now. If he made it all nice and 2 sided and trimmed it up nice, it would have been illegal, but what respectable elder would call the US secret service on a misguided 14 year old instead of crumpling up and throwing out said fake bill?
Re:This = good by NeoSkandranon · 2004-01-20 08:13 · Score: 1

The kind of respectable elder who realizes that, if the kid passes another bill elsewhere and gets caught, said elder is now an accessory since he knew about the crime and did not do what is legally required and notify the cops.

--
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Re:This = good by leifm · 2004-01-20 08:14 · Score: 1

It seems to me that if I were the one this kid was trying to pass a one sided photocopy of a bill to I'd just tell him to fuck off and forget about it. I find it hard to believe anyone would push this kind of half assed effort at counterfeiting through the legal system. But I suppose it happens.

--

"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Re:This = good by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:15 · Score: 0

Not even that long. Only half his current years.
Seriously how could you even contemplate this kind of punishment for something that sounds like a stupid prank. Noone was hurt and you think we should screw his teen life up?!
Re:This = good by el-spectre · 2004-01-20 08:24 · Score: 1

The kid tried to pass it as real. A bad counterfeit is still an attempt.

Of course, the punishment is total overkill.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:This = good by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-01-20 08:54 · Score: 1

Ah, the old "but noone was hurt" excuse...

If I walk into a bank, pull an unloaded gun, wave it around and demand that they turn over the money, then say "just kidding" and walk out leaving the money on the counter:
a) It was just a silly, juvenile prank
b) Noone was hurt or ever at risk of being hurt (except me!)

At what age would that stop being acceptable?

If the kid had been 7 years old, I would say "no, he doesn't deserve to spend 7 years in prison" but that's because he's only SEVEN. This kid was FOURTEEN years old, and if in this day and age you don't know that committing a federal felony is not a silly, harmless, juvenille prank by age FOURTEEN, then maybe he needs to be punished. Had he been older than 18 he could have been facing a much more serious prison term.

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Re:This = good by duffbeer703 · 2004-01-20 08:56 · Score: 1

I wish that I was lying.

The school prinical called him in... and the local US Attorney has a "get tough on white collar crime" thing going on.

We live in an age of zero-tolerance. One of my brother's female classmates was suspended for violating the "zero-tolerance drug policy" by having a box of Sudafed in her locker.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:This = good by duffbeer703 · 2004-01-20 09:01 · Score: 1

That is the justice system.

If the kid in question had waited until he was 18 to pull this off, he would have been facing 10 years of federal time and a $25,000 fine, per offense. Passing 10 $5 bills means up to 100 years in prison.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:This = good by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:01 · Score: 0

"come on, even in this post 9/11 age we arent locking kids up forever for stupid kid mistakes."

Girl takes the piss out of security guard, she likely will not be coming home
Re:This = good by swv3752 · 2004-01-20 09:35 · Score: 1

You don't know the history of the kid. I was a substitute teacher. There were some kids I would charge with a crime if I caught them committing one.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Re:This = good by DNS-and-BIND · 2004-01-20 12:38 · Score: 1

Have you been on the campus of a school in the last 10 years? There's this "new" concept called zero-tolerance.
If they showed any tolerance, it wouldn't be a zero-tolerance policy, now, would it?

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:This = good by leifm · 2004-01-21 02:13 · Score: 1

So basically this was pushed by prior history, not a single instance.

--

"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott

my father by lisany · 2004-01-20 07:20 · Score: 0

My father is a coin and paper money dealer. I always wonder what will happen when he needs to do some editing on paper money, or what will happen if this technology finds its way into scanners. Not everyone is printing fake money. If this sort of thing makes its way into scanners, my father will lose a great deal of income.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the various cracking groups releases a patch to bypass this mechanism.

Re:my father by happyfrogcow · 2004-01-20 07:38 · Score: 1

If this sort of thing makes its way into scanners, my father will lose a great deal of income.

don't let a monkey peel a banana for you or you'll end up without a banana. i'm not sure what i mean by that, though i have some idea. but more than anything i just wanted to mention monkeys and bananas.

just like you wouldn't use an elephant to crack open your peanuts..
Re:my father by trans_err · 2004-01-20 07:43 · Score: 1

Is that what he told you? Ah, that's kind of cute.

--
transmission_err

The real incentive by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:20 · Score: 0

As is usual in these cases where the government wants to "encourage" companies to do something, but doesn't want to pass a law: dangle the carrot of government contracts and purchasing, and/or threaten to take federal business elsewhere.

It should be incentive enough for any company.

Another reason for open source. by Thinkit3 · 2004-01-20 07:21 · Score: 0

Open source hardware too. The driver could hide it while the printer does the checking.

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist

New marketing opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:21 · Score: 0

That just means there is a new marketing opportunity for imaging products: "Does not prevent you from printing fake bills!"... hmm, then again...

Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:21 · Score: 0

...or are the tin-hat wearers really starting to go bonkers?

Currency Dectection! by Vinnie_333 · 2004-01-20 07:21 · Score: 1

So now computers, like humans before them, can detect currency.

--

"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot

Re:Currency Dectection! by Zigg · 2004-01-20 07:26 · Score: 1

If humans could detect currency correctly, there'd be no need for this in the first place :-)

Is it? by torpor · 2004-01-20 07:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is this a precursor to DRM in scanners, CD drives, and output devices?

I would say definitely yes.

Currency control is 'digital rights managment' on not just a government level, but also at The World Bank level, as well. Do not underestimate how significant this is!!

That this is now happening on a broad, industrial basis, means that it would've had to have been implemented at least 6 months to a year ago, as an initiative, and I think thats fairly concurrent with all the DRM/DMCA shenanigans which have been going through the American system since King Bush, El Fascisti, started signing parchment.

There can no longer be any doubt about the new order of the world. If governments such as that of America continue down the path they are on, then the world will be a very different place in a very short period of time.

The World Bank and IMF have very stringent doctrine regarding property and rights management in their slave^H^H^H^H^Hdebtor countries. Governments such as America are quite happy, given their financial situation, to bend over and let the rights fly ...

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Re:Is it? by Mike+Hawk · 2004-01-20 07:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Another quality troll torpor, but cmon, at least get the basic facts right. Say it with me everyone: THE DMCA WAS SIGNED IN 1998 BY YOUR BOY BILL CLINTON. The one called W had nothing to do with it.

Silly me, I always forget that for the left the world started on Sept. 12th 2001 so how could you possibly know that?
Re:Is it? by torpor · 2004-01-20 07:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its irrelevant who -signed- it. It takes at least a year, maybe two, before a bill such as DMCA starts to roll out and its effects start to be felt in society.

Whose administration is currently -implementing- it, enforcing it, using it, and at whose behest? The Bush Administration, thats who, and the answer to the latter part of this question is "for the IMF/WB conditions on loan guarantees".

DMCA wasn't rolled out, properly, and fully enforcable, until 2000, and it wasn't until Bush and his cronies got the DHS together that it actually started to have significant weight in the relationship between the US Gov't and US Industry.

Clinton may have created it, but it is Bush who is using it to ill effect, and the same may very well be true of the next administration. The Bush Administration has done more with the DMCA than Clinton did.

(Oh, and I know this might short-circuit your dialectics, but just because I'm anti-Bush doesn't mean I'm pro-Clinton, nor a leftie...)

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:Is it? by torpor · 2004-01-20 08:02 · Score: 1

Where did I say he didn't sign it?

I said "DRM/DMCA shenanigans". At no point did I say that Bush signed the DMCA - just that his current administration is using it fervently ...

Big difference, monkeylove, big difference...

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:Is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:36 · Score: 0

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Re:Is it? by _xeno_ · 2004-01-20 08:42 · Score: 1

Repeat after me:
The DMCA was sponsered by the Democratic Party. The DMCA was sponsered by the Democratic Party. The DMCA was sponsered by the Democratic Party.
Yes, the Bush administration is *gasp* doing it's job by enforcing the law of the land. The Executive Branch, remember that from school? It means that Bush is responsible for "executing" the laws of the land. He is not allowed to simply ignore a law.
Bush is doing his job. Nothing more, nothing less. If you have a problem with the DMCA, take it up with Congress. Bush has nothing to do with it, other than being the leader of the branch that is charged, through the Constitution of the United States of America, to enforce the laws that Congress passes.
So by attacking Bush based on the DMCA, you're suggesting that you are indeed a leftie-wacko. If you're not, then you need to understand that the DMCA is a Democratic Party invention, and was passed into law under the Clinton Administration. Enforcing the law then became the responsibility of whoever was in office, first Clinton, and now Bush. That's the way the nation works. Again, if you have an issue with the DMCA, take Congress to task. Bush can't do anything about it.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:Is it? by rleibman · 2004-01-20 08:45 · Score: 1

It is time that dumb republicans and dumb democrats figure it out: any law passed with the nicest of intentions can and WILL be used against you once the other party is in power.
It is only by looking at all possible side effects of your laws that you should be deciding.
The same laws that yesterday were being used to stop drug traffic are now being used on you. Same goes with those well intentioned laws that are being passed today to combat terrorism, you will see much more of them and much more closely.
Re:Is it? by poot_rootbeer · 2004-01-20 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Say it with me everyone: THE DMCA WAS SIGNED IN 1998 BY YOUR BOY BILL CLINTON.

Now YOU escuche y repita:

JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DISLIKES GEORGE W. BUSH DOES NOT MEAN THAT BILL CLINTON IS "THEIR BOY".
Re:Is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:20 · Score: 0

You should sign up to be an assistant for Mr. Clinton. Wear a skirt.
Re:Is it? by Idarubicin · 2004-01-20 09:34 · Score: 1

Currency control is 'digital rights managment' on not just a government level, but also at The World Bank level, as well. Do not underestimate how significant this is!!
Currency control is DRM--well done, torpor. Points for a very inventive troll.
Currency only has value because it's difficult to duplicate. Unlike copying the latest Britney Spears album, adding fresh currency to the money supply has a quantifiable effect on the value of everyone else's dollars. Getting stuck with the fake stuff means you're out of pocket at best.
Which digital rights are being infringed when HP printers refuse to print hundred-dollar bills?
You're welcome to avoid using currency altogether, living under a (regrettably less efficient) barter system. You might also try adopting a private competitor to U.S. currency.
Wow. A country that derives much of its stability and power from its currency wants to defend it. The bank that issues that currency doesn't want people making fakes. What's the problem here?

--
~Idarubicin
Re:Is it? by babbage · 2004-01-20 09:53 · Score: 1

Yes, the Bush administration is *gasp* doing it's job by enforcing the law of the land.

Just like they "did their job" with the ABM treaty? Or the Kyoto accords? This regime seems to be very selective about what laws they will or will not go along with, so the fact that they happen not to be scuttling DMCA just as they've scuttled other laws suggests that they're going more than "just obeying the law". Don't be so naive.

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Re:Is it? by _xeno_ · 2004-01-20 10:34 · Score: 1

Last I checked, international policy was the domain of the Executive Branch. So they are well within their power to cancel participation in the ABM treaty and the Kyoto treaty.
So please be more specific about which laws they've "scuttled." I'm not really a Bush supporter, but with all the crap the Democrats have been doing to discredit him there's very little chance I'm going to be voting for a Democrat in the upcoming election. An "incompetent Republican" is far better than any of the current Democrat canidates.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:Is it? by drooling-dog · 2004-01-20 14:17 · Score: 1

Say it with me everyone: THE DMCA WAS SIGNED IN 1998 BY YOUR BOY BILL CLINTON. The one called W had nothing to do with it... Silly me, I always forget that for the left the world started on Sept. 12th 2001
So Bill Clinton is "the left"? That's funny. Compared to who, exactly?
Re:Is it? by torpor · 2004-01-20 21:38 · Score: 1

Currency control is DRM--well done, torpor. Points for a very inventive troll.

this is not a troll. i'm serious. gov'ts have had 'rights management' for years. this is currency. rights management is a core aspect of economy, as is currency of course.

just because i'm associating 'drm' with 'money' does -not- mean that i'm trolling ... or even making a negative association.

you, however, are exhibiting reactionary 'analaytical' lapses typical of fascists, which is my 2cent word of the week...

Wow. A country that derives much of its stability and power from its currency wants to defend it. The bank that issues that currency doesn't want people making fakes. What's the problem here?

who said there was a problem?

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

ten year old news? by Goner · 2004-01-20 07:23 · Score: 1

Xerox has been doing this for a while now. Lookup U.S. patent #5,533,144.

Canon Scanner software too by internewt · 2004-01-20 07:23 · Score: 1

I posted this when there was the Adobe news, but I caught the end of the discussion. But, FWIW, Canon's Windows software will not allow cash to be scanned either.

--
Car analogies break down.

The train goes : "woo woo"! by Thud457 · 2004-01-20 07:23 · Score: 1

Just as long as it doesn't stop me for making copies of these!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:The train goes : "woo woo"! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:45 · Score: 0

what is queen amidala doing on those notes?

Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Omega · 2004-01-20 07:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

I certainly appreciate people's rights to make fake looking money for promotional or political purposes, but I'm astonished by how many people forget that counterfeiting is a federal crime.

Some people use their photo printers to make near duplicate dollar bills to put in vending machines and are then surprised when the secret service shows up at their door.

Counterfeiting (in any denomination) is a serious crime. One that is punishable by serving jail time in a federal penitentiary.

Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:36 · Score: 0

wow, a federal crime. that must be much worse than, say, a state crime.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:38 · Score: 0

Would that be a federal pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiary?
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by dschuetz · 2004-01-20 07:38 · Score: 1

Counterfeiting (in any denomination) is a serious crime. One that is punishable by serving jail time in a federal penitentiary.

A sentence that is somewhat reduced from this 1773 Pennsylvania note:

http://www.7cs.com/colonial/1773pa.htm

(Note the "To counterfeit is Death" notice)

Of course, we're still not talking about counterfeiting, we're talking about fair use of the images of currency -- namely, in academic papers, collector's newsletters, rap album covers, who knows what else. All these legitimate uses instantly prohibited by an unregulated and (if it gets deep enough into printers and other equipment) unavoidable system.

Simply, this is a great example of the darker side of DRM.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by leehwtsohg · 2004-01-20 07:39 · Score: 1

(other than the fact that I'm not part of this *federation* you talk about)
You mean so this measure was put in as a FEATURE of the software, so that you wouldn't become a criminal by mistake?

Yes, we shouldn't give people the opportunity to chose between right and wrong since they chose wrong every time.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:40 · Score: 0

Shooting someone in broad daylight is a crime too, but you don't see the Government outlawing guns. (Yet at least.)

Just because you can use a car to smash through a house and kill people, doesn't mean that people are going to do it.

So should car-makers make it so that cars won't run into solid objects or better yet; make it so that cars are unable to drive off of pavement?

Never treat the public like criminals, before they've even been given the chance to choose. East Germany acted that way. They even had a prison fence.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:46 · Score: 0

You are legally allowed to make copies of bills that are a certain % larger or smaller (treasury site prolly has a FAQ somewhere). This stops people who can do perfectly legal things. Do you really think some idiot is scanning bills and printing them in photoshop? Why even use photoshop unless you're editting them for some reason
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by shawn(at)fsu · 2004-01-20 07:51 · Score: 1

Hey we'll have none of rational though in the land of tinfoil hats!

Seriously, my friends and I were at Arlington Cemetery and someone bought a postcard and got a counterfeit 5 dollar bill back for change. This was at a US Park. I think many people who are upset with the preventative measure haven't gotten screwed out of money. In case you don't know if, when you turn the funny money, you don't get real money back and if you try to pass it off on someone else you just as guilty as the maker.

I have no problem with this protection. If you have a legitimate reason for printing out money take it up with The Government or the Manufacturer.

--
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by ivan256 · 2004-01-20 07:56 · Score: 1

we're talking about fair use of the images of currency

The US secret service lists specific guidelines for the use of currency images, which are protected by their own set of laws, and *not* by copyright. Thus fare use clauses do not apply. Essentially, all those things you listed gan go fry, because there is no law protecting such use in general. You can, however, use the images, but they must be either one sided, not in color, or signifigantly smaller or larger than an original bill when printed. Presumably the anti-counterfeting software would be able to take this into account.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by geoffspear · 2004-01-20 07:58 · Score: 1

Hell, possession of a device that can reproduce counterfeit-deterrent features of currency is a class B felony, so one could argue that Adobe is preventing every person who buys a scanner from becoming a criminal without knowing it.
Of course, it would be nice if we could believe federal prosecutors aren't stupid enough to think that possession of any sufficiently high-resolution scanner is equivalent to intent to counterfeit, but Congress felt the need to write a law vague enough that it can be interepreted that way, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried enforcing it.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by 91degrees · 2004-01-20 08:01 · Score: 1

Shooting someone in broad daylight is a crime too, but you don't see the Government outlawing guns.

But they do regulate them. And the use of cars, and most of the other odds and ends that can be used to facilitate crimes.

So should car-makers make it so that cars won't run into solid objects

Yes! If someone came up with this technology, it would become mandatory within a few years.

or better yet; make it so that cars are unable to drive off of pavement?

There are legitimate reasons that people ay choose to do this one though.

Never treat the public like criminals, before they've even been given the chance to choose. East Germany acted that way. They even had a prison fence.

Well, the crime rae in East Germany was probably lower than in the west. But aside form that, they're only treating the segment of the population that acts like criminals as though they're criminals. Yes, I agree that it's a little excessive since there are a few legitimate uses, but personally, I don't feel my right to print money is violated, since I never considered I had that right.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:04 · Score: 0

In the middle ages "coiners" (the counterfeiters of the day) were punished by being boiled in oil. A little harsh, but hey if they were spammers....
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by cyt0plas · 2004-01-20 08:05 · Score: 0, Redundant

Presumably the anti-counterfeting software would be able to take this into account.

Except, of course, when the software refuses to open it in the first place, so you _can't_ get it to the size where it's legal to use. If they must put in software like this (which I don't think they should, but still...), it should be handled on _printing_, not on opening.

When you simply have a PNG of size X, how does the software know what DPI it's going to end up in?

--
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Darth23 · 2004-01-20 08:12 · Score: 1

"Some people use their photo printers to make near duplicate dollar bills to put in vending machines and are then surprised when the secret service shows up at their door. " Proof that you should use someone else's copier.

--
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:15 · Score: 0

How did you find out it was counterfit? Why didn't you return the bill to the office you _JUST_ got it from, get 5 real dollars and have them turn it in?
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by phorm · 2004-01-20 08:19 · Score: 1

So should car-makers make it so that cars won't run into solid objects Yes! If someone came up with this technology, it would become mandatory within a few years.

No, it wouldn't. Assistance equipment such as "backup warning indicators" which tell you if you're getting close to backing into something are available, but they aren't foolproof.

Sometimes you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, what if you had to choose a solid impact or a steep drop off a cliff? How about if you needed to push something with your vehicle?

Assistance equipment is generally OK, but anything that uses autonomous cannot cover every situation. In fact, having something that could suddenly jump in to "assist" unexpectently could worsen a situation instead of improving it.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by umeboshi · 2004-01-20 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

if that is the case, it's a bad crime to have on the books.

There is no copyright on the denomination, as it's design is in the public domain. The right to reproduce the likeness is protected by the first amendment. The law should focus on the attempted (or possibly successful) entry of the counterfeit denominations into the marketplace.

I see the act of writing 'usa' on monopoly money and attempting to make a purchase with it a far more serious crime than having you den wallpapered with $100 bills.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by swv3752 · 2004-01-20 09:51 · Score: 1

There is "Fair Use" and there is fair use.

I believe it is a fair use to make law abiding copies of my currency. The law states I can do this. As such I expect to be able to do it.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by 91degrees · 2004-01-20 10:08 · Score: 1

Sometimes you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, what if you had to choose a solid impact or a steep drop off a cliff?

I'd expect an anti-crash mechanism to incorporate an anti-fall off cliff mechanism.

How about if you needed to push something with your vehicle?

Like what? I can't think of any situation where I've ever wanted to push something with my car.

Assistance equipment is generally OK, but anything that uses autonomous cannot cover every situation.

Once again, I'm assuming technology exists to cope with any possible situation. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Given a technology that can prevent all collisions, and can be demonstrated not to cause accidents, that technology would be mandatory. I suspect that the inability to use your car as a bulldozer would generally be considered a price worth paying to reduce the number of accidents on the road.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Lehk228 · 2004-01-20 10:20 · Score: 1

I think older vending machines only look for a few things on a bill, possibly few enough that a dupe would not be similar enough to a real bill to count as forgery (paper and pencil, black line, a few marks) im not really sure though

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Lehk228 · 2004-01-20 10:23 · Score: 1

as long as it is less than 75% or more than 150% normal size, and one sided

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2004-01-20 10:37 · Score: 1

Considering the Federal system does not allow parole, yes a Federal crime is much worse.

And with lesser state crimes, the state you committed the crime in might not bother with extradition proceedings.

With Federal crimes, you aren't safe anywhere in the US.

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:51 · Score: 0

bah, that's why you do it on a small scale. we did this back in high school, with 5 and 10 dollar bills using a mac, scanner and bubblejet (!) printer. the bills were on regular paper, so to fix that we laundered them. threw em in the dryer with jeans and towels. worked like a charm, wore em down to where they looked legit, but really old and worn down. knowing any real storeclerk wouldn't believe us for a minute, we used them in the high school cafeteria for many months. eventually they figured it out, the SS came and visited my friend and he got all sorts of community service.

ahh, wasted youth

- synthpunk
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by shawn(at)fsu · 2004-01-20 12:21 · Score: 1

A) The ink was running
B) JUST?We didn't notice till we got back to my friends house. What are you gonna do go back and the next day and say excuse me your cashier gaves us a bogus bill for change?

--
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Re:Counterfeiting is a *federal* crime... by jred · 2004-01-21 03:05 · Score: 1

Definitely. Even if the pen was a low-security one. Once your fellow inmates found out why you were there, "I got a free Coke using a counterfeit dollar..." they'd be all over your ass. Literally.

--

jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...

Ex-cellent (does the burns finger thing) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:23 · Score: 0

Here is a list of HP printers which appear to have this anti-copy technology
embedded in their Windows printer drivers:
HP 130
HP 230
HP 7150
HP 7345
HP 7350
HP 7550

I was just wondering what printer I should buy to print out counterfit bills. Thanks for answering my question. As soon as I find an old version of the drivers or crack the new version, I will be set. ;)

I'm sorry Dave by ch-chuck · 2004-01-20 07:23 · Score: 5, Funny

I cannot copy that benjamin

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }

Re:I'm sorry Dave by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 15:00 · Score: 0

I don't know about benjamin (he don't hang out with the likes of me) but jackson at least should work fine. It's the white house you can't copy.

Re:Also just discovered... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:24 · Score: 0

Internet Explorer will refuse to submit any form if a field contains the string "first post". However, the strings "F1r57 P057", "Fr1st Ps0t" and "Fr0st P1st" will all be ignored by the filter.

So What? by GodfatherofSoul · 2004-01-20 07:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Everyone seems to be simultaneously jumping on this as some sort of attempt by Big Brother to usurp more of our rights. What rights are you losing besides the right to make crappy copies of currency? Is anyone reporting problems using products beyond copying currency?

Of all the ways citizens' rights are being raped by this administration, this effort to block the real problem of small-time counterfeiters ain't one of them.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Re:So What? by Cheerio+Boy · 2004-01-20 07:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not a matter of just losing the rights to making copies of our currency.

It's about the loss of rights period.

Remember - the only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights.

Do you really want to give them up so easily?

--

"Bah!" - Dogbert
Re:So What? by diablobynight · 2004-01-20 08:17 · Score: 4, Funny

yes because I can go and buy the paper I would need to even come close to making the feel of a dollar bill, but more importantly, what about for birthdays when I take 100 dollar bills then super impose my ass on the bill and give it to people in cards. I want to still keep doing that, the joke never gets old, the person sees an excellent 100$ bill pulls it fully out of the card and sees my ass with full fruit basket, it's beautiful.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:So What? by ChaoticLimbs · 2004-01-20 08:19 · Score: 1

That's a fairly weak argument. It's not like the government is taking your rights away. Show me where, in the constitution of any nation, there exists a right to use hardware in the manner that you choose?
Re:So What? by Cheerio+Boy · 2004-01-20 08:33 · Score: 1

Again you miss the point my Young Jedi... ;-)

The point is that this is only the tip of the iceberg. It all goes to the slippery slope argument.

As for using the hardware you bought the way you want just look at the aftermarket automotive industry. Or indeed any industry that you can buy something to add-on to something else.

Look at how many innovations - as Gates-worn as that term is - are just clever additions to existing equipment to solve the problem of the moment.

None of those would exist if people were prevented from using the hardware their way.

--

"Bah!" - Dogbert
Re:So What? by hopeless+case · 2004-01-20 08:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem isn't that this is stopping people from printing images of currency, but that it is establishing the principle that it is ok for the government to require programmers to put crime detection / phone home features in their software.

Do you see the problem now?

The "right" being infringed here is very close to speech. The right to write/run software of your own choosing without having to ask the government if it is ok first.

You would consider it a big deal if the government required you to get their approval before publishing an article you had written, wouldn't you?

The phrase prior-restraint comes to mind.
Re:So What? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-01-20 09:00 · Score: 1

what about for birthdays when I take 100 dollar bills then super impose my ass on the bill and give it to people in cards
I hadn't thought of this! I retract my comment above.
On the other hand, I wonder how much of a fragment of a bill is needed before it gets recognized?

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh, not that! A princile has been established! There's nothing to stop Them (by "Them" I of course refer to the Military Industrial Complex) from dragging us all into prison now for not tapping phone lines for Them! Where the hell is my tinfoil hat!? I need protection while I finish building a Faraday cage around my house!!!
News flash: Slippery Slope arguments always represent the desperate FUD of extremists. Always. Left, right, doesn't matter... If you rely on such arguments, you are an enemy of all that is moderate and sensible.
Re:So What? by Golias · 2004-01-20 09:10 · Score: 1

The problem isn't that this is stopping people from printing images of currency, but that it is establishing the principle that it is ok for the government to require programmers to put crime detection / phone home features in their software.
No, it's not. There is no "phone home" feature triggered by an attempt to copy money on these printers. That was just random speculation by the loonie who submitted this story to Bugtraq.
The "right" being infringed here is very close to speech.
Except that it's not. There isn't even a statement by HP which states they were compelled to insert this blocking feature by the government. Odds are, they put it there themselves so they could tell the feds in all confidence, "nope, you can't use these printers for counterfeiting."
You would consider it a big deal if the government required you to get their approval before publishing an article you had written, wouldn't you?
Yes, I would. That's not happening, though.
The phrase prior-restraint comes to mind.
Only to the minds of knee-jerk reactionaries.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:34 · Score: 0

People just like us also died to make a point for Osama Bin Laden. Just because people die for something doesn't mean it's a good thing.

People just like us also died trying to prevent us from gaining those rights in the first place.
Re:So What? by Physics+Dude · 2004-01-20 10:04 · Score: 1

There is no "phone home" feature triggered by an attempt to copy money on these printers.
Please give the basis for your statement. Have you disassembled the driver and checked out all the code? If not, you're in the same boat as someone who's claiming there is a "phone home" feature.
What's more, if you actually read the post you were responding to, the author never stated that there was any "phone home" feature. Only that this is setting a precident that these kinds of things are somehow acceptable.
Re:So What? by Golias · 2004-01-20 10:15 · Score: 1

Please give the basis for your statement. Have you disassembled the driver and checked out all the code? If not, you're in the same boat as someone who's claiming there is a "phone home" feature.
No, but unlike you, I did RTFA. Nobody in the article makes such a claim. There's only a "what if this happens in the future?" speculation.
3. Will future versions of this technology, "phone home" to the rulesforuse.org Web site with details about a violation of the currency copying rules? It would be very easy to include an email address, name of the image file, software version number, etc. embedded in a URL to the rulesforuse.org when a violation has been detected.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:So What? by Golias · 2004-01-20 10:17 · Score: 1

What's more, if you actually read the post you were responding to, the author never stated that there was any "phone home" feature.
That's funny, because I could have sworn he said:
it is establishing the principle that it is ok for the government to require programmers to put crime detection / phone home features in their software.
Since it is not requiring any such thing, it is not establishing any such principle. The original post is simply flat-out wrong (and wildly paranoid).

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:So What? by illusioned · 2004-01-20 10:47 · Score: 1

The "right" being infringed here is very close to speech The right IS speech. Just as code is speech to programmers, art is speech to artists. It's their way to express themselves, no matter what they're doing to the images of money.
Re:So What? by Skatergirl95 · 2004-01-20 11:11 · Score: 1

Dude, you just don't make sense. It's ILLEGAL to put money in your scanner and scan it for ANY use or ANY purpose. Your complaint is as baseless as saying that stores shouldn't put security stickers on video games to prevent shoplifting. Plus, nobody sends Secret Service to your door; it just prevents you from doing something illegal. And finally, nobody is forced to put all these preventive methods in their products. I could assume the main reason for them to do this voluntarily is because they don't want to give opportunity to counterfeiters to copy bills and subsequently weaken the value of money, which in return will hurt the companies itself.
Re:So What? by Physics+Dude · 2004-01-20 12:24 · Score: 1

Seems you have quite a comprehension problem. I never claimed that either myself, the article, or the post you were replying to made any claim of a current "phone home" feature. I merely pointed out that when YOU claimed "There is no "phone home" feature" you're speaking entirely from a position of ignorance.
Re:So What? by Hes+Nikke · 2004-01-20 12:28 · Score: 1

It's ILLEGAL to put money in your scanner and scan it for ANY use or ANY purpose

somebody better tell these people!

--
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Re:So What? by Physics+Dude · 2004-01-20 12:40 · Score: 1

Yes, I agree that it appears that the government was not involved in this at all and the parent post had no support for that wild claim.
All in all, I agree wholeheartedly with all of your previous post except the unsubstantiated claim that there was no "phone home" feature. Must be all the #$%@ math and logic classes coming through. :)
Notice that I'm not claiming anything either way, since I didn't write their drivers. ;) It's seems obviously true that when you use closed source software you must ultimately rely on those creating the software to "Do the Right Thing", and most seem to be pretty responsible since their reputation is at stake. There have been quite a few pieces of comercial software that DO "phone home" and it's not something that's generally advertized by those software makers, but these are usually easily detected by anyone closely monitoring their own network traffic.
Re:So What? by glitch23 · 2004-01-20 13:01 · Score: 2, Funny

I want to still keep doing that, the joke never gets old, the person sees an excellent 100$ bill pulls it fully out of the card and sees my ass with full fruit basket, it's beautiful.

The picture is beautiful or the joke? Please make the separation.

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 19:21 · Score: 0

you are soooo wrong you are embarrassing yourself.

you can scan, and print money legally in the united states.

it only becomes a crime when you attempt to use that money.

this according to the secret service which had a chat with me for doing just that. (and under the impression i had in fact passed the bills)
Re:So What? by mikechant · 2004-01-21 02:12 · Score: 1

No it isn't. You are specifically allowed, in the US, to reproduce currency given that you follow certain conditions relating to size (your size>=150% or real size, your size =75% real size, one sided only etc.) and delete the image after 'use'. Software with the conterfeit detectors in it prevents you from doing things that the US government specifically allows you to do.
Re:So What? by Golias · 2004-01-21 02:58 · Score: 1

I merely pointed out that when YOU claimed "There is no "phone home" feature" you're speaking entirely from a position of ignorance.
Actually, you are. For all you know, I work for HP.
You accuse me of having a comprehension problem, but you are clearly not grasping my point. It's perfectly simple: The original post made an entirely unfounded claim that there was a "phone home" feature, based on a mis-reading of some wild "what if" speculation in the article. It's not there, the article isn't even claiming it's there, and that's all I was pointing out to the poster.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:So What? by Physics+Dude · 2004-01-21 04:16 · Score: 1

I guess you missed the qualifications to my statement. To quote what I actually said: "Please give the basis for your statement. Have you disassembled the driver and checked out all the code? If not, you're in the same boat as someone who's claiming there is a "phone home" feature."
I stand by that statement. Welcome to comprehension 101. Doesn't look like you're going to pass.
Re:So What? by Golias · 2004-01-21 04:34 · Score: 1

I both comprehended and answered that question already. Perhaps you missed it. I have not disassembled the driver or even glimpsed at the code, but what I did do is RTFA, and found that the post's assumption that the article states there's a "phone home" feature is incorrect. The article makes no such assertion, nor does anybody else who's examined the behavior of these printers. Your statement is just silly.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:So What? by Physics+Dude · 2004-01-21 04:56 · Score: 1

YOU: "There is no "phone home" feature
YOU: "I have not disassembled the driver or even glimpsed at the code,"
You are ignorant. Take a logic class.
Re:So What? by Golias · 2004-01-21 05:52 · Score: 1

You know what? Even without looking at the code, I can also tell you that HP printers will not do your taxes for you, or shovel your driveway. I'm just smart that way. Your comments, which show that you completely missed my point, have become beyond tedious. STFU.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:So What? by Physics+Dude · 2004-01-21 07:02 · Score: 1

LOL. Thanks for the good laugh.
FACT: HP printer drivers are checking for images of currency and responding by directing users to a web page.
FACT: The web server that people are directed to can obviously see the IP address of those who are connecting to that page (which is ONLY designed for people who have been automatically directed there. -read its text).
FACT: This *IS* "phoning home" and if you tried to print images of money with one of these HP printers it's very likely that YOUR IP address will appear on their server logs. It's trivial to log accesses to a specific page.
Not only are you ignorant, you're also naieve and in denial.
Re:So What? by Golias · 2004-01-21 08:38 · Score: 1

FACT: 99% of users are not working from a static IP, but from one of a pool of IP addresses provided by their ISP. The information is nearly useless from a law-enforcement perspective.
Why did you go through such labors to claim that you were not saying that it's "phoning home" when you now say you believe that it is?
Ah... I get it. You're trolling. IHBT, IHL. Never mind.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:So What? by Physics+Dude · 2004-01-21 09:18 · Score: 1

Wow. I really have to hand it to you. You just keep coming back for more. I really expected that the last post was clear and plain enough to get my original point across.
I highly doubt your 99% guess, but that's all irrelevant. The RIAA today filed several hundred lawsuits based *exactly* on these types of IP addresses, static or not. However, my lasts post was merely a last ditch effort to help you see that the HP driver *is* sending out information over the network and that it's not the stretch you make it out to be that the driver could easily send more information when requesting that URL. Your absurd attempts to equate this to doing taxes or shoveling walks only attests to your sheer stupidity.
As I've stated previously, my ONLY complaint about your original post was your claim that "There is no "phone home" feature", which is clearly an ignorant statement. (If you don't understand this, please go look up the word "ignorant" in a dictionary.) You even admitted as much when you said you'd never seen the code, but seemed to think that the idea was so absurd as to be an imposibility. This is where you're being naieve. (maybe you don't know much about technology and just don't understand how easy it would be to have put this in place in the driver).
Maybe I can sum up your argument:
GOLIAS: "I've never seen the HP driver code at all, and I know it's sending out URL requests on the network when people attempt to print images of currency, but it's inconceivable to me that it could be sending out any other information."

And you can't see how I might have a problem with your warped logic?
The fact is that you made a blatantly uninformed claim in your original post and you're too much of a looser to just admit it.
Re:So What? by Physics+Dude · 2004-01-21 09:23 · Score: 1

It's perfectly simple: The original post made an entirely unfounded claim that there was a "phone home" feature
Yes, and YOU made an entirely unfounded claim that there was NOT a "phone home" feature.
It this so difficult for you to grasp?

Who is serving whom? by Dutchmaan · 2004-01-20 07:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

We seem to be crossing the barrier from capturing and prosecuting criminals to restraining the general populace in order to protect the status quo institution...

At what point does the government go from serving the wishes of the people to the people serving the wishes of the government?

Take a good and careful look.. this is erosion of freedom at work... Sure maybe it's small and relatively painless.. but then, that's why they call it erosion,

Re:Who is serving whom? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:37 · Score: 0

And the government won't let me legally obtain plutonium or smallpox!!! I'm not a criminal, I just want them for self-defense.
Re:Who is serving whom? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:50 · Score: 0

I thought the second amendment guaranteed you the right to carry a weapon? Surely plutonium and smallpo are weapons?
Re:Who is serving whom? by funbobby · 2004-01-20 07:52 · Score: 1

I agree that any increase in the government's power over our lives is ominous, but this is a pretty specific case where I think it is worthwhile.

Having a trustworthy currency is a cornerstone of our economy and our society. If our currency became less stable it would be very bad for all of us; that's why controlling the currency is something the US government has been doing right from the start.

There are a lot of other places where the government is erroding our freedom for no good reason at all, and I think we should focus on fighting those. Currency is one of the few things that I'm actually glad the government is looking after.
Re:Who is serving whom? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:52 · Score: 0

To bear arms. Arms generally taken as firearms.
Re:Who is serving whom? by Wylfing · 2004-01-20 08:55 · Score: 1

We seem to be crossing the barrier from capturing and prosecuting criminals to restraining the general populace in order to protect the status quo institution...
Aye, true. But this is not an "erosion of freedom." It has always been this way. I hate to sound all commie, but this is the protection of power by the bourgoisie and a correlating irrational fear that people left to their own devices (i.e., not under authoritarian control) will cause ruin. This goes all the way back to Gutenberg -- Dear God in Heaven we can't let just anyone print or there will be firey rain from the skies! This a battle to wrest information from the hands of the controlling few that has been going on for 500 years, and anti-copying technology is merely the latest front. There have been a few major victories along the way, and on the whole we are getting freer, but there is yet quite a long way to go.

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Re:Who is serving whom? by GSloop · 2004-01-20 09:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Having a trustworthy currency relies on trust of the government issuing said currency.

A much larger threat to the currency is the massive deficient and lack of action on Social security and Medicare/Medicaid. These budget/economy busters, of not addressed promptly, will cause serious concern about the viability of the US Gvmt/Economy, and will work to devalue our currency.

A few two bit counterfitters don't come even close to reaching that level of threat.

It's like worrying about the guy who's got a rubber-band and a spit ball pointed at you, when there's a known terrorist who has explosives planted under your house, and a RPG pointed at your head.

Sheesh,
Greg
Re:Who is serving whom? by PCM2 · 2004-01-20 09:21 · Score: 1

We seem to be crossing the barrier from capturing and prosecuting criminals to restraining the general populace in order to protect the status quo institution...
Given that the institution in question is finance, which is basically the foundation of all of American society, I don't know why you seem so surprised.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Who is serving whom? by funbobby · 2004-01-20 09:39 · Score: 1

very true, those are big risks as well. But that doesn't change the fact that going after counterfeiters is a worthwhile thing for the government to do.

The point I wanted to make is that even though it might look on the surface like the usual government invading our personal business story, there really is a good reason for the government to be interested in this. There's enough other _really_ stupid stuff that the government does that its not worth getting all worked up about this one.
Re:Who is serving whom? by HiThere · 2004-01-20 11:18 · Score: 1

If you want a trustworthy currency, then tie it to the value of some physical medium. Like, say, monocrystaline wafers of 99.99999% pure silicon. Or a ton of iron (of some specified purity).

You don't let the government print as much money as it feels like, and in the same voice call for a stable currency. There was a number of years when the US govt. was the biggest counterfeiter on the face of the earth. Then they decided to let the dollar float, because the KNEW they could never redeem the debt they had promissed, even with redefining how much silver a dollar was worth every fiscal quarter.

It would be closer to say Having a n un trustworthy currency is a cornerstone of our economy and ... If you doubt this, compare the dollar against the euro or the yen WHEE! Don't the wild swings enthuse you? But there sure isn't much stability.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Who is serving whom? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 15:09 · Score: 0

We seem to be crossing the barrier from capturing and prosecuting criminals to restraining the general populace in order to protect the status quo institution...

Minority Reports comes to mind...
Re:Who is serving whom? by danila · 2004-01-20 22:37 · Score: 1

How about an assault rifle firing plutonium shells with airborne smallpox? I'd like one of that.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Who is serving whom? by GSloop · 2004-01-21 07:30 · Score: 1

Given the in essence "prior restraint" I don't think the trade off is reasonable.

Also, we have no idea what the software does. No-one does! It could have all sorts of purposes that we'd only eventually find out about.

Given all these potential abuses, the pay off is vanishingly small.

I'm sure some goverment goon thinks this is good. My point is that when we're expending *limited* resporces, the most productive thing to expend them on, is the most likely to produce the greatest results. Keeping PS and printers from printing money which will almost certainly be noticed as fake very quickly, is simply a stupid waste of resources.

Greg

What incentive do printer manufacturers have? by hchaos · 2004-01-20 07:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

What incentive do printer manufacturers have to treat their customers like criminals?

To be fair, this only treats customers who engage in suspicious activity (as defined by the manufacturer) like criminals. My guess is that roughly 95% of all customers don't care whether or not this is in there, so it doesn't hurt the bottom line in a noticeable manner.

As for the incentive, they most likely want to indemnify themselves in case a criminal organization uses their equipment, and the feds decide to go after the manufacturers, under RICO, Patriot, or whatever other law they can find. This kind of legal battle would have a huge effect on the bottom line.

what's the worst? by gunix · 2004-01-20 07:24 · Score: 1

to try to copy real money or game money, like monopoly money?
Counterfeit or copyright infringment... ohh.. I don't know which is the worst...

--
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed

Nope. by Anonvmous+Coward · 2004-01-20 07:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Is this a precursor to DRM in scanners, CD drives, and output devices?"

Nope. It's a pre-emptive step to avoid government mandated DRM in scanners, CD drives, and output devices. If wide-spread counterfitting were to occur because one of these devices was capable of pulling it off, the manufacturer would be able to say "we took reasonable steps to avoid this." If they didn't do that, then the gov't would no doubt cook up its own solution to the problem. I am not a huge fan of this, I would rather these companies stay out of the legal cross-fire.

The United States is going to protect its currency very heavily. Don't provoke them by trying to circumvent this.

Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:46 · Score: 0

uhm its the govements code, Adobe or HP dont know exactly what the code does they just put it in on request of the said goverment

so yes it is goverment mandated, they asked and Adobe etc complied
Re:Nope. by red+floyd · 2004-01-20 08:11 · Score: 1

It's a pre-emptive step to avoid government mandated DRM in scanners, CD drives, and output devices.

Why would any attempts to prevent currency counterfeiting require DRM in CD drives?

<TINFOIL-HAT>
Unless the RIAA has taken over the Treasury Dept. as well as Congress and the FBI...
</TINFOIL-HAT>

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:Nope. by Tom · 2004-01-20 08:17 · Score: 2, Informative

The United States is going to protect its currency very heavily

ROTFL!

So that's why the US$ scores high on the easy-to-fake scale?

Compare to european currencies, both before and after the Euro, the US$ is cheap paper with green print on it. Maybe they should go and solve the problem at the root.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:21 · Score: 0

I don't see why they bother. At $1.80ish to the pound and getting weaker, the dollar will soon be pretty toilet paper.
Re:Nope. by phorm · 2004-01-20 08:21 · Score: 1

If the protection prevents my fair use of a product and so does DRM, what's the difference? Whether it's the government or a private company - they are covertly disabling perfectly legitimate use of the product.
Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:38 · Score: 0

It is not a great idea to have the government ask "favors" of people. A true favor is among equals. When somebody who has thousands of times more power than I do asks a "favor" I consider it an implicit threat.

If they didn't do that, then the gov't would no doubt cook up its own solution to the problem

Isn't the end result the same?

Don't provoke them by trying to circumvent this.

What will they do if they are provoked? Pass a law with public debate on the subject? Send non compliant companies to Gitmo? Stop printing money because it is too hard to stop counterfeiters?

Why are you so scared of the logical conclusion? If the people think this is important we should pass a law in the constitutionally proscribed manner.
Re:Nope. by Solandri · 2004-01-20 08:46 · Score: 1

If the protection prevents my fair use of a product and so does DRM, what's the difference? Whether it's the government or a private company - they are covertly disabling perfectly legitimate use of the product.
The private company is trying to protect its profits.
The government is trying to protect one of the pillars that our modern economic society is based on (cash). Unless you want to go back to lugging around gold coins...
Re:Nope. by rstultz · 2004-01-20 09:18 · Score: 1

From my understanding, it's not really detecting currency. It's detecting a certain pattern that is on the currency (of most major companies). So what happens when every photo has that image? What happens when Kodak decides to imprint it on all of the prints you buy (ensuring that you have to spend that extra $3 for the CD if you want digital copies). Likely? Seems not too far fetched for me. Or how about one better (though more far-fetched) how about when a company decides to start watermarking sensitive (read potentially damaging) papers with it? If the whistle-blower can't document the wrong-doing, they're not going to be much whistle blowing. Then how long before every government document has it on it (Why should anyone need to scan a government document).

I'm not that worried about the currency issue (though as an graphic designer doing display ads, I'm one of those it actually affects, being that it's not uncommon for an ad to have money, legally, in the ad graphics), but I'm concerned about the actual mark being used, and how easy it would (or wouldn't) be to have that mark spread to all kinds of other things.

How long before the RIAA convinces companies that make sound cards to employ a similar digital stamp?

Ryan
Re:Nope. by frostman · 2004-01-20 10:37 · Score: 1

The United States is going to protect its currency very heavily. Don't provoke them by trying to circumvent this.

That reminds me, I was just down in Serbia last week, and a friend and I needed to change some money at the train station.

He had Euros, I had US Dollars.

He checked the price, handed over the Euros, and got his Dinars and a receipt.

I checked the price, handed over my Dollars, and... had to give the guy my passport, the number of which he wrote in a register, and then I had to sign next to the entry in order to get my Dinars.

So, as much as I love our undervalued greenbacks, I must say it would be nice if they were compatible with the standard counterfeit-detecting machines!

--
This Like That - fun with words!
Re:Nope. by black+mariah · 2004-01-20 10:38 · Score: 1

How many websites watermark their images? Most all of them that are popular. But of course, if KODAK does it.. well, shit, that's just WRONG because they're a COMPANY trying to make MONEY. So fucking what if a company starts using this on sensitive documents? What, does the watermark also disable digital cameras?

This whole thing is making my head hurt. Really.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:Nope. by dcam · 2004-01-20 10:39 · Score: 1

Australian currency is plastic. Try photocopying that.

--
meh
Re:Nope. by HiThere · 2004-01-20 11:22 · Score: 1

You mean like currency paper with transparent plastic threads in it that glow under UV? Why would they do that?

OTOH, there may have been some problems with that proposal. I don't know. But they sure could have tried a *bit* harder!

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Nope. by Tim+C · 2004-01-20 11:47 · Score: 1

Well, the OP did say "is going to", as in future tense...

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

mountains and molehills by circletimessquare · 2004-01-20 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

drm will affect millions of computer users in myriad ways: drm is seriously scary

not being able to copy your $20 bill will affect what... 5 avant garde artists?: yawm

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:mountains and molehills by Nynaeve · 2004-01-20 07:56 · Score: 1

Every mountain was once a molehill.
Re:mountains and molehills by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:03 · Score: 0

Just because you have no interest doesn't mean it isn't a valid concern.
The unwashed masses(see 95% of the population) could care less about DRM, so I can only assume that it is a non-issue. Since DRM doesn't affect my life in any way(no more or less than printing money anyway) I think I can safely wager that you're complaining about a non-issue at best.
Re:mountains and molehills by Sax+Maniac · 2004-01-20 10:54 · Score: 1

That, plus these 3,000 websites.

--
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Re:mountains and molehills by bobbozzo · 2004-01-20 11:01 · Score: 1

Images of money are used a LOT in advertising.

DRM is not just about money.

--
Nothing to see here; Move along.

A cynic's view: DRM as a profit stream for Adobe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

So, why stop at currency? Imagine if it stopped you using

1) The McDonalds Golden Arches
2) The Mircosoft logo
3) An photo of the president
4) The Nike swish
5)...

All things which could arguabley be copyright and their representation easily recognised. Imagine how much money Adobe could make if it charged $ 5 million to lock a logo/image unless the appropriate adobe supplied plugin is used. Disgraceful.

How? by DAldredge · 2004-01-20 07:26 · Score: 1

How? Ford isn't liable when someone uses one of their OnStar equipted vehicles to commit a robery so what legal basis do you see for Adobe and/or other software makers to be liable?

Also, since this tech is closed, not even adobe had access to the code for this module, do you think that software that doesn't impliment this should be banned?

Re:How? by lordkuri · 2004-01-20 08:16 · Score: 1

Ford isn't liable when someone uses one of their OnStar equipted vehicles to commit a robery

I'd imagine they'd be pretty pissed if someone tried to hold them liable for a General Motors product.

-lk
Re:How? by DAldredge · 2004-01-20 08:21 · Score: 1

Damn. Me smart. Happend that did? Sorry Am I! Me Smart!

OPPS. :->

Already there. by torpor · 2004-01-20 07:26 · Score: 1

And it ain't pretty.

You will find your politicians in the hallowed (inaccessible) halls of the Church of the International Monetary Fund pretty much any day of the week...

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

How am I ? by McDrewbie · 2004-01-20 07:27 · Score: 1

How do they expect me to pay for these products if they don't let me make my own money?

I don't get it by ryzynforce · 2004-01-20 07:27 · Score: 1

What is the purpose of making copies or image editing the currency? Other than the occasional prankster I just do not see the need for being able to view currency under those conditions. Counterfitters are getting better and better at doing what they do. So knowing that, why shouldn't the government want to prevent the the "average" person from being able to buy a piece of software and with a small amount of creativity create a "just good enough" reproduction of our currency. The government seems to have enough trouble catching the really good counterfitters. I just do not see how not being able to scan in or image alter currency becomes a privacy issue when this is something that we are not supposed to do in the first place.

--
It's all fun and games until someone takes an eye out!

Re:I don't get it by __past__ · 2004-01-20 07:46 · Score: 1

How about simple, innocent uses like illustrations in a magazine? I'm pretty sure I have made layouts that used images of money, and I wouldn't have liked being preemtively treated as a criminal for it. How about using such images in a travellers guide, to tell people how money is supposed to look like in that country so they cannot be as easily tricked into accepting counterfeits?
There are probably thousands of legitimate reasons to scan and/or print images of money. Working around such technical measures will, however, not be something that stops any serious criminal.
BTW, if the USAsians are really that bothered about counterfeiters using scanners and printers, it would probably be a good idea to finally get real money that isn't that damn easy to reproduce.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Re:I don't get it by ryzynforce · 2004-01-20 07:54 · Score: 1

I have no problem with legitimate use. What I speak of is the average 13 year old who believes that this is something that they can getaway with. That is what I speak of.

--
It's all fun and games until someone takes an eye out!
Re:I don't get it by __past__ · 2004-01-20 08:35 · Score: 1

If you can build a scanner that is able to distinguish between legitimate use and stupid teenagers, I guess you can expect at least a turing award, maybe a nobel price in whatever category. Building an AI that reliably decides in real time what takes months to decide in courts would be most impressive.
If you cannot build such a thing, and Adobe/HP can't either, I say lets keep with the old "in dubio pro reo" thing.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.

I wonder... by mj2k · 2004-01-20 07:28 · Score: 1

I wonder - is the author of the bugtraq really worried about spyware? It sounds like he's more concerned about his cash supply (darn it when he tried to use that 20 from his spyware-scanner at wal-mart the other day the cashier asked him why it was blue).

60dd4mn, 3w3 4R3 4 614nt 4m0n9 m3n!!! by Thud457 · 2004-01-20 07:29 · Score: 2, Funny

GENIUS!
That's the way to "think different"!

(And I'm not just yankin' your chain!)

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Moral Responsibility by crow23 · 2004-01-20 07:29 · Score: 1

More likely this is an example of the companies taking a morally responsible step to prevent illegal use of their products. It seems like a good balance between offering a quality product and corporate responsibility. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it seems like a reasonable step by software manufacturer's to prevent their indirect support of illegal activities. I'm sure if you could come up with some legitimate reasons to allow currency to be scanned it, maybe the manufacturer's would allow some version to permit such activity.

Vending machines? by tordon · 2004-01-20 07:29 · Score: 5, Funny

If software can detect bank notes in printer drivers, why can't vending machines do it reliably?

Re:Vending machines? by phorm · 2004-01-20 07:58 · Score: 1

Because though currency is detectable via a five circle pattern, one could suppose that it is only detected as "currency" as opposed to a specific bill.

Vending machines, on the other hand, need to detect which bill is inserted (for obvious reasons). It's easier in countries with dollar-coins, though it seems that the higher the coin-value goes the higher the cost of vending machines which use them.
Re:Vending machines? by Rick.C · 2004-01-20 08:30 · Score: 1

If software can detect bank notes in printer drivers, why can't vending machines do it reliably?
Since counterfeiters are proud of their art and want to produce "good looking" copies, they copy new bills. Vending machines see old, worn bills.
FWIW: From now on, you counterfeiters should go for the Star Wars "used and grimey" look. Forget your pride and copy old bills. The software may fail to detect it.

--
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Re:Vending machines? by MrScience · 2004-01-20 09:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I know this was meant as a joke, but it appears that the printer/photoshop/copier/scanner people don't really care about false positives, while the vending machine people definitely would not want to identify a fake as real. If they used this technology, you would simply have to draw a few circles on a piece of paper to get your carbs.

--
You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

Maybe this is what prevents SCO... by ursg · 2004-01-20 07:31 · Score: 0, Offtopic

... from presenting their evidence.

Every time they try to print the "offending code" their printer aborts with "DRM Error: You do not have permission to print this document."

Now they need all that money from the stock markets to buy the printer company.

Not a precursor by Complicity · 2004-01-20 07:32 · Score: 1

Is this a precursor to DRM in ... output devices?

Precursor nothing, this is apparently already happening...

From one of the links: I did some investigating on my own computer and discovered that HP has also been shipping currency anti-copying software in their printer drives since at least the summer of 2002. I have an HP 130 photo printer and found the string "http://www.rulesforuse.org" embedded in the driver.

According to a few newsgroup messages posted in 2002 and 2003, folks are seeing this URL printed out when they attempt to print images of certain types of bills. An HP printer with this anti-copying technology only prints out an inch of a currency image before aborting the print job.

--
- c -

Re:note design changes (anticounterfeit mania) by G4from128k · 2004-01-20 07:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wonder if more images will incorporate these anticounterfeiting circles? CD covers, web photos, and books could all incorporate this simple design.

What happens if someone puts the circle design on their webpage images? Does this prevent printing, copying, etc. web images?

Circle mania could get very interesting.

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Call me Captain Obvious but... by MrPoopyPants · 2004-01-20 07:33 · Score: 1

First of all, do professional (?) counterfeiters even use scanners/software? I'm assuming no.

Second, if you REALLY wanted to scan a piece of currency you could still scan it in parts and then assemble the parts later through one of several methods...

What happened to spending time/money/energy on innovation instead of false security? (RIAA, I'm talking to you, too...)

Seems very precursory by t_allardyce · 2004-01-20 07:33 · Score: 1

This is not only a precurser, but if certain people/banks etc start putting pressure on then it might become mandatory - like key escrow in encryption was thought about. The music and film industry will want in too. And what will this mean for open source software such as the gimp?? it could go 3 ways - 1. nothing happens (we hope), 2. it gets mandated and open source gets into trouble (bad), and 3. Hardware based DRM gets mandated and i dont know which is worse!

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.

That explains it! by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2004-01-20 07:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Thank you for your post. I've returned 6 printers and both PS and PSP so far. By some freak of nature, my newborn son has birthmarks arranged in the pattern shown in the PDF. Every time I've tried to work with his image the software wouldn't load it. Then when I finally resorted to MS Paint, the printers wouldn't print it!

I was able to defeat this "feature" by drawing another birthmark on my son...problem solved! Thank you slashdot for saving the day...again.

Elegance! by Thinkit3 · 2004-01-20 07:33 · Score: 0

It's just a lot more elegant to be able to scan or print anything. It's all just bits--ones and zeros--in the end. Some sort of detection scheme adds complexity, and subtracts elegance.

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist

Re:Elegance! by ryzynforce · 2004-01-20 07:41 · Score: 1

Though that still does not explain an actual purpose for this.

--
It's all fun and games until someone takes an eye out!

in truth by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:33 · Score: 0

this is, pure and simple, a reversal of long held American beliefs that you are considered innocent until proven quilty.

Where once we had "of the people, by the people, for the people" we now have "of the people, by the corporations, for the corporations."

You could help stop it. But that would mean you'd have to pay attention and vote for your interests. Sadly, with the courts backing the hinky redistricting going on, your ability to be represented in congress is becoming extinct. This could be our last year to regain control. I advise that you act accordingly.

Fair uses? by Tom7 · 2004-01-20 07:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

What is also interesting is that these products block fair uses of currency images which do not break the law.

By using the term "fair uses" you seem to be trying to evoke copyright law. As far as I know, there is no copyright on currency images in the US because they are government publications (and, indeed, not really even "creative works" as required to be copyrightable). The issue is entirely with counterfeiting, obviously, which is actually a much more serious infraction.

Even if this were a copyright issue, no publisher of software is required to write software which enables you to fairly use their, or others', copyrighted material. There's really no legal issue here unless Adobe was forced by law to include this (they weren't)--it's just a matter of what Photoshop customers want, and what Adobe provides.

For my part, I enjoyed learning what those little yellow '20s' on the new series $20 bills are for, and so this whole ordeal was certainly worth it. =)

Re:Fair uses? by bobbozzo · 2004-01-20 10:57 · Score: 1

it's just a matter of what Photoshop customers want, and what Adobe provides.
No, it's about Adobe covering their ass. (from perceived potential liability)

--
Nothing to see here; Move along.
Re:Fair uses? by Angus+Prune · 2004-01-20 12:46 · Score: 1

Just because a company implements something voluntarily doesn't mean we should accept it. If there is no outcry over this than soon every major graphics program and printer manufacturer could include it.
Then where will we have left to turn?

Censorship doesnt have to be forced on you for it to be bad.
Re:Fair uses? by Tom7 · 2004-01-20 12:54 · Score: 1

That's what I'm talking about when I say that this is an issue between Adobe and its customers. Do their customers demand unencumbered software? Maybe. But it is simply not a legal issue, and "fair use" doesn't enter into it.
Re:Fair uses? by Angus+Prune · 2004-01-20 13:09 · Score: 1

It comes into it because we have a right to use the image and can use it legitamatly.
If there was a reliable way to screen for child porn (the only example i could think of) that didnt pick up on photos of kids in the bath or on the beach etc. than I would be all for it, because there is no legitamate use for the image.

Because there is a right that is being curtailed we cannot let it rest.
Re:Fair uses? by Tom7 · 2004-01-20 13:54 · Score: 1

We don't have a "right" for photoshop to contain all the features that we want it to. If the government was forcing adobe to include this, then we'd have a legal issue.

Lawrence Lessig by ir0b0t · 2004-01-20 07:37 · Score: 1

This is a trend anticipated by Stanford Law Prof. Lawrence Lessig in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic 1999). Lessig argues that the greater threat to fundamental liberties is from large business wielding proprietary code. His call --- as counter-intuitive as it may seem --- is for revitalized regulation. He's admittedly skeptical that positive steps can be taken due to popular cynicism about govt. in the US. On the other hand, he is encouraged by the open source movement. Slashdot is already a fan of Lessig and his said that he has "[a] deep and thus far unmatched view of what will shape the net of tomorrow." The notion that private businesses are secretly packing spyware into anything that moves in the name of "freedom" should not come as a surprise. The larger question is how to transform the culture so that the threat to individual freedoms posed by such trends is visible to a popular audience.

--
I'm laughing at clouds.

Stop Whining by ad0gg · 2004-01-20 07:37 · Score: 1

Manufactors aren't forced to do this by the government, it is by choice. But as consumer you have a choice not to buy their products. Only thing that I find unethical is that the companies do not label their products as having these checks in them. Seriously, look at other products that have some form of "consumer" protection systems. Like automobiles with a speed limiter, the speedometer goes up to 150 yet the chip in the car only allows you to go 120.

--

Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

Simple Solution by wornst · 2004-01-20 07:37 · Score: 1

Just use a counterfeit copy of photoshop!

"Do not copy" symbol by Animats · 2004-01-20 07:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

What happens if someone puts the circle design on their webpage images? Does this prevent printing, copying, etc. web images?

Effectively, there's now a standard symbol for "do not copy". It needs to be better publicized, but it's out there. Soon we'll see it on everything.

Re:"Do not copy" symbol by great_flaming_foo · 2004-01-20 07:47 · Score: 5, Funny

It needs to be better publicized
They tried to publicize it but for some reason their printer wouldn't work...
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by tepples · 2004-01-20 07:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

There has always been such a symbol:

. . SYMB0L. . . SY. . . MB. 0L. . SYMB. 0L SY. MB. . . 0L SY. MB. . . 0L SY. . MB0L. SY . MB. . . 0L. . . SYMB0L. .

dumb lameness filter...
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by gnu-generation-one · 2004-01-20 08:06 · Score: 5, Funny

"Effectively, there's now a standard symbol for "do not copy""

Okay, print this symbol on your letterhead next time you write to your MP, and ask them to forward your letter (as you normally do when writing to MPs, they photocopy the letter, and forward it to the relevant department)

Their secretaries will soon discover how easy this anticounterfeiting technique makes their lives... I wonder if any of them will put a postit note over the symbol to make it photocopy, or whether you can just include a load of them in the watermark. (a watermark in a watermark!)
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by adrianbaugh · 2004-01-20 08:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

So can you get copier paper with this symbol in a watermark? It seems that would be an excellent way for companies to make it significantly harder for confidential memos (etc.) to be photocopied and leaked to business rivals or the press.

--
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by Royster · 2004-01-20 08:40 · Score: 1

Okay, print this symbol on your letterhead next time you write to your MP...

Sorry, it's 2005 and your printer driver reports you to the counterfeiting authorities for trying to print the forbidden pattern.

--
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by gnu-generation-one · 2004-01-20 09:04 · Score: 1

"Sorry, it's 2005 and your printer driver reports you to the counterfeiting authorities for trying to print the forbidden pattern."

It's 2004, and my printer doesn't do shit, because Canon doesn't release any printer drivers for Linux...
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by budgenator · 2004-01-20 09:43 · Score: 2, Funny

the only problem I see is copying the do not copy symbol on to the copy you don't want copied. That was like saying GNU means GNU is not unix with straight face

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:17 · Score: 0

I was going to ask what was wrong with typing ©, but then I tried it in a preview.

WHY THE FUCK DOES SLASHDOT FILTER OUT CHARACTERS LIKE THIS?! They don't even have the lame "we don't ned those characters in America" excuse they use about accented letters and the Sterling and Euro currency symbols!
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by budgenator · 2004-01-20 10:18 · Score: 1

Perhaps if the company made sure that all of it's copiers were digital copiers, that recognised the special mark, it might help. Then they would have to find a ink color that none of the companies fax machines could read, then ban cameras, cellular picture phones, ect.

As you can see, it's appealing idea on the surface, but it's practical application wouldn't really be effective.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by HiThere · 2004-01-20 10:40 · Score: 1

If it is, as appears likely, a new standard, then it will become more effective as time passes. And I'm not totally sure it's a bad idea. Not totally.

OTOH, with wider use, having it report to the SS for counterfeiting will become less and less useful. (I was just scanning in a cereal box top so my cousin would know what to get me!)

And I'm not at all certain that it will be legal for them to restrict the use of the symbol to official government documents.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by UserGoogol · 2004-01-20 10:54 · Score: 1

Slashdot stores posts in UTF-7. © is not part of UTF-7. If they added ©, they'd need to go to UTF-8.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by neko9 · 2004-01-20 11:10 · Score: 1

so? hacked drivers? hacked printer, scanner, copier rom? like that was something new.
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by RobNich · 2004-01-20 11:12 · Score: 1

Sorry, but the six character string "©" is absolutely part of fucking UTF-7. That's the entire fucking reason that is is written that way.

--
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by David_Bloom · 2004-01-20 11:13 · Score: 1

© is just an ampersand, the word copy, and a semicolon (it's converted into the copyright symbol by the browser, not the server).
Slashdot allows the ampersand: & <--I didn't type in & here - this is just an ampersand
Slashdot allows the word copy: copy
Slashdot allows the semicolon: ;
So that's not the cause of it.

--

Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 12:50 · Score: 0

Which effectively will make it so everybody wants to circumvent it. Not something you want to happen when your a central banker so you go to court to sue people who uses it for copyright violation.
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by adrianbaugh · 2004-01-20 13:16 · Score: 1

I just said it would make it harder. Often such crimes are "inside jobs", and the copiers in a company are usually within the company's control.
If you have a pissed-off secretary who just wants to make a quick buck she's unlikely to (a) know about the special marks or (b) be an l33t h4X0r who can reprogram the copier. If she was she'd have a tech job (whoops, they all went to Bombay didn't they?)

--
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by base3 · 2004-01-20 14:57 · Score: 1

That would also have the effect of DDoSing the Secret Service for awhile, since it's reputed that Xerox color copiers, and possibly others, disable themselves until reset by a technician when they detect an apparent attempt to copy currency. See this, which was pointed to by another poster in this story.

--
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by Dahan · 2004-01-20 16:34 · Score: 1

I don't think you know what UTF-7 is. It's not a character set; it's an encoding of the Unicode character set. All Unicode characters can be represented in UTF-7; the copyright symbol is +AKk.
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by Niten · 2004-01-20 18:05 · Score: 1

We very likely will see it on everything soon... but that might just be the downfall of this currency copy-protection scheme in the end.

If half the images out there cannot be copied due to abuse of this watermark, that will only increase the demand for copiers and scanners that do not respect the watermark - assuming this scheme hasn't been codified into law at that point in time.
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by Animats · 2004-01-20 18:29 · Score: 1

As a demo, someone should make an unprintable web page, using a background containing the pattern of circles that triggers this.
By the way, are uncopyable images copyable in black and white?
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by anticypher · 2004-01-21 00:55 · Score: 2, Informative

So can you get copier paper with this symbol in a watermark?

Yes, as I noted in another post in this thread. At CeBIT last year there was a company showing off a variety of security related products. They had a number of different kinds of paper and special printers and inks, aimed at companies who need to distribute trackable copies of sensitive things. There was a box of what looked like plain white photocopier paper, except it had thin wavy blue lines printed in quarter circles around each corner, and the little pale yellow circles all over the page. The thin blue lines are generated by an analog engraving process, which ensures that there are many frequency components to a moire pattern when scanned by a digital scanner. An FFT will pick up the large number of frequencies, and interpret the mark as coming from currency, triggering the anti-counterfeiting circuit in photocopiers.

The sales droid identified the yellow circles as "Digimarc circles", and I've been using that assumption ever since. The paper was expensive, at something like 2 euros/sheet for a box of 25 sheets. Now I want a copy of those yellow circles so I can make my own watermark to stick behind my own documents. I just isolated the circles on a 20 euro note, now I have to clean up the image and make it repeat all over a page and then find a copy of photoshop to see what happens.

Also at CeBIT was a whole collection of photocopier manufacturers, all of whom prominently listed anti-counterfeiting as a feature to comply with various national laws. I didn't see any try to hide the fact you couldn't photocopy money, but most of them wouldn't allow anyone to test it because the reset procedure was too difficult.

the AC

--
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by WWWWolf · 2004-01-21 01:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Note that this symbol is only on image editing software and color photocopiers. I guess it'd be pointless to add it to plain ordinary grayscale copiers, since counterfeit money produced with them, if we understate a bit, is easy to recognize...
Better just print the confidential memos on deep red paper =)
Re:"Do not copy" symbol by metamatic · 2004-01-23 02:19 · Score: 1

Let me know how it turns out. I want to start putting the digimarc circles everywhere if they work, but I don't have any crippled graphics software to test 'em with.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Treating customers like CRIMINALS??? Puh-leez!! by TrollBridge · 2004-01-20 07:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

"What incentive do printer manufacturers have to treat their customers like criminals?"

Explain to me how this equates to HP treating their customers like criminals? And while you're at it, perhaps you could then explain why anyone BUT a criminal would want to print out ultra-high resoultion images of currency.

--
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.

other uses for currancy scans by tube013 · 2004-01-20 07:39 · Score: 1

Back in elementry school when I was running for treasurer of student council, my dad and I made up campaign posters with my face and name, and catch slogans on currancy. We did it all by and, copying the currancy, cutting out the portriat, and so on, and then replacing it with my image et. al. this was a long tedious process, but had photoshop or the gimp been around back then, we would of used that for sure. Sounds like now we'd be up a creek, even though what we were doing was pretty much as non-counterfit as it gets.

Precursur by johnos · 2004-01-20 07:40 · Score: 1

Is this a precursor to DRM in scanners, CD drives, and output devices?

No. Its a precursor to many companies going bankrupt because new competitors come along that don't treat customers like criminals. This is as insane a business model as any tried during the internet bubble. Yet the RIAA, SCO, Adobe and even some respectible companies are trying it. Don't worry. It won't last. eat the shit out of your customers for long enough and someone will take them away.

Slower opening files? by ayeco · 2004-01-20 07:40 · Score: 1

I read that one guy opened an image (taken with digital camera, of a fly on grass) in CS and it took 17 seconds. In Photoshop 7 it opened almost immediately.

I don't doubt that it takes longer to open images now that it has to analyze the file on open. This is a bad idea.

Re:Slower opening files? by David_Bloom · 2004-01-20 08:20 · Score: 1

Photoshop CS's filters only apply to images scanned using photoshop - e.g. you go to File-->Import-->(scanner name) and scan it directly into photoshop. Opening a digital image from your hard drive is not affected. In fact, you can just scan the bill using a different program, save it to disk, then open it in Photoshop CS.

--

Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)

What nakes you think it's a precursor? by Mordant · 2004-01-20 07:40 · Score: 1

My guess is that it's there already, it's just that nobody has poked around enough to discover it.

Yet.

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by mike_mgo · 2004-01-20 07:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

My father is a copier salesman. The newer model copiers (color at least) won't let you copy currency. I think the first two times you try it will print out a black page and give you an error message about copying currency. If you try a third time the machine will lock down. To unlock it you need to get a service call from the manufacturer who will also notify the authorities.

it doesn't mean there's no issue by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:41 · Score: 0

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. Avoid the fallacy of assuming that you can imagine all possibilities and conversely, that anything you couldn't imagine should therefore not exist.

Re:it doesn't mean there's no issue by ryzynforce · 2004-01-20 07:49 · Score: 1

"Avoid the fallacy of assuming..."
What fallacy? What is the purpose of "Joe Somebody" digitally imaging currency? The law states that this is illegal. It seems simple enough. Besides jail time does not suit me well at all. Although you can go right ahead and enjoy yourself, if that is what you want to do.

--
It's all fun and games until someone takes an eye out!
Re:it doesn't mean there's no issue by sqlrob · 2004-01-20 08:04 · Score: 1

Point to the law please.

Good luck, there isn't one. It's that you can't make full color dupes that are 76-149% the size of the real thing.
Re:it doesn't mean there's no issue by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:37 · Score: 0

What fallacy? What is the purpose of "Joe Somebody" digitally imaging currency?
That fallacy. Let me repeat it once again. Just because you can't imagine something does not mean it doesn't have a right to exist. Oh wait. You must be American.
The law states that this is illegal.
The only thing that is illegal is making fake currency. Which is usually done via special equipment anyway and requires special paper and so on. You might be comfortable placing any operation that is in any form related to duplicating money under the same umbrella (scanning, printing, etc) but watch out when you go to jail for speeding 1 mile over, because hey, someone thought since it's illegal and he can't imagine any reason why someone would be speeding, it might as well be punished more severely.

But... by Eminence · 2004-01-20 07:41 · Score: 1

It's all stupid and worrying but such a code makes more sense in a printer than in a graphics manipulation program.

Re:Treating customers like CRIMINALS??? Puh-leez!! by SuiteSisterMary · 2004-01-20 07:41 · Score: 1

Ultra-high resolution images of currency? Art, advertising, parody, the list goes on. In the last /. story about this feature in Photoshop-CS, somebody linked to the US Dept of Treasury's very own guidelines on what you can and can't do, and there's lots of legal stuff you can do with images of US currency.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.

In other news by SharpFang · 2004-01-20 07:41 · Score: 3, Funny

US central bank sent back to the producer a batch of professional heavy-duty printing machines they had bought in order to print dollar bills. The built-in money detection prevents them from printing the bills. They plan outsourcing production of US Dollars to India.

In other news:
US Inflation lowest since last 3 months.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Crime yes. Prevention no. by nurb432 · 2004-01-20 07:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just beacuse you can use said device for a crime does not mean it should be crippled.

Charge and convict the criminals. Dont just assume everyone is and cripple the product.

its not the manufacturing companies job to police its usage, its the law enforcements job.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

It's dumb though by John+Courtland · 2004-01-20 07:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

How can a company that produces high quality image reproduction machines be culpable in the event that someone uses it to counterfeit money? It's akin to selling knives, most people use them to cut vegetables, but there are those few who use them to cut people. Doesn't stop the sale of knives, nor does it leave the knife company in legal trouble because someone used it improperly.

--
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.

Re:It's dumb though by greechneb · 2004-01-20 07:54 · Score: 1

nor does it leave the knife company in legal trouble because someone used it improperly.
No, but it does leave gun companies in legal trouble...
Re:It's dumb though by mr.nicholas · 2004-01-20 08:40 · Score: 1

You're joking, right?

(ahem) "Napster".
Re:It's dumb though by MBCook · 2004-01-20 08:44 · Score: 1

That hasn't prevented people from suing gun makers for making guns, or automobile makers for making big cars. It may not turn out for the people bringing the lawsuits, but that doesn't mean the lawsuits won't be brought any ways. And so the company will STILL have to defent it's self and that will cost $$$.
The same as all those stupid warning labels. Often it's just easier to put a little warning somewhere than deal with the $500 million lawsuit that will later get dismissed after $1 million in legal bills.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:It's dumb though by fbform · 2004-01-20 09:50 · Score: 1

Doesn't stop the sale of knives, nor does it leave the knife company in legal trouble because someone used it improperly.

Sigh...in an ideal world maybe...

In the real world however, everyone from gun makers to video game sellers to heavy metal bands get sued and/or attacked everytime some teenager shoots someone else. So yeah, in the real world, looks like all you need is a juicy target to use as a scapegoat, never mind whether they really are responsible or not.

It's not very logical, but it's what happens.

--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Re:It's dumb though by budgenator · 2004-01-20 11:50 · Score: 1

I think if my digital color copy self-destructed to the point where it took a $250.00 service call and an interview with the secret service to get it going again, and there wasn't a warning about coping certain image patterns, I'd might be inclined to sue.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Be paranoid - but you're too late by furiousgeorge · 2004-01-20 07:42 · Score: 1

You people do know that most color laster printers and a lot of non-color ones hide a subtle watermark in the printing so a given document can be traced back to a particular printer?

You're already being monitored

http://slashdot.org/yro/99/12/08/1342209.shtml

Re:Be paranoid - but you're too late by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2004-01-20 09:20 · Score: 1

most color laster printers and a lot of non-color ones hide a subtle watermark in the printing so a given document can be traced back to a particular printer
This holds chilling implications for anonymous political speech -- handouts and small posters tacked up on telephone poles. I used to think it was only the bad countries that registered copy machines.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Panic Panic Oh no oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:42 · Score: 0

oh noooooo oh noooooo! I can't scan money! i'm going to blow my head of in a tizzy of panic! I need a life!

Re:Panic Panic Oh no oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:50 · Score: 0

Yeah, troll. Tomorrow you will find out you need to send your photo to a hot chick you just met online, and you find the only one you have by you is in your ID. And then you get arrested at attempt of forging the ID, after you put it in the scanner.

Ever seen a printed bill? by 192939495969798999 · 2004-01-20 07:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Have any of you ever seen a bill printed off of a printer? It looks like monopoly money, even if it's an Epson Pro Stylus 10000 with archival ink, and sweet paper. The only way to get the effect of real money even nearly not "monopoly"-ish, is to use engravings and print the stuff... and believe me, once you start down that road, you're in for some trouble.

--
stuff |

Re:Ever seen a printed bill? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:18 · Score: 0

I printed a $10 bill on my brother's old HP officejet using regular paper and regular color ink. I 'aged' the bill after printing by crunching it up and flattening it out a lot until the paper felt softer. I showed it to several friends and family members, and none thought it was fake. I even told a couple of them -- this is fake, and they did not believe me.

Do not understimate color copies of money...
Re:Ever seen a printed bill? by el-spectre · 2004-01-20 08:21 · Score: 1

Not to mention that you need linen "paper", microthreads, embedded plastic strip... all kinds of stuff that a printer can't handle.

Of course, I notice most cashiers only depend on their little magic marker to tell fakes. An old-school cashier knows 10 different ways to confirm that a bill is good, w/o the marker.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Ever seen a printed bill? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:52 · Score: 0

Posting AC due to content.

Have any of you ever seen a bill printed off of a printer? It looks like monopoly money,

Bzzt! Wrong! When the PS CS issue came up a couple of weeks ago, I decided to see how easy it was to just copy US money. I scanned a new US $20 at high resolution, and simply printed it on my mid-range inkjet. Both sides, of course. Crumpled it around a bit to rough up the paper.

I then passed this bill off on a number of people, even after they knew I was playing this little game. Solo or mixed in with other bills. Very few caught it, and in those cases it was due to the smooth paper.

A small effort and a little expertise could result in lots of easily passable fakes. Oh, and probably a federal jail term to boot.

Yes, I destroyed my toy after I was done. More precisely, after I read up on what's legal. Producing such a thing is illegal, even if you don't use it as money. Oops.

NOTE: The above is purely allegorical and non-factual.
Re:Ever seen a printed bill? by TubeSteak · 2004-01-20 08:56 · Score: 1

magic marker?
I asked once and they told me its so that they'll check to see if its a fake later on @ the bank. Maybe you heard something about these markers that i didn't?

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Ever seen a printed bill? by el-spectre · 2004-01-20 09:32 · Score: 1

They aren't really magic markers. They look like black markers, but a genuine bill will react w/ the ink and appear as kinds gold/yellow color.

Once some knucklehead put a real magiv marker in my drawer, and I thought all the 20's I got were fake, hence I learned to tell a real bill.

The bank has automated ways to tell a fake. If you accept a bad bill, you're assed out.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Ever seen a printed bill? by bobbozzo · 2004-01-20 11:08 · Score: 1

It'll still fool most vending machines.

I still don't think you should be prevented from scanning or printing stuff that looks like money (for advertising, art, whatever).

--
Nothing to see here; Move along.

Correction by johnos · 2004-01-20 07:43 · Score: 1

uhhhh, that should be "beat the shit out of your customers" but its kind of funny the way it is. I've got some shit I'd like to see the boys at SCO eat.

It's the patriot act by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:43 · Score: 0

The patriot act is sinking its scummy claws into everything these days. After Bush is done with 10s of other countries, maybe he can start establishing some democracy in the US.

I don't know how you guys can even live down there. Good old Canada, they may call us stupid, but at least we're not ignorant.

Alex

duh by bob+dobalina · 2004-01-20 07:43 · Score: 1

What incentive do slashdot readers have to feel like companies are plotting to restrict their freedoms to print fake money? Is this a precursor to alarmism about DRM in wristwatches, digital calculators and tiny RC cars sold by thinkgeek?

--

B

"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown

no need to print money just work for Ken Lay by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:44 · Score: 0

then you can piss away other peoples life savings and not go to prison ! and you and your family can live in absolute luxury for the next 500 years, how no one has bullet to these people ill never know, then again that wouldnt solve much as the kids get all that lovely cash you stole so job done really

no need to print money when you can just take other peoples

Let me spell it out... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:44 · Score: 0

The currency situation is not a big deal. But it implies that government is beginning to pressure IT companies to decide what tech goes into our computers without hearings, public comment, whatever.

What if your next computer won't play your MP3's because they aren't digitally signed as being owned by you.

What if you next computer won't copy your home videos because it didn't have the watermark that indicated you owned the copyright.

I'm not even mentioning worst case scenarios here; what I'm giving you is *likely* restriction that will be put in your computer based on "pressure" from the government.

Be a free man and think for yourself!

Re:Treating customers like CRIMINALS??? Puh-leez!! by TrollBridge · 2004-01-20 07:44 · Score: 1

"Art, advertising, parody, the list goes on."

For those purposes, why would one need the images to be of the high detail/resolution that sets these filters off?

--
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.

Why involve time? by Thinkit3 · 2004-01-20 07:45 · Score: 0

Why do you need to say "What happened to" as if everything was perfect in the past? Present an argument not based in time.

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist

Re:Why involve time? by MrPoopyPants · 2004-01-20 08:31 · Score: 1

Because I'm over 25, thus everything today sucks compared to the past.

Or I just read too much slashdot...

This is getting scary... by drywater · 2004-01-20 07:45 · Score: 1

> Is this a precursor to DRM in scanners, CD drives, and output devices?

I fear that it is indeed. Scanners checking for copyrighted content, CD drives refusing to copy CDs (or whatever DVD format takes over) or even burn MPEGs that contain copyrighted video and the next version of Windows will contact the FBI and CIA automatically if you type the words terrorist, airplane or bomb. I know it sounds paranoid, but it is happening.

I feel some comfort that I use Linux and I know that although I may not be able to pay attention to every piece of code that gets compiled, I know that there are a hell of a lot more poeple seeing it and someone's going to see and hopefully prevent this kind of big brother code from spying on my every keystroke.

Actually, YOU report in... by temojen · 2004-01-20 07:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Suddenly, the expensive printer in your office starts printing every image (but not text) in fluorescent green. It has plenty of magenta toner, plain paper, a surge suppressor, etc. It's having the same problem with both Windows and BSD or Linux computers, so you know it's not a driver issue.

So, what do you do?

You call tech support to find out you need to do a firmware upgrade, remove the network card, turn the printer off & back on, while holding a button, turn it off, replace the network card, turn it back on, and calibrate it 3 times.

Have this same trouble ticket a few times and I bet they'll notify the RCMP, MI-6, FBI, or whatever it is in your country.

All because someone at your office was "playing" with a new logo design, that happens to include a scanned image of the "great pyramid" on the US dollar bill.

Rhetoric filter by FL180 · 2004-01-20 07:45 · Score: 1

Now if someone can just come up with a rhetoric filter for Slashdot...

Wouldn't *that* be nice!

Re:Rhetoric filter by bob+dobalina · 2004-01-20 07:48 · Score: 1

amen.

--
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown

Open-source drivers to be prohibited? by Animats · 2004-01-20 07:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

HP implemented this technology in their Windows printer drivers, not in their printers. This raises some serious questions for open-source printer support.

Will printers be locked to Windows drivers, so that they only work with Windows? This might be justified as an "anti-counterfeiting" measure. Otherwise, there's an "open source hole" in the protection strategy.

Will generic printer drivers stop working? What about standalone printer spooling devices? Less-common operating systems?

Re:Open-source drivers to be prohibited? by WaKall · 2004-01-20 08:42 · Score: 1

They can just run the matching algorithm on the printer instead of in the driver. Then you can use any driver you want, open-source or otherwise.
Re:Open-source drivers to be prohibited? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:49 · Score: 0

If printers would only work on a windows operating system, then it would seem to be more of a Microsoft monopolistic strategy to get everyone to buy Windows if they want to print anything.
Then they can implement an anti-counterfeiting measure at that point since almsot everyone will be using windows.
Re:Open-source drivers to be prohibited? by lfourrier · 2004-01-20 08:57 · Score: 1

don't know about the rightofuse, but I have a 1998 color lasejet that I have used with windows, and now os X.
In each case, there is , on every page, 2 groups of 4 colored points, constant spacement, different place on the page. I'm convinced it is the signature of the printer (because I read something about it a few year ago). So perhaps, new drivers prevent you to print, but old printer sign their work.
Re:Open-source drivers to be prohibited? by Animats · 2004-01-20 09:31 · Score: 1

HP could have done that, but they didn't. They apparently did it in the Windows driver. Is the spec for talking to that printer documented?
Re:Open-source drivers to be prohibited? by black+mariah · 2004-01-20 10:40 · Score: 1

Because we all know it is completely impossible to use any sort of proprietary software on a Linux based system. WTF are you talking about?

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.

Score one for the lawyers by digrieze · 2004-01-20 07:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why is anyone surprised? The legal eagles (actually, vultures) have been screaming for a year now that their bread and butter will be in suing manufacturers of equipment used in a crime or civil litigation by convincing people that when you produce a product you commit the crime, the criminal who uses that product is errelevant because he couldn't do it if you didn't make the product (besides, he doesn't have the big pockets to get into, so why would the law (lawyers) have any interest in a petty crook. If you think the gun manufacturers were an abberation you're living in Lilliput.

When someone gets caught with counterfit money they usually lose it, no reimbursement. Lets' say you got your paycheck out of the instant banker in $20s and the cashier at the restaurant finds out they're counterfit. You lose the money, and after talking the police out of taking you to jail (hope you got a printed receipt at the IB) who's your lawyer gonna sue? If you think he's going to sue a petty crook for a few hundred bucks you're nuts.

The major loss of liberties don't come from the government, they come from our fear of the legal vultures and uncontrolled, unjustified litigation.

--
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs

it's also a good sales pitch apparently... by microcars · 2004-01-20 07:46 · Score: 1

just the other day I took my mother-in-law in to (unamed Office Supply store that sounds like a Home Center...) to replace her old HP 190 color copier with an HP 7110 color copier

As we were standing there talking to the salesperson, he brought up the subject some recent news event where some local kids were caught after using counterfit bills to pay for stuff.

"They used THIS COPIER!" he said proudly! "That's how good it is!"

We bought it anyways.

--
I like microcars

Re:it's also a good sales pitch apparently... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:13 · Score: 0

clearly it wasn't all that good if they got caught
Re:it's also a good sales pitch apparently... by localhost00 · 2004-01-20 12:31 · Score: 1

"They used THIS COPIER!" he said proudly!
Sure, advertise to the world that your place of business was utilized in committing a federal crime!!! Way to go!!!

--
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

Why are we diluting the term "spyware"? by Solandri · 2004-01-20 07:47 · Score: 1

This isn't spyware. Spyware reports back your activities to another party, hence spy ware. This is simply a use restriction. While it may be tempting to misuse a term to take something you don't like and try to lump it with something most everyone doesn't like, it's intellectually dishonest. If it catches on it just causes confusion in future use. If you activitely promote this type of misuse, you have no grounds for complaining about similar misused terms, like the hacker/cracker dichotomy that came up because early media misused the term "hacker."

My mare... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:47 · Score: 1, Funny

...has a built-in remote carrot detection.

No worries about DRM software in other things. by sllim · 2004-01-20 07:48 · Score: 1

The only way that DRM software is gonna find it's way into things like DVDRW, CDRW and hard drives is going to be if it is the result of a law being passed.

And even then the law would probably only say that the company had to put it there, not that it had to work ***wink-wink-nudge-nudge-knowwhatimean-knowwhatime an***.

At the end of the day consumers are not going to spend money on a product that is intentionally crippled like that. If TDK starts producing all there DVDRW drives with digital rights management and Plextor does not then Plextor's sales are gonna go through the roof.

Look at Aptex DVD players as a really good example. What happened when they made there first models that had an easily bypassed region protection? Aptex couldn't make enough DVD players that is what happened.

As far sa this printer and photoshop problem it just isn't comparable. Very, very few people are going to have a use for scanning and printing money - it is just ridiculous. The people with there pants in a wad are either A) artists, B) counterfieters or C) analy retentive boneheads.

Re:No worries about DRM software in other things. by MadHungarian1917 · 2004-01-20 08:24 · Score: 1

Casual counterfeiting boggles the mind. BUT what happens when you are in the business of selling currency. Think Christie's auction house with the new anti-counterfeiting codes how are you supposed to prepare auction catalog's et.al. Museum documentation of currency say a special issue. People need to remember that Counterfeiting is a CRIME but that still does not justify breaking pre-press tools for the rest of us. I am inclined to give copier vendors a pass on not printing currency or marking it "COPY" since copying currency would seem to have few if any legitimate uses but prepress tools have many legitimate uses for images of currency. i.e. bank annual reports, bank training manuals I could go on and on
Re:No worries about DRM software in other things. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:21 · Score: 0

Real counterfeits use offset presses, and they obtain their ink, paper and sometimes even the printing plates via bribes to people in government.
Re:No worries about DRM software in other things. by lotusvixen · 2004-01-20 09:35 · Score: 1

i suppose i'm an anally retentious bonehead by thinking that this DRM thing is a "gateway drug" of sorts that will lead to the creation of new laws that can manage content on DVDRW etc. it's the straw that breaks the camel's back that we have to worry about. as a female i worry about my reproductive rights-> if roe v. wade is overturned anytime soon, politicians can chip away at my reproductive rights bit-by-bit so that women-kind will be left in the dark ages again without birthcontrol or anything. it's all the same thing.

Re:Treating customers like CRIMINALS??? Puh-leez!! by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2004-01-20 07:48 · Score: 1

Because no one takes advertisements with money that looks like a low quality gif seriously?

--
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx

Fair Use ... by Darth23 · 2004-01-20 07:48 · Score: 1

gets screwed again.

--

-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

Re:note design changes (anticounterfeit mania) by jafac · 2004-01-20 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

When they start putting the dots in pr0n images, that will be the END of the internet.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Just More Bloat by no+longer+myself · 2004-01-20 07:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

A long while back I owned a DMP, and it printed out text marginally, images were dreadful, and in both cases it was slow.

Then came my first inkjet. The ink wasn't any cheaper back then, the resolution was about as crisp as a DMP, and it used a driver included with Windows 95.

A few inkjets later, the drivers had to be installed and the the bell and whistle feature creep was causing a noticable delay in the printer startup time.

Today the printers you buy require more hard drive space than Windows 95 ever used, they phone home as soon as they detect an internet connection, they won't let you use all the ink in a cartridge, they won't even let you use competitor's refills, they frequently break down (but it's more cost effective just to buy another one) and the one thing that still eludes all common sense:

They are still able to sell these pieces of crap at a higher rate today than any time before now.

You get what you deserve. If you (not just the stupid people, but all of you) continue to buy trash hardware, the manufacturers will continue to make more and more. In the long run it will only be cost effective for themselves - Not you - Themselves.

Sad to think that I threw away a couple of newer inkjets because of their short lived construction, but my ol' HP 500, Stylus 660, and that old DMP work just fine. Sure the color picture print-outs were pretty, but I didn't miss the bloatware headaches they caused.

Just stop buying crap, people. Make it a priority. Put it on your "to do" list. Give it a whirl. Don't just give it lip service. If you want to effect change, actually put your convictions into practice. Don't just mod my butt down because you think I'm being obnoxious. I'm making a valid point. It's not always palatable to hear the truth, but you need to start making more conscious efforts in your buying habits - Not the guy in the next cubical - YOU.

Re:Just More Bloat by ajs318 · 2004-01-20 08:00 · Score: 1

I already try as hard as possible not to buy crap. It hurts the pocket a little, at first, but it pays for itself later.

And for the time being, I'm doing fine without a colour printer .....

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

the real issue by frovingslosh · 2004-01-20 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

The real issues here is how much bloat and stealing of computing cycles is going into this software that the user neither wants nor needs. Imagine how much computing power is needed to do the image recognition to look at any image and decide if it contains any "forbiden" image, at any angle, before printing it. And the user pays for this, both in wasted memory for that printer "driver" and in computing cycles and time wasted waiting for that software to be run on every page you print.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:the real issue by marauder404 · 2004-01-20 12:28 · Score: 1

And you don't pay for the counterfeit $20 bills that do get printed? Or the extra Federal resources that need to be employed to fight counterfeiters? I've read a lot of comments in this thread and I'm actually split on the idea, but if you're going to start talking dollar figures, let's talk about all of them. Let's start measuring dollars and resources spent vs. saved and include ALL of those dollars. There is an extra cost on your machine and your time, but how does that compare to the spend on your taxes? Or your groceries? Or your paycheck? Or every other dollar that you spend and make due to counterfeit losses?

Incentive for using Free Sofware instead by keeboo · 2004-01-20 07:50 · Score: 1

If you don't like using crippled software, you always have the option of using:

- free (GPL, other) software, like The Gimp
- free software printer drivers (and buying hardware from companies which support them).

Re:Incentive for using Free Sofware instead by phishtrader · 2004-01-20 08:08 · Score: 1

Who is this supposed to be an incentive for? People who want to counterfeit money and the handful of graphic artists that use images of money?
Re:Incentive for using Free Sofware instead by keeboo · 2004-01-20 09:14 · Score: 1

Who is this supposed to be an incentive for? People who want to counterfeit money and the handful of graphic artists that use images of money?

They too, plus people who get annoyed by the false-positive currency identification, and the software slowdown caused by such feature.

Who knows what next... Companies may start crippling things such way that may prevent you scanning your own film-pictures (you need 'authorized' software, or a more expensive 'scannable' photo).
The companies are very creative when it comes to ripping your pockets.
Re:Incentive for using Free Sofware instead by mikechant · 2004-01-21 03:11 · Score: 1

Wind forward a few years (say 5-10). What happens when (for example) 95% of people are using versions of closed-source software (like Photoshop) with counterfeit detection in which the suppliers put in 'voluntarily' and 5% are using open-source software (like The Gimp) with no such measures. Won't the US government start thinking of restrictions on open source software creation/distribution/use? Even if any law introduced was unenforceable in practice, this could have a chilling effect on open source software preception in the business world. Major Linux distros might come under pressure to 'do something'. High profile developers working in the area could get 'approached' for 'co-operation'... I don't think this is alarmist. I hope someone can tell me why this [b]won't[/b] happen...

Ciorcumvention Patch Already Available by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:51 · Score: 1, Informative

Someone has alredy written a tool to remove this "feature" from Photoshop CS. There is'nt a piece of software written that cannot be patched to fix these "problems". POS detection is the best way to foil counterfit cash and the dastardly devils that make it and pass it off.

Re:Ciorcumvention Patch Already Available by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 11:00 · Score: 0

And just how does 'Piece Of Shit' detection work anyway?

Elegance is the purpose. by Thinkit3 · 2004-01-20 07:51 · Score: 0

Everything else should adapt to the need for elegance.

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist

I got yer incentive RIGHT HERE by Le+Marteau · 2004-01-20 07:53 · Score: 1

What incentive do printer manufacturers have to treat their customers like criminals?

Well, let me think. If I were the government, and I wanted printer manufacturers to cripple their wares... what would I do?

I've got it! I'd start a, *ahem* 'rumor' that companies that don't issue crippleware will be audited. Yeah, that's the ticket! Audit the non-patriotic!

--
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs

Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:53 · Score: 0

Anyone that thinks this is a bad thing is a paranoid moron. The world is built on the values of it's currencys. With the ability for Joe Smoe to copy a $20 or $50 bill (or peso or mark or what have you) the value of currency is in jeopardy. These pieces of hardware and software are simply putting in a morality check to keep casual users from being able to potential hurt the economy.

There are obviously legal uses of currency images, but do those really out weigh the need for the need for financial stability?

HOLY CRAP by Mike+Hawk · 2004-01-20 07:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Looking up the powers of the Secret Service I found this:

What are the rules for the printing, publishing and illustrations of U.S. currency?

The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided:
1. the illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
2. the illustration is one-sided; and
3. all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 504 permits black and white reproductions of currency and other obligations, provided such reproductions meet the size requirement. See Know Your Money for more information.

So basically, even if you did it once, you'd have to destroy your printer and delete any storage medium used to make it.
Secret Service wins, good game!

Re:HOLY CRAP by kryptkpr · 2004-01-20 08:03 · Score: 1

What does "after their final use" mean to you? You only have to throw away the printer you're no longer using it (to print the money).. so there's nothing stopping you from printing some more money once in a while, and keep using it for other stuff until it dies..

--
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
Re:HOLY CRAP by poot_rootbeer · 2004-01-20 09:09 · Score: 1

So basically, even if you did it once, you'd have to destroy your printer and delete any storage medium used to make it.

Um... no.

any [...] thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased

Unless you have some sort of weirdass printer that retains a bitmap of every page it prints forever, you don't have to destroy your printer. Just clear the currency image from its memory.
Re:HOLY CRAP by innocent_white_lamb · 2004-01-20 10:39 · Score: 1

any [...] thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed

You also have to destroy the original genuine currency that you used, according to this. You used it during the printing process (to copy from) and it contains an image of the illustration (it is the illustration).

--
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Re:HOLY CRAP by black+mariah · 2004-01-20 10:43 · Score: 1

It specifically states that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof. The money isn't an image of the illustration, it's the original.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:HOLY CRAP by Angus+Prune · 2004-01-20 12:54 · Score: 1

all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.
...

So basically, even if you did it once, you'd have to destroy your printer and delete any storage medium used to make it. Secret Service wins, good game!

(See bold text)
Unless your printer burns a copy of everything it pritns to ROM you won't have to destroy it.
There is also an argument abotu what is considered final use. You could always intend to use it again the day afetr you were arrested...
Re:HOLY CRAP by zsau · 2004-01-20 13:38 · Score: 1

No, the printer doesn't contain an image. Except perhaps in its RAM, which is easily enough cleared without destruction.

--
Look out!
Re:HOLY CRAP by IronBlade · 2004-01-20 14:56 · Score: 1

3. all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.

Any other thing? My hands, my beautiful hands!!!
Not to mention my computer, my desk, my chair, my house... how general do they want to be? Sheesh!!

--
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net

Dont take this so easy. by miffo.swe · 2004-01-20 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is serious stuff. We live in a society where the individual is supposed to make their own decisions. I see a trend towards the government taking over more and more of the decision process. The step is not far from limiting speech. It will ofcourse start with "dangerous" talk. The start is not what worries me but the end, oh boy the end.

Taken togheter these erosion of the individual rights is pretty scary and should not be taken lighly. If you wake up and find yourself in a world where your choices as an individual is severly limited, dont complain.

Now is the time.

--
HTTP/1.1 400

Re:Dont take this so easy. by lotusvixen · 2004-01-20 09:40 · Score: 1

The thing I don't understand is that the Christian right gets all upset with democrats saying that democrats want increased governance of people, whereas the republicans want less. I have not seen this trend at all of late.

Wrong signals by unoengborg · 2004-01-20 07:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

If people gets used to that law is something that is guarded by technical devices and not by moral and ethical standards of the citizens, we are on a very dangerous path. If peple are forced to follow they will find ways to break it, just for the feeling of freedom it would create.

--
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER

So What? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-01-20 07:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

Sure, sure, the "slippery slop" to totalitarianism, what next and all that. But honestly, how many people *really* need to reproduce PhotoShop quality pictures of currency? Out of all the graphic artists and other visual media people out there need to do this? It's kind of a big "so what" that /. types love to sputter and froth about, but in reality, mostly effects kids trying to copy money.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Will these companies get sued? by sllim · 2004-01-20 07:55 · Score: 1

Is there any logic to the argument that if these companies are putting software in there software/hardware that is capable of censoring currency and not printing it then these same companies should be held responsible for there machines/software copying and printing other things that break the law?

What puts this into my head is the old usenet argument against moderated forums. That if a forum wasn't moderated then the posters were responsible for whatever got posted. But once you started moderating a forum and yanking posts for say porn then you could be held responsible if you didn't yank WAREZ off your forum.

Not to mention, what if I figure out how to get around the software, or what if it just simply doesn't work right, does the company have a liability risk there?

Maybe this isn't in the best interest of the companies....

You forgot to mention robots! by Thud457 · 2004-01-20 07:56 · Score: 1

As my grandma was wont to say : "Never let a robot open your pillbottle for you."
They'll steal your medicine!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Governments should release hi res images by Atroxodisse · 2004-01-20 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Governments should release hi res images of fake bills that have identifying marks on them. This way people with legitimate use arguments can use them but still not be able to use them as counterfeit. They could look nearly identical to fake bills but have a differing watermark and a special ID number on them so cashiers can see if it's a fake. Photoshop isn't fool proof. I was able to open a photo of a one dollar bill that I downloaded from the net.

--
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by Peaker · 2004-01-20 07:59 · Score: 1

Do you want your freedom taken away from you so your goods won't be purchased with fake money? I don't.

You are allowed to images of US notes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 07:59 · Score: 0

http://www.treas.gov/usss/money_illustrations.shtm l

As long as they are too big or too small.

Re:You are allowed to images of US notes.... by localhost00 · 2004-01-20 10:00 · Score: 1

You just need to make it obvious that it is not for legal tender.
I used to work at Pizza Hut, and we had a smart-alec waitress who would ask for 50 bucks when she was asked a favor. I got her back one day by giving a small 50 with my face on it.

--
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

Shouldn't Be an Issue by Greyfox · 2004-01-20 08:01 · Score: 1

Since all the major printer and copy machine manufacturers have already bowed to government pressure to put secret watermarks in their copy, allowing the printer or copy machine to be tracked in the event that it's used for a crime. While you might be able to get away with going in to compusa and dropping $60 for an inkjet, trying to pay cash for a $3000 color laser will tend to raise some eyebrows and probably gets reported to the FBI, along with the surveilance camera footage for that day.

The real question is, "What is this a red herring for." But then, I'm paranoid...

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:note design changes (anticounterfeit mania) by jgabby · 2004-01-20 08:01 · Score: 1

With the fairly new Xerox color copy machine I tried, it printed an image containing the dot pattern just fine, but would not make a color copy of the image it just printed. It will happily make a B&W copy.

So basically, you can print whatever you want, at least with this particular machine.

Now, putting the circle design on webpage images might effectively limit Photoshopping contests - I'd be looking for it soon in AP photos and the like.

It's not spyware by Rex+Code · 2004-01-20 08:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

...yet. "spyware" is something that phones home. This just refers you to http://rulesforuse.org and refuses to print more than one inch of the currency printout. However (as was pointed out on BugTraq), the next version of the printer's drivers could easily be upgraded to the special spyware edition.

Overreaction again... by Sloppyjoes7 · 2004-01-20 08:02 · Score: 1

I don't see the big deal. So some companies want to put a speed-bump in their programs, designed to discourage counterfeiting. It's their legal right to do so. It's your legal right to not buy the product. If you want to boycott the makers of such programs, that's your prerogative.

It seems to me all they're doing is top some stupid kids from printing funny-munny, and thus stop some foolish children from getting in trouble with the secret service. As for you professional photo-editors, you can probably find a way around this problem without looking too hard.

Solution to the problem? Get over it.

Re:Oh grow up by Mr+Guy · 2004-01-20 08:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Boy you are going to get the IP police on you about this one.

Downloading MP3's is NOT a federal crime, for very many reasons.

1) It pisses me off when people leave out the words "without distribution permission". I know why people do it, but the net result is it allows people to label an entire class of LEGAL activity as being shady. For example, absolutely nothing stops me from recording my wife singing, encoding it in the MP3 format, and sharing it. There are plenty of bands (insert rant about commercialized music and better alternatives) that have authorized distribution. MP3 != stolen

2) It's not a federal crime. It's a violated contract. These are civil court infractions, not federal violations.

3) The difference between a civil dispute and a federal crime is quite large. As in the difference between at most a fine and years of jail time.

The parent poster was absolutely right. People forget what a REAL crime it is and ruin their whole lives. You'd honestly be better off stealing a candy bar than forging a $5 to pay for it.

--
Never confuse volume with power.

GIMP anybody? by Gadzinka · 2004-01-20 08:04 · Score: 1

So, one more reason to use free GIMP then?

At least this solves the problem of editing. Scanning is handled by SANE and I don't think that printer manufacturers like Samsung bother with firmware hacks.

Robert

--
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162

Re:GIMP anybody? by Thomasje · 2004-01-20 09:37 · Score: 1

Of course that would mean that the Gimp is now a clear case of copy prevention circumvention technology. Distributing and using it is therefore a DMCA violation.

Cost, robustness by wiredog · 2004-01-20 08:04 · Score: 1

The average vending machine has to endure much more physical abuse than the average printer.

--

Best Slashdot Co

Re:Cost, robustness by tonydiesel · 2004-01-20 10:50 · Score: 1

Not my printer... ever seen Office Space?

Hee hee...
Re:Cost, robustness by ocie · 2004-01-20 12:27 · Score: 1

Oh man, I wish I could mod you up, but I already posted.

--
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere

That kind of analysis should require lots of CPU by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2004-01-20 08:04 · Score: 0

So, the trick should be on the driver, not in the hardware, that means that if the printer is a PostScript printer, and you don't use propietary software (Like the original printer driver, or propietary image processing software), you should be able to do whatever you want (that's how it should be). We have been hearing this kind of stuff a lot lately, that means someone is going to start using this against FreeSoftware, in a "They are software for terrorist and hackers" fashion ...

--
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by ssstraub · 2004-01-20 08:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you try a third time the machine will lock down. To unlock it you need to get a service call from the manufacturer who will also notify the authorities.

Sounds like it's time for a trip to the local Kinko's!

Counterfeiting is done every day legally! by dada21 · 2004-01-20 08:05 · Score: 2, Informative

As an ancap, I believe this is completely legitimate for the private companies to include this type of anti-counterfeit detection. The day could come when it is enforced by government, which I believe is completely against their Constitutional powers, so I'd prefer to see it done privately. You are free to stop using software or printers that enable this 'feature.'

On the other hand, all governments of the world legally counterfeit money every day. Back when money was real hard currency (whether it was gold or silver or dirt or wood), government didn't have the ability to steal from the citizens. Today, they do it constantly using something known as inflation. They print new fiat currency, which causes costs to rise for everyone. And we allow this. Sure, government blames it on business and the free market, but inflation can only truly occur when someone introduces new currency into the market -- sometimes counterfeiters do but it is rare. Government counterfeits every day, lowering the value of our stocks, our bank accounts, and any currency in our pockets. A silent form of taxation, and one that hurts everyone at every level of wealth.

Re:Counterfeiting is done every day legally! by flandar · 2004-01-20 08:43 · Score: 1

Actually most money is created by banks.
I give them my $1000 and they loan it to you. I still have a $1000 deposit earning interst and you have $1000 to buy your plazma TV with. Then the TV company pays my salary of $1000 and I put that in the bank again. Pooof, another $1000 is created.
The Fed limits how much money the banks can create by requiring them to have "Reserves" to cover loans. These reserves only allow the bank to loan out $970 and not the entire $1000.
Yes, the government can "Print" money, but how would they get it out to the poeple? Just give away bags of "new" money? I don't think so. What happens is banks take in "old" worn out money and exchange it for new money. This doesn't create money, only keeps it usuable.
Re:Counterfeiting is done every day legally! by dada21 · 2004-01-20 09:53 · Score: 1

Everything you said is very false, unfortunately, but most citizens of most countries believe your story to be the truth.

The realities are that government creates fiat (meaning worthless) currency out of thin air. For more information on how inflation is a government mandated creation, not a free market feature, check out:

http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch20.asp

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=140 5

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/press.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/hein6.html
Re:Counterfeiting is done every day legally! by Angus+Prune · 2004-01-20 12:57 · Score: 1

But currency isn't paper anymore and isnt produced by government. Its electronic and has been fro a long time.

In the UK, in the run up to Y2K, someone worked out that if everyone paniced and withdrew all their money from the bank then there would not be enough hard currency in existance.

Isn't everyone a criminal? by MaufTarkie · 2004-01-20 08:05 · Score: 1

What incentive do printer manufacturers have to treat their customers like criminals?

They're just playing catch-up to the RIAA, the MPAA, and SCO.

--
Without you I'm one step closer to happiness without violence.

photocopiers by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

not sure what brand of copier but a Mid American Energy office in Souix City Iowa I believe was raided after someone tried to make a coppie of some dollar bill. The copiers not only watch for currency but they will fail to operate if someone attempts to copy the bill two or three times in a row. When a bill is placed on the bed, the copier gives some sort of error code. If it is repeated the machine shuts down and gives a code to call for servicing.

The service reps know that this code means dollar bill attempt and will notify the FBI.

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:07 · Score: 0

You already don't have the freedom to counterfeit money, they're simply enforcing it in a different place. If you're an artist, draw something that looks similar to the dollar and scan that in.

I guess the mission is to... by abertoll · 2004-01-20 08:09 · Score: 1

Make software more annoying, one Digital Signature at a time.

Seriously, HOW preventive is this? All these controls seem to be made to annoy legit users above and beyond everything else.

--
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."

OMGWTFCONSPIRACY by David_Bloom · 2004-01-20 08:10 · Score: 1

OMGWTF

I did a find for "rulesforuse" and then didnt see it. Then I clicked that link and did it again, and i saw THIS!!!!!!!!! Obviously that page secretly added currency detection TO MY MOZILLA CACHE FILE!!

It's just like those bastards who added SULFNBK.EXE to my windows folder!

holy shit!

--

Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)

You might want to take a closer look by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Your child might actually be running afoul of the anti-Christ detection algorithms that were installed into software long before all this currency stuff. It looks for a specific pattern of 3 '6's on your child and should be helpful in alerting you to your child's status as the anti-Christ (along with the explained rash of deaths you must be experiencing). The quickest workaround is to change one of the 6s into an 8 with a sharpie.

Why don't you post a picture of little Damien. I bet he's a real cutie patooty.

Re:note design changes (anticounterfeit mania) by el-spectre · 2004-01-20 08:13 · Score: 1

Odds are that the low quality (or resolution anyway) of web photos would render this useless.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.

If a cashier by localhost00 · 2004-01-20 08:15 · Score: 1

Can't tell real currency from fake currency printed on photo-quality or inkjet paper, (s)he should not be a cashier.

Not to mention it's standard policy where I used to work to inspect currency larger than 5 for "That strip."

--

Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

Free Software/Hardware by Peaker · 2004-01-20 08:17 · Score: 1

This is yet another act against freedom, and its a serious problem that people become oblivious to freedom, willing to lose "just a bit" here, and "just a bit" there, for all sorts of "worthy causes".

If we are willing to give up "just a bit of freedom" in some of the Closed Software that's used, will we be willing to give up the amount of freedom required in order to apply these measures in Free Software and Free Hardware?

Obviously, to apply these measures to Free Software and Free Hardware, one would have to disallow them altogether.

If currency security can no longer be maintained the old-fashioned way, then lets ditch it. There already are better alternatives. Legislate the use of credit cards to replace cash, for example. Mass-distribute cheap credit card readers, etc.

As expensive a solution as that may be, our freedom is more expensive.

Credit where due by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:18 · Score: 0

After Bush is done with 10s of other countries, maybe he can start establishing some democracy in the US.

That was funny when I heard it on 22 Minutes, too (or was it Air Farce?).

Re:Credit where due by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:59 · Score: 0

Actually, it wasn't all that funny then either.
A smug Canadian; a precocious child. Same difference.

Counterfeiting == Guest-of-State by BuildMonkey · 2004-01-20 08:18 · Score: 1

When I was 17 I knew a 16 year old guy who went to Club Fed for two years for counterfeitting $1 bills to buy vending snacks. Its no joke.

Actually, our dorm was warned once by the vending company, he kept doing it and got caught on the security camera.

Brilliant line. Thanks. by red+floyd · 2004-01-20 08:20 · Score: 1

Remember - the only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights.

Hope you don't mind... I just lifted that for my new sig.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy

The Answer to Circle Mania! by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-01-20 08:20 · Score: 1

can be found HERE

He'll take care of your nasty little dots

old news by NSupremo · 2004-01-20 08:20 · Score: 0

Copy machines have had this tech for over 12 years at least.

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities

This is stupid by mark-t · 2004-01-20 08:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Really.

I don't know about the U.S. but here in Canada, currency has so many anti-counterfeit measures built into it that if someone could afford to manufacture the printers that would be required to pass something off as the real thing, they don't need to waste time with counterfeiting, because they're already filthy stinkin' rich.

There's much more to paper money than meets the eye, and it's sooo easy to identify forgeries that are mere cosmetic copies (no matter how high resolution the printer or scanner is, the real security details aren't something that any off-the-shelf products could ever even *HOPE* to replicate) that I really don't see why this should be an issue. The only reason fake 5's and 10's ever start getting propogated is because the person they passed them off to was lazy, not because the copy was so good.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:This is stupid by tomhudson · 2004-01-20 09:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't know where in Canada you live, but here in Montreal, Quebec, about half the stores have signs saying they won't take $100.00 bills.
Add to that the lack of useable security measures on the $10.00 bill (yes, the security measures are there, but they're not noticeable to the average person, so the bill is easily faked), and the fact that the paper for the new $10.00 bills doesn't feel like "real money" to begin with, and we have a problem.
Also, the $5.00 bill is easy to counterfeit with an inkjet because there are too many broad expanses of blue.
It's not that people are lazy (your proposition). When you're in the checkout lane and there are 20 people waiting behind you, if you're polite, you're not going to subject your change to more than a cursory once-over. Same goes for situations where the lighting is questionable (clubs and bars) or you're just damn tired.
The real solution is to go to an all-coin currency, because at the current rate of progress the counterfeiters are going to win if we stick with paper. (Or even plastic)
Re:This is stupid by innocent_white_lamb · 2004-01-20 10:43 · Score: 1

Same goes for situations where the lighting is questionable (clubs and bars) or you're just damn tired.

And when it's very busy. I own a movie theatre; when it's close to showtime people come in the door and literally throw money at me and basically keep on walking. I don't really have time to put the money into the drawer sometimes -- I just stack it until the rush slows down. Who's got time to examine a bill in detail under those conditions?

--
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Re:This is stupid by mark-t · 2004-01-20 12:40 · Score: 1

Where I live you aren't allowed to enter the theatre's seating area without a receipt proving that you've paid. The time it takes for the tickets to be printed in the cashier's booth is ample time to examine bills for forgeries... it literally only takes a second or two per bill when you know what to examine for. Further, people in that much of a rush will probably just use one of the many automated ticket dispensers that will work off a credit card or bank card with PIN.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

how does a company benefit from this? by xutopia · 2004-01-20 08:24 · Score: 1

seriously how can they companies benefit from adding a piece of hardware/software that prevents such usage of their product? Doesn't it higher their costs?

Document links... by Jim_Maryland · 2004-01-20 08:25 · Score: 1

Many people mentioned HP, but I didn't see a link to this HP article.

I did a check on some of the printer drivers I have here and was unable to locate the URL embedded in any of the files. The drivers I have are a bit older (Lexmark and HP printers) and don't seem to support it, at least not with the URL in it.

Jim

Re:Brilliant line. Thanks. by Cheerio+Boy · 2004-01-20 08:26 · Score: 1

Be my guest. :-)

--

"Bah!" - Dogbert

Re:Treating customers like CRIMINALS??? Puh-leez!! by SuiteSisterMary · 2004-01-20 08:27 · Score: 1

Because the filters are more restrictive than the actual laws?

Because you don't want your work to look like ass?

Because HP isn't a recognized law enforcement or treasury official, and shouldn't be deciding what I am or am not allowed to print?

From rulesforuse.org:

The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided:

the illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
the illustration is one-sided; and
all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.

No prohibition against resolutions or realism. But, oops, can't scan in the bill to open it in Photoshop to resize it.

Note that our Canadian laws also state that the image cannot be colour.

Oh, and just for fun, try downloading the picture from the US Treasury website, which shows the required resizings, and try printing it. If the file won't print, that's bad.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.

Freedom of the press by aminorex · 2004-01-20 08:29 · Score: 1

Freedom of the press only applies to those who have
a press. Or rather, those who have an engineering
team that designs presses and a manufacturing wing
that produces them at viable economies of scale.

Everyone else can go fish.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

Re:Treating customers like CRIMINALS??? Puh-leez!! by Kenja · 2004-01-20 08:30 · Score: 1

I was just trying to make some copies of my last dollar bill so I could catch the bus home. HP wouldn't let me! The're treating me like a common criminal!

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

In reply to Mr. "dear idiot": you are an idiot. by David_Bloom · 2004-01-20 08:31 · Score: 1

The point is that the consumers should not have to spend money to have restrictions put in their software that prevents them from being able to fully use their product, but can be easily circumvented by even the most slightly determined malicious user.

There is an adage that goes something like this: "If you outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption." Replace "encryption" with "scanning money into Photoshop" and you'll get my idea.

--

Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)

Re:In reply to Mr. "dear idiot": you are an idiot. by 0x1337 · 2004-02-01 18:28 · Score: 1

I think the adage went "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. And you will have much fun protecting yourself without a gun against outlaws with guns."

he's not mis-characterizing Sarbanes Oxley by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:32 · Score: 0

He describes it properly.

The biggest effect of S-O is on nonprofits.

In many little ones, the person who records the donation checks in the database is the same one who goes to the bank to make the deposit is the same one who makes the entries into Quickbooks is the same one who opens the banks statements and balances them is the same one who prepares the balance sheet is the same one who works with the auditor. See the problem? I didn't think so. Hint: predeposit deduction

Not to mention that most directors have their wives/lovers/squeeze on the payroll in some capacity.

It may be an unintended consequence, but S-O will be a great law.

Contract requirement? by Cosmonut · 2004-01-20 08:33 · Score: 1

This is undoubtably NOT a conspiracy, or a warm-up for DRM. I'd bet Dubya's left nut that this has been built-in to meet some government contract requirement, especially since it seems so easy to disable that this can't be taken as a serious anti-counterfeiting attempt.

New for some, old for others by gordguide · 2004-01-20 08:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

I remember about a decade ago, when Canon first began to challenge Xerox in the standalone copier market with new color copiers, the documentation described security features to prevent currency copying (colors would be rendered incorrectly or the copy would be otherwise unuseable).

So, this kind of thing is hardly new; perhaps the notable thing about it is that it wasn't possible or desireable with optical/film process that digital imaging is displacing or replacing.

Although the topic indicates it's not illegal to copy currency, that must be considered only true in a given jurisdiction (ie the US as indicated).

It is most certainly a crime to depict or reproduce any valid currency in Canada, and it's not limited to same-size or color reproduction either.

I'm sure many nations have prohibitions to copying or depicting currency.

Ummm, no by wiredog · 2004-01-20 08:35 · Score: 1

"that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof "

Just delete the image files off your printer and hard drive when you're done.

--

Best Slashdot Co

Re:Ummm, no by Mike+Hawk · 2004-01-20 09:08 · Score: 1

Yeah, it was supposed to be a joke, notice the HOLY CRAP headline. Informative indeed.
Re:Ummm, no by localhost00 · 2004-01-20 13:21 · Score: 1

Just delete the image files off your printer and hard drive when you're done.
Don't forget to scramble the bits and defrag. Until you do, that file is still recoverable.

--
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

We're all missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:36 · Score: 0

I can break the law IF I WANT TO. If it is worth it to me to risk getting a speeding ticket by driving really fast, it's my choice. Same for any other law as well. Why should this be any different? What these companies are doing is prohibiting me from breaking the law, which is a very different thing - like having my car's top speed restricted to the limit. Freedom is the freedom to choose our course of action, and the freedom to accept responsibility for that action.

Re:We're all missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 11:24 · Score: 0

>I can break the law IF I WANT TO.... it's my
>choice.

It's because we have sociopaths such as yourself that we need so many prisons. You should be in one.

"i told you so" is fair by Splork · 2004-01-20 08:42 · Score: 1

yes its a precursor. laws aren't needed to require this shit when manufacturers are given golden treatment by the government when they voluntarily add this shit. how many of these things also send out a warning via your net connection when you try to scan/burn/copy something they don't like?

How Effective? by fernd1 · 2004-01-20 08:42 · Score: 3, Informative

With Photoshop we all heard about the workarounds. Though, I was wondering how effective the algorithm is in the first place. Does the quality of the bill come into question? I scanned a slightly used ten-dollar bill, and there was no trouble importing it into Photoshop CS. I saved the picture as a *.psd, and had no trouble reopening it. I applied several filters on the image with no problems. I have yet to try this on a 20-dollar bill. Either it only detects 20 dollar bills and higher, or the quality of the bill (i.e. slightly creased) dramatically affects whether the software detects currency.

Re:How Effective? by Laplace · 2004-01-20 10:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have yet to try this on a 20-dollar bill. Either it only detects 20 dollar bills and higher, or the quality of the bill (i.e. slightly creased) dramatically affects whether the software detects currency.

You may have noticed that the 20-dollar bill has gone through several revisions, but the one-dollar bill is the same old style that you used over a decade ago. Why? There is no money in forging one-dollar bills.

--
The middle mind speaks!
Re:How Effective? by fernd1 · 2004-01-20 11:53 · Score: 1

Right, the one dollar bill has not gone through revisions, but the ten dollar bill has, and that is what I scanned.

international. irony. by rakerman · 2004-01-20 08:48 · Score: 1

The relevant Canadian legislation can be found at http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/banknotes/legislatio n/457code/

I find it quite amusing that this page about the legality of duplicating images of Canadian currency contains, in the upper right-hand corner... a partial image of Canadian currency.

I was glad to see that the Rules for Use site links to many different countries. However, I wonder in these sorts of cases, how many companies program their software to take into account the appropriate national law (and how are they going to know which one to apply, by reading some user-configurated environment setting?)

I suspect "make the software comply with US law (or US industry requests)" is the default position, which ends up forcing this on anyone in any country who uses the software.

Who Cares? Just So Much Bratty Hyperbole by reallocate · 2004-01-20 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

>>"What incentive do printer manufacturers have to treat their customers like criminals?"

That's the kind of bratty hyperbole I'd expect to hear from ill-educated 13-year olds. If a device is constructed to attempt to prevent a crime, no one is treating anyone as a "criminal". (Or did you plan on making copies of your dollars?)

Are you offended when you're neighbor locks his doors? Are you offended when your neighbor activates his car alarm? Are you offended that currency is deliberately construcuted to thwart counterfeiting? Are you offended when your favorite retailer's computer checks to make sure the credit card you're trying to use isn't stolen?

Why would you be offended about a piece of hardware that's wired to keep people from committing a crime?

As for the incentive to make these things, perhaps

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Re:Who Cares? Just So Much Bratty Hyperbole by Xeger · 2004-01-20 09:34 · Score: 1

These particular pieces of hardware aren't "wired to keep people from committing a crime." That only would be the case if Photoshop CS were not only 100% accurate in recognizing images of currency, but able to determine the intent of the person sitting at the console. If they've got an algorithm to do this, I'd love to know about it!

No, the problem with currency detection embedded into image-processing hardware and software is a matter of fair use. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons to manipulate both images of actual money and money-like images. Automatically preventing anyone from working with such images based on the assumption that they're all criminals is tantamount to preventing anyone from recording broadcast television shows on the assumption that they're all going to make illegal copies of the TV shows.

OOPS! I forgot, the upcoming television standard makes just such a provision with its 'broadcast flag.' Of course, unlike the federal government, major corporations don't even need to pretend to have our best interests in mind.

The goal of broadcasters in this case is to maximize their degree of control over what we see, hear and do with their shows...even though the only point of television is to pitch advertising at us, from which they derive all of their profits.

Setting ethics aside, one could argue that broadcasting corporations are only practicing due diligence by taking any legal action that might increase profits. So what's the federal government's excuse? And why should Adobe, Canon, Epson, et al, cooperate?
Re:Who Cares? Just So Much Bratty Hyperbole by reallocate · 2004-01-20 10:27 · Score: 1

If it is illegal to do X, any person doing X has committed a crime, regardless of intent. Save the intent argument for the trial.

The conditions under which currency can be legally reproduced are spelled out in the U.S. Code.

Your conclusion that " Automatically preventing anyone from working with such images based on the assumption that they're all criminals..." is bogus. The intent is to prevent the execution of a criminal act, by anyone. You seem to be arguing that such technology is only appropriate if, as if by magic, it could sense the intent of the user. That's nonsense. (However, simple logic will tell you that if copying something is a crime, then anyone who does that is a criminal.)

Counterfeiting using digital tools has risen sharply in recent years. If a few PhotoShop users want to get on their moral high-horse about it, that's OK with me if it keeps people from cranking out counterfeit dollars. Not offending some graphic artists versus preventing counterfeiting is an easy call.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Who Cares? Just So Much Bratty Hyperbole by Xeger · 2004-01-20 12:39 · Score: 1

You claim that currency detection algorithms embedded in Photoshop will prevent counterfeiters from cranking out counterfeit dollars. Your claim is predicated on the assumption that counterfeiters are incapable of downloading The GIMP.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that counterfeiters are indeed too stupid to use old printer drivers, old versions of Photoshop or unencumbered image manipulation tools, and that they are too stupid to crack software. Let us attack the problem from another angle.

You assume that the currency detection algorithms are infallible, and that they will never produce a false positive or fail to recognize an image of currency. You also assume that *any* reproduction of currency must be illegal.

Our helpful friend http://www.rulesforuse.org informs us that the Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992 permits color illustrations under the following conditions:

1. the illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;

2. the illustration is one-sided; and

3. all negatives...graphic files...and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.

As we can see, US code defines terms for legal reproduction of color images of currency. Far from being concerned with the intent of the user, I'm arguing that widespread anticounterfeiting measures are only appropriate if they can consistently distinguish between legal and illegal acts, which Photoshop most patently cannot. Its algorithm may produce false positives or negatives; it cannot reliably determine the surface area of many image formats; it cannot determine whether a pair of images will eventually be printed onto two sides of a page.

You could make a slightly stronger case for anti-counterfeiting measures embedded in printer drivers, but see my first paragraph for reasons why that won't work well either.

So, to recap, currency detection algorithms in our software are
1) ineffective, inasmuch as they do little to curb counterfeiting
2) intrusive, inasmuch as they prevent computer users from pursuing perfectly legal activities, and waste our time and money by causing our software to fail unexpectedly.
Re:Who Cares? Just So Much Bratty Hyperbole by Xeger · 2004-01-20 12:44 · Score: 1

To clarify an earlier remark, when I said "That only would be the case if Photoshop CS...able to determine the intent of the person sitting at the console," what I meant is that the code embedded in Photoshop is a fallible currency detection algorithm, and not a magical crime detection algorithm. See the difference?
Re:Who Cares? Just So Much Bratty Hyperbole by reallocate · 2004-01-20 15:29 · Score: 1

>> You claim that currency detection algorithms embedded in Photoshop will prevent counterfeiters from cranking out counterfeit dollars. Your claim is predicated on the assumption that counterfeiters are incapable of downloading The GIMP.

I did not say that. I said the algorithms are intended to prevent the use of that software in the execution of a crime, i.e., copying of U.S. currency. You are setting up a lie in order to play at attacking me. In my eyes, your assertion about Gimp is ample reason to include the detection algorithm in that program.

The Copyright Act defines fair use, not the Counterfeit Act.

I don't accept your arguments because you provide no proof of you assertions. Where are your numbers?

As I've said, I don't care if a few Photoshop users get annoyed by this. If the technical means exist to alter software, or any other device, to prevent its use in a crime, I see no reason not to do that.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Who Cares? Just So Much Bratty Hyperbole by reallocate · 2004-01-20 15:31 · Score: 1

No.

There is no reason to prove something is infallible before using it to prevent crime. Locks can be picked, but we still use them.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

For more information on these theories... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 08:52 · Score: 0

....see this highly informative website.

Illicit uses by WaKall · 2004-01-20 08:54 · Score: 1

FBI agent 1: You say you found the terrorists' marking symbol, that identified their safe houses?

Agent 2: Yeah, it was on the guys computer. I tried to print it out, but it wouldn't work.

Agent 1: What did it look like?

Agent 2: I can't remember.

Let's top using the Federal Rerserve bank notes by gerardrj · 2004-01-20 08:54 · Score: 2, Informative

There's a guy that started printing his own money. This is not illegal, ANYONE can print currency and use it for transactions as long as both parties agree to the value of the currency. A good example of this is Disney Dollars or supermarket script.
Anyway... you can use use it to make purchases all the time. His money is backed by actual deposits of gold and silverin an actual warehouse, not debt and guns. The money is widely used for commerce.
If you don't like the Fed and corporations restricting your digital imaging of bank notes, then go take a look and try it out.

*I ma not, nor am I affiliated with norfed, I am not an authorized exchange center and I make not money from the currency, I'm just a happy user of the notes.

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people

Re:Let's top using the Federal Rerserve bank notes by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2004-01-20 09:34 · Score: 1

His money is backed by his word that there are actual deposits of gold and silverin an actual warehouse
My addition to the original quote.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:Let's top using the Federal Rerserve bank notes by gerardrj · 2004-01-20 12:40 · Score: 1

It's backed by the word of the mint that houses the metals, and the auditing company that measures the amouts on a monthly basis.

For there to be fraud here would require a major conspiracy between the oginizational company, the mint and the auditors. Conspiracy of such magnitude would almost certainly cause some suspicion and investigation by the federal government.
The mint in question does business with the U.S. Mint and other foreign mints, so the probability of fraud there is mighty low in my opinion.

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by poot_rootbeer · 2004-01-20 08:59 · Score: 1

Is this software/hardware reporting back to someone that you're trying to duplicate currency? I doubt it, so it's likely not spyware.

It's well-known that many commercial photocopiers increment a counter each time it detects an attempt to make a copy of currency. Once the machine reaches a certain threshold, the machine shuts down and a field tech has to be called to restart it.

So while it may not be going out and pinging the spooks each time you do something questionable, there certainly is a record of what you've tried to do.

Rights by jhines0042 · 2004-01-20 09:01 · Score: 1

Everything I see here is about your right to copy currency.

What about the right of the company to protect themselves from Federal Oversight? What about the right that you have to NOT BUY the printer.

If this upsets you, go build your own printer, copier, scanner, write your own drivers and do your thing. That is still legal.

If these companies hadn't build in this protection then you might not have the right to build your own photocopier and we'd see some highschool kid get arrested for building one for a science fair project and that would be here on /.

So lighten up!

--
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.

MS Windows Manual Cover by teamhasnoi · 2004-01-20 09:03 · Score: 1

I just happened to have a copy of the WIN98 manual which seems to have these little anti-copy circles on it, disguised as circuit traces.

As I don't currently have Photoshop CS, anyone want to give it a try?

Certainly would be interesting, as the manual was made in '98.... did MS know something...hmmmm...

Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:04 · Score: 0

YOU FAIL IT!

currency detection == tip of iceberg by timothy · 2004-01-20 09:06 · Score: 1

a) realize that high-end copiers have had currency-detecting features (with varying degrees of success / accuracy) for many years. So, modern, but not really new.

b) Currency detection, though the involved technologies could certainly be called Orwellian, intrusive, heavy-handed, etc, is not as surprising as some people make it out to be, as a particular example. The problem is more with the general case.

What *other* things is policeware looking for on user's computers, and what things will it look for in the near future? You may be convinced by arguments that the famous porn-centric image recognition software is easy to fool, but that's not the point -- it exists, it will get better, and it will probably be loaded in just such programs. There's good reason to think that copyright holders will embed symbols analogous to those in currency in every magazine image that's more than thumbnail sized, and it wouldn't take a full-blown OCR program to look for certain trigger words in scanned text, and just about nothing to look for words stored as plaintext.

This seems to be less of a worry with open source code. Hmmm.

timothy

--
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5

Re:Zuh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:09 · Score: 0

YOU FAIL IT!!

Not quite the same thing by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-01-20 09:10 · Score: 1

The problem isn't that this is stopping people from printing images of currency, but that it is establishing the principle that it is ok for the government to require programmers to put crime detection / phone home features in their software.

Do you see the problem now?

Well, I don't think it is yet a government regulation, I think these companies by and large are doing it themselves, possibly for liability reasons.

But no one is telling you that you can't run PhotoShop or any other software (although they tried their hardest to make PGP a crime as in "what have you got to hide?", and it is possible that the NSA *did* in fact lean on Microsoft to install back doors in Windows), what they are saying is that they don't want you to use their software to counterfeit money.

You would consider it a big deal if the government required you to get their approval before publishing an article you had written, wouldn't you?

Yes I would, but this is not the same thing. Now if my article consisted of a series of high quality pictures of money, this might be problimatic.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Re:Not quite the same thing by hopeless+case · 2004-01-21 02:25 · Score: 1

Well, I don't think it is yet a government regulation, I think these companies by and large are doing it themselves, possibly for liability reasons.

I don't think it has to be a regulation for it to be problematic, or a threat to our rights. Once it becomes a regulation, it is rather late in the game to begin complaining.
But no one is telling you that you can't run PhotoShop or any other software (although they tried their hardest to make PGP a crime as in "what have you got to hide?", and it is possible that the NSA *did* in fact lean on Microsoft to install back doors in Windows), what they are saying is that they don't want you to use their software to counterfeit money.

Well, I'm more worried about someone telling me I can't run The Gimp than PhotoShop.
I'm interested in the parallel you bring up to PGP. Exporting PGP was a crime, and as you point out, the Feds were trying to make it a crime to use it as well. Should we have waited until it had been made a crime to start complaining? Wouldn't you say that the efforts the Feds put into making it a crime constituted a threat to our rights?
As far as Adobe not wanting me to use their software to copy money, I don't see how they could effectively prevent that, so I interpret their token efforts to do so as a symbolic act. A signal to the government that they are willing to put special hooks in their software in the name of national security.
I think it makes sense for us to actively look for such signals sent between business and government and to question their purpose. Does that make me a tin foil hat wearer?

Remedial education by Thud457 · 2004-01-20 09:16 · Score: 1

"When that kid comes back after a few years in the camp he'll be trained to do a lot more damage than $5."

Maybe THE SYSTEM correctly diagnosed him as having a propensity towards crime and hence signed him up for the advanced course.

Who says things are set up to prevent crime?!!!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by eclectro · 2004-01-20 09:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's just it. Whoever gets stuck with a bad twenty is left holding the bag. We live in a world where scanners/printers are lightyears improved over what we had a couple years ago, and they continue to improve.

What this is designed to do is prevent the "casual counterfeiter" from being in business. Like the teenager who decides that he needs an extra "allowance" and prints off a couple of twenties. Before you know it all his freinds at school are doing it, and then their friends etc. etc.

Then there is a guy that decides that he'll just one off a twenty for dinner (as it's not going to hurt anybody). Human nature being what it is, he sees how easy it is and decides to "stick it to the government for all the bad things that it has done". So he prints out a hundred 20s next weekend.

Then you have those governments that are "hostile" to the US and decide to set up warehouses of printers churning out money so they can finance their terrorists activities against the US.

Before you know it you have a nation of counterfeiters and a destroyed currency. This means that the government has to issue a national id card for electronic cashless transactions. Privacy becomes zilch, as you have merchants refusing to accept cash (like many do not accept checks now (and this is increasing too)) because it's all counterfeit.

I do not see this stopping somebody from making a copy of something. If an artist needs an image of currency, I suggest that they become "old school" and pull out the pens and pencils and do a JS Boggs and draw one.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I also enjoy the anonymity that paying with cash has to offer. But if copying money at home becomes easy then everybody starts doing it. Look at the history of our own money to see that this could happen. It would be history repeating itself. I would rather inconvenience the artist (and that's all this is, an inconvenience) than being forced with a national cash/id card.

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"

How to defeat the copy protection by lhand · 2004-01-20 09:21 · Score: 3, Funny

You can easly defeat the copy protection in virtually all products by simply

[ Notice: Text removed by slashdot anti-copying ] [ protection. For information please go to the ] [ http://www.rulesforabuse.org site. Thank you. ]

and press print. Viola! Instant copies.

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by geekee · 2004-01-20 09:23 · Score: 1

" Is this software/hardware reporting back to someone that you're trying to duplicate currency? I doubt it, so it's likely not spyware. The incentive they have is simply to help the government fight counterfeit currency. Do you want your goods to be purchased with fake money? I don't."

Agreed. The poster is using loaded terminology to make an issue out of a non-issue

--
Vote for Pedro

New GIMP plugin by dimss · 2004-01-20 09:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Now it's time to write new GIMP plugin called "print a buck".

Input parameters:
1) Currency: USD/EUR/LVL/...
2) Resolution: 300/600/1200/2400 dpi
3) Value: 1/2/5/10/20/50...

Re:New GIMP plugin by fuzzybunny · 2004-01-20 21:07 · Score: 1

You forgot

4) ....
5) Profit!

*ducks*

--
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage

Annonymous Coward : saviour of us all! by Thud457 · 2004-01-20 09:25 · Score: 1

"This holds chilling implications for anonymous political speech -- handouts and small posters tacked up on telephone poles. I used to think it was only the bad countries that registered copy machines."

And what logical conclusion do you draw from this?

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:25 · Score: 0

What if you try and copy an image of a tin foil hat?

anti-counterfeiting by max+born · 2004-01-20 09:27 · Score: 1

The US government needs to embed anti-counterfeiting measures into its currency (as the Europeans do).

HP should not be spending its R&D funds on this. The counterfeiters will just buy non HP products anyway. And HP will eventually pass its R&D costs to the consumer.

Don't buy HP.

follow the link to the US Secret Service... by pohzer · 2004-01-20 09:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Follow rulesforuse.org to the US section, which sends you to the Secret Service website, where the Investigative Mission states:

The Secret Service believes that its primary enforcement jurisdictions will only increase in significance in the 21st Century. For this reason, the Secret Service has adopted a proactive approach to monitor the development of technology and continue to use it in the interest of federal, state, and local law enforcement.

Danish currency, too! by Frodo420024 · 2004-01-20 09:30 · Score: 1

The standard Danish DKr 100 bill has a lot of discreet little yellow circles in the pattern described. Gonna try it out tomorrow on the colour copier etc. - am pretty sure it'll block it.

--
I'm in a Unix state of mind.

Re:Treating customers like CRIMINALS??? Puh-leez!! by hopemafia · 2004-01-20 09:30 · Score: 1

"Because the filters are more restrictive than the actual laws?"

Ummmm....don't most of us have e-mail filters that are more restrictive than the actual laws? Who authorized you to enforce anti-SPAM laws?

Companies can put whatever the heck "features" they want in their products (provided they don't violate any laws themselves). If you don't like it use something else.

--
If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.

Currency Detection is in use elsewhere too... by ZipR · 2004-01-20 09:32 · Score: 1

Like in vending machines. Check it out yourself!

intelligence tests are good by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:33 · Score: 0

We made the south dump their intelligence tests for voting, and look what happened - they're now fucking voting for Republicans!

hows about child porn??? by thegraham · 2004-01-20 09:34 · Score: 1

Would it not be better to work on something useful like blocking child porn being opened. Obviously it would be much harder to do [well] - the possibilities of a picture of a young [grand]son/daughter on holiday/in a paddling pool etc. being censored is more than likely, and would annoy people considerably more than opening currency, but if they are going to censor things then at least they should be worth censoring.

thomas

Why... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 09:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

is it that American money doesn't seem to have any anti-counterfeit technology in it? British notes have watermarks and a strip of foil in them... Which means not every person with a picture of a note and a printer can reproduce them.

Surely it's better stopping counterfeiting by being better at making notes than the counterfeiters than disabling everybody's ability to make legitimate notes?

Re:So What? -- It is not Bank's Computer by Nightlight3 · 2004-01-20 09:34 · Score: 1

So it is ok for a "Central Bank" to use private PC resources (RAM, CPU, printers) which don't belong to them for their own purposes and benefits, without asking or even without letting the owners know.

Furthermore, since the "currency detection" module is a black box even to the software & printer manufacturers distributing it, what else the "Central Bank" might have included, or may include later, into the distributed modules? What other kind of detection? Is there a network backdoor built in? Or identifying signature being attached to programs you compile or documents you save, or browser cookies or code? When someone secretly sneaks a spyware/monitoring module into my computer, it reveals a kind ruthless mindset ready for more of the same, at least.

How About Traveler's Cheques by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2004-01-20 09:36 · Score: 1

Is this measure included in traveler's cheques?

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

This is only the beginning... by r.jimenezz · 2004-01-20 09:39 · Score: 1

...judging from this article over at Wired News: The anti-counterfeit software in Photoshop CS was developed by the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group, an organization established by the governors of the G-10 central banks to promote the use of anti-counterfeit devices in the computer industry.

--
The revolution will not be televised.

Re:So What? -- It is not Bank's Computer by dnoyeb · 2004-01-20 09:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, its fucking stupid. Another waste of time and money.

If I intend to reprint money on your printers, you don't think I can update the firmware? (lets also remember all jobs are inside jobs)

Oh, excuse me! Printers are too cheap to have firmware anyway, its all in the drivers. CUPS anyone?

Part of the fundamental design by ackthpt · 2004-01-20 09:56 · Score: 1

what happens when the note design changes?

It's probably looking for a few tell-tale things, which will always be there.

And now, for something completely different.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by Peaker · 2004-01-20 10:05 · Score: 1

The freedom is not the freedom to counterfeit because:

There are false positives

There are false negatives

Software restriction cannot really work on Free Software, which requires a lot heavier freedom-killing to operate.

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by 88NoSoup4U88 · 2004-01-20 10:14 · Score: 1

'Do you want your goods to be purchased with fake money? I don't.'

Do you want visual artists unable to portret any artpiece with a dollar bill in it ?
It's not the duty of a company to let their users not do anything illegal with it.

When that day will be there, they might want to start sueing weapon manufacturers first.

Re:Oh grow up by Lehk228 · 2004-01-20 10:15 · Score: 1

The parent poster was absolutely right. People forget what a REAL crime it is and ruin their whole lives. You'd honestly be better off stealing a candy bar than forging a $5 to pay for it. you'd probably even be better off robbing the store and stealing the candy bar than forging $5, as it should be because forgeries hurt the trust in the american dollar, without that trust the economy of the US would collapse (and bring the rest of the civilized world with it most likely)

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

55MPH speed governors by stinkenstein · 2004-01-20 10:17 · Score: 1

What's the difference between this and a federally mandated speed governor on every car back when 55 was the federal speed limit?

--
Where do you get *your* entropy?

Actually by Sycraft-fu · 2004-01-20 10:28 · Score: 1

Gun companies have been taken to court a lot. So far, however, courts have rules that they are more ore less not responsable for what is done with their product.

Grammar police by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:29 · Score: 0

You mean, "To make a new bill design fit the detection algorithm, the government need only include that pattern of five circles somewhere in the design", or perhaps, "the government needs only to include that pattern of five circles somewhere in the design." When need takes a bare infinitive (that is, without to), it is indeclinable like the other modal auxiliaries (such as can, may, will, and so on).

True story by frostman · 2004-01-20 10:30 · Score: 1

I knew a guy, a friend of a friend, in Romania, who 3 or 4 years ago got himself in Deep Doo-Doo.

He was drunk and thought it would be funny to make some funny money on his PC. He scanned in a bill worth about US$10, photoshopped a bit, and printed it out. Snip snip, done. I was probably a Really Lousy counterfeit, but it was a small enough bill I doubt anybody would examine it at first glance.

He then dropped into the closest mini-market and bought a pack of cigarettes with it. He got his cigs, his change, and most likely a stupid drunken grin on his face, and went to the bar.

A bit later the police showed up (I was in the bar) but fortunately his friends had told him we was probably in big trouble, and he had gone someplace to hide.

In the end it cost him a lot of non-fake money to keep his butt out of jail.

Bet he wishes he had had some of this DRM on his Photoshop...

--

This Like That - fun with words!

you eat what you sow by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:33 · Score: 0

mmm... mad cow

False positives by tepples · 2004-01-20 10:33 · Score: 1

I guess what you sarcastically describe was the intent, but the problem with calling strict anti-counterfeiting measures a "feature" is that some of the implementations have obnoxious false responses. What if I plan to reproduce one side of a Federal Reserve Note at 60 percent of full size, with a "SPECIMEN" stamp written diagonally over the serial number, which U.S. Treasury rules clearly allow? Photoshop and some printer drivers still might not accept it.

Re: this is enforced by governments by anticypher · 2004-01-20 10:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

As an ancap, I believe this is completely legitimate for the private companies ... The day could come when it is enforced by government

I'm beginning to believe anarchist is just another word for ignorant. Every anarchist I've met recently seems to be completely ignorant of every aspect of an issue, most are just protesting for the sake of protesting. As one put it at the software patent protests in Brussels last year, "I protest against everything, but mostly I do this to meet chicks".

Since you weren't paying attention, Adobe's product director Kevin Smith admitted they put this code into their product under pressure from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Department of Fath^WHomeland Defense. They willingly took a chunk of binary code developed by Digimarc and IBM under a contract to the G20 central banks (including the US Federal Reserve), and placed it directly into their product. This code is called at every manipulation of an image, copying to clipboard, pasting, opening a file, saving a file, rotations, etc. It is not a module or a plugin that can be removed, but built into the main PS code.

Although I have yet to see a thorough analysis from reverse engineering the code, I know that Omron, the company that makes the currency detection components used in many photocopiers and printers, promotes three algorithms which are used to detect bills. The most obvious is Digimarc's single color channel circles. The circles can be one of several colors, to blend in with scheme used on the bill. The second requires running Fast Fourier Transforms on the horizontal and vertical slices crossing each curved line on a bill, where each line has a slightly different radius to its bend, and slightly different spacing to the next line. The FFT's output "blows up" into a large, unprocessable value very quickly when it hits a patch of curvy lines. The third has to do with moire patterns, but the detection algoritm is unknown to me.

So there are two main complaints, the first to do with photoshop now running much slower because every manipulation gets passed through the government approval software before happening.

The more vocal complaints are about how the a number of governments have now convinced a bunch of companies to include untested, unknown, "black box" software in their products. Today the extra software is just running a few FFT and pattern matching algorithms which trigger an alert pointing the user to a Euro CentralBank run website. Tomorrow, various governments could require much more intrusive software to be installed in all products or in the operating system itself as a precursor to gently and slowly outlawing "untrustworthy" software. Indeed, the ECB is already contemplating legislation requiring all digital equipment and software that can store or process images to include this software. That includes all camera phones, digital cameras, computers, operating systems, scanners, printers, free software projects like the GIMP, etc.

Get with the panic, this is /.

the AC

--
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on

Re:note design changes (anticounterfeit mania) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 10:45 · Score: 0

> What happens if someone puts the circle design on their webpage images? Does this prevent printing, copying, etc. web images?

So what image format should I use to get it to always print in the correct size. It must ofcourse work fine in all current browsers.
Can I for example set a png to have a certain DPI resolution?

You mean like "My Sweet Lord"? by tepples · 2004-01-20 10:49 · Score: 1

For example, absolutely nothing stops me from recording my wife singing, encoding it in the MP3 format, and sharing it.

Wrong. Songwriters own copyrights too. Even if your wife claims to have written the song herself, she may in fact have copied substantial portions of an existing copyrighted musical work. Given the ratio of people with actual musical talent to the general population on which commercial music is forced through Muzak and similar services, it's highly likely that the subconsciously copied it. And guess what: subconscious copying is still actionable infringement. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976).

Re:You mean like "My Sweet Lord"? by HiThere · 2004-01-20 11:09 · Score: 1

So because she she may in fact have copied substantial portions of an existing copyrighted musical work , you claim that it is valid to presume that she must have done so?

Seriously?

Please think a bit more about your position.

OTOH, you do point towards a valid point. Nearly everything listenable-to, and a great deal that isn't, is already either in public domain, or under copyright. Frequently both. And if someone claims copyright over older public domain music, what do you suppose happens?

The current copyright law is obscenely extended, to the point of vile injustice. I personally feel that it is in violation of the constitutional authorization (i.e., in violation of the constitution), and thus invalid. However, it's definitely true that the courts are of another opinion. I may have my own ideas of the reason why (which have nothing to do with justice, equity, or moral rectitude), but the courts do support this. Which means that the current law can be enforced.

None of this justifies prior restraint.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:You mean like "My Sweet Lord"? by tepples · 2004-01-20 12:17 · Score: 1

you claim that it is valid to presume that she must have done so?

I claim that under uniform state laws, it is valid to presume that somebody without a degree in medicine or osteopathy shouldn't practice medicine. I claim that under uniform state laws, it is valid to presume that somebody without a law degree shouldn't practice law. I claim that the major publishers will likely try to argue that Congress should presume that somebody without some sort of musicology training shouldn't practice songwriting. A more enlightened Congress could solve the problem by restricting the scope of what constitutes "substantial similarity" and "access." However, I see no way to produce a more enlightened Congress other than through deep reform of campaign finance, up to and including constitutional limits on consecutive terms of representatives and senators.

The current copyright law is obscenely extended, to the point of vile injustice.

Have you complained to Congress yet?

None of this justifies prior restraint.

U.S. copyright law requires copy-protection in analog video recording devices and both a levy and SCMS on digital audio recording devices and media. Apparently, past Congresses have found that the threat of music piracy requires some sort of prior restraint. However, it makes an exemption for "professional" grade devices marketed by their manufacturers to serious authors and publishers.

Printers vs. vending machines by tepples · 2004-01-20 10:52 · Score: 1

For one thing, copy machines that look for the specific "five holes" pattern need only distinguish currency from non-currency. Vending machines also must distinguish the issuing country and the denomination.

Re:Treating customers like CRIMINALS??? Puh-leez!! by bobbozzo · 2004-01-20 11:03 · Score: 1

Then they should indicate that in the list of features.

If I bought Photoshop CS 3 months ago and just found this out, I would be PISSED. (I work in advertising)

It'd probably be too late to return it.

--
Nothing to see here; Move along.

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by budgenator · 2004-01-20 11:14 · Score: 1

1. install currency duplication protection in color copier, with 3 stikes your out lock down
2. install copier in office full of practical jokers
3 PROFIT from service calls at $150.00 per instance and $75.00 an hour!

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Testing... by gadders · 2004-01-20 11:15 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Does anyone have a link to scanned currency I could test it with?

Think of the children, or Fed fatasses no more by defile · 2004-01-20 11:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

A couple of years ago Wired ran an article on amateur counterfeiting. It turns out that hundreds of kids nationwide independently came to the conclusion that it would be hillarious to run off piles of $20 bills with their new printers and hand them out in their local communities, absolutely unaware how serious a crime this is in the United States.

Federal agencies that had budgets to justify and headlines to make prosecuted these kids to the fullest extent of the law, which meant years of imprisonment and enormous fines. Most of these kids were devastated, and rarely did the feds care that this was petty crime and the kids would be better off with a slap on the wrist and the parents sternly scolded.

So consider this; these anti-conterfeiting features aren't even going to put a dent into the plans of real counterfeiters, but it may hamper Little Timmy enough that he loses interest in rolling off some bills and returns to his regularly scheduled youthful destructive activities like flaming bags of poo and toilet papering houses.

By taking the amateurs out of the marketplace, the feds can't go after the easy stupid prey anymore. The little punks will turn to other petty crime so that your locally appointed authorities can deal with them, while the feds stay out of your neighborhood since they're focusing on the large-scale professional counterfeiters.

It's a stretch, but considered this way, Adobe et al. are promoting states rights.

There's an epidemic of casual fakes by UninvitedCompany · 2004-01-20 11:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

In all this conversation were missing an important fact. That is, that there is a serious problem with casual counterfeitting of currency. In the U.S., most currency actually passed is now produced on color printers and copiers. While such copies are easy to identify, they are usually passed in situations where they will not receive much scrutiny. That is, in low light situations where the cashier is in a hurry, like in a bar or at a concert. Usually the cashiers don't care that much, since they aren't the one who's out the money when a fake comes in -- except at places like electronics stores that have more exposure and so train their cashiers better. By the time the counterfeit is found, the doer is long gone and so the business ends up just getting screwed. They don't have any recourse. Now, the counterfeitting laws and the whole enforcement system is predicated upon the idea that fakes can't be produced without substantial upfront effort. The print-on-demand nature of this type of counterfeitting makes prosecution tricky. With offset counterfeits, there are multiple people involved. There are resources to get, cameras, plate burners, presses, paper, ink, and all these attract attention. Computer-produced fakes aren't like that. There's no evidence except perhaps what forensic analysis can turn up on the hard drive. The presence of counterfeits detracts from the widespread acceptance of currency. Since currency is the only practical anonymous means of payment, those of us who value our privacy would do well to support measures that keep currency practical. Now, the anticopying measures in the printers are, as far as anyone has been able to tell, a voluntary measure on the part of the manufacturers. Good for them. It is one of only two good choke points for the problem, the other being to have cashiers check in detail for things like watermarks. Is it a form of DRM? Not really, since it is wholly unrelated to copyright law, and since there is no digital distribution of the "content" in the first place. What are the implications for open source? None. Open source systems could include such measures and may do so in the fullness of time. Just because it can be disabled by the knowledgeable makes no difference. When the day comes when 90% of the desktops have an open source operating system and desktop suite, most of the user base will have no idea how to make such changes.

Re:note design changes (anticounterfeit mania) by RobNich · 2004-01-20 11:25 · Score: 1

Ditto that. In the Canon 3200 Color Printer/Copier we just got, we tried copying a dollar bill folded in half. Some of the lines were turned from green to black.

I didn't try, however, to change the size. The most important thing about these devices detecting violations when printing is that they must check the size of the printed image!!! It's not illegal or irresponsible to print dollar bills that are much smaller or much larger than normal size.

That is why having PhotoShop do this is not only goddamn stupid but completely unnecessary. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want to print part of a dollar bill, or take a small portion of it from the image and use it elsewhere. For instance, when talking about the Mason symbols on the bill, showing an image would be necessary. But by blocking one from opening the file, they are stopping fair use, while not stopping actual counterfeiting.

In addition, it seems to me that by including this software, they are opening themselves up to liability for not applying it fully or correctly and allowing people to bypass it. It would seem that by not doing anything, they can point out that their software has plenty of uses, the least of which is for counterfeiting. This is analogous to the manufacturer of a printing press being sued because their press was used to counterfeit money. The defense? "We sold 500 of these presses, and are not responsible for their use." This is not the case of a firearm, which when used as intended results in death or injury. The software, printers, presses, etc, are designed for other use, not for counterfeiting.

--
Hello little man. I will destroy you!

Photocopying currency by Aaden42 · 2004-01-20 11:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's nothing sinister about photocopiers not copying currency. I've read in the past that the paper and/or its coatings (at least for US currency) are designed to absorb light in the spectrum that photocopiers use. If nothing gets reflected by the money back to the copier, the copier just sees black.

Your run of the mill photocopier doesn't have the smarts to do that kind of image analysis processing (yet).

Now... I'm waiting for some graphic artist types to start filing suit on First Ammendment grounds. But seeing as we're well on our way to destroying that, who knows...

"your boy" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 12:15 · Score: 0

It's been my experience that people who don't like the current President like people a *lot* worse than his predecessor.

I made a shirt. by MacFury · 2004-01-20 12:30 · Score: 1

Put it on cafe press, and post a link here

Done and done ;-)

http://www.cafeshops.com/ruechaos.9465489

Re:I made a shirt. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 00:53 · Score: 0

Done and done ;-)

http://www.blibbleblobble.co.uk/

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by Angus+Prune · 2004-01-20 12:32 · Score: 1

The way to reduce forgery is to obviously make it harder to copy notes.

Thats what thsi software is doing, it is not, however, the only way to make it difficult. Rather than curtailing our rights couldn't the treasuries come up with solutions themselves. Use paper that feels obviously different from any normal paper. Use watermarks and UV inks, use microprinting and metal strips. There are a whole swathe of ways to make it difficult to copy currency and those are just the ones I can know of and can think of off the top of my head.

I have seen a few fake notes (UK and Scotish) and they were either way beyond what I could produce at home or they were obvious forgeries. If someone takes a note and doesn't check it than thats their own problem.

Unfortunatly stupidity can never be eradicated. A case in point is my old boss who accepted a scotish 20 that was two pieces of printed paper stuck together, the worst part was that they were peelign away from each other.

Why should we have our freedom of expression quashed to make up for the idiocy of others?

my idea by ocie · 2004-01-20 12:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

I thought it would be a good idea for currency to have features designed to throw off scanners and printers. The first would be a set of converging lines at a small angle, like a horizonal line that intersects a diagonal line one one end and is seperated by 1/4 inch on the other end. Another idea is to have several square fields each filled with close set parallel lines. Each field would be rotated slightly from the one next to it, so if you squint at the bill, they will all look a uniform grey, but if you copy it, the raster pattern should be evident and result in a checkerboard or some other pattern.

--
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere

wrong, currency is corporatized... by cheekyboy · 2004-01-20 12:53 · Score: 1

The federal reserve owns the currency the government does not, and has not since 1913 since the fed was made and is not a government entity even though it pretends to sound like one, it is 100% a commercial enterprise owned by 12 major banks.

The fed on behalf of the goverment prints the cash , owns the cash, prints more cash out of thin air etc... defines the inflation rate (printing more cash) and also redefined the rules so your cash is NOT as good as gold and exchangeable to gold. In other words inflation is a scam to trick people into thinking that, "wow im getting paid more this year" because the doubass sheaple are too dumb to properly do the relative maths of increasing wages vs goods prices increase and general money supply, plus they probably feel 'better' with increasing prices compared to deflation of decreasing constant prices of everything.

Note: its not felation or inflation thats critical really, its the relative differences between goods/services/waves that matters, so eventually your wages are really being decreased and you never know it.

Go to gata.org and financialsense.com and perfecteconomy.com

Your cash is just a debt IOU to china.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

america does have a legal dollar coin. by cheekyboy · 2004-01-20 13:09 · Score: 1

Check it out, usa does have a legal dollar coin, though

1. too many people didnt like it.
2. too many people now dont know its legal

But its being used more in venezuala i think it was, one of those SA countries that uses the US$ now.

Next time ask your bank if it has any.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/mds024.htm

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

Re:america does have a legal dollar coin. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 15:25 · Score: 0

I gotta get one of those, I already have an Eisenhower $1 coin and a Susan B Anthony $1 coin... afaik both of those are still legal currency, although the eisenhower is fucking huge.

doesn't work on Canadian Currency by Liquid+Tip · 2004-01-20 13:17 · Score: 1

Well, it seems that this protection does not apply
to Canadian currency! (okay.. here comes the Canadian-monopoly money jokes).

Re:50 wh47????/ by Deraj+DeZine · 2004-01-20 13:18 · Score: 0

I wouldn't mention "separation" to him. That's the Goatse.cx guy, you know...

--
True story.

Re:note design changes (anticounterfeit mania) by LSD-25 · 2004-01-20 14:05 · Score: 1

For instance, when talking about the Mason symbols on the bill, showing an image would be necessary.

Are you talking about the eagle and the pyramid on the back of the one dollar bill? They weren't invented for the bill; they are the front and back of the Great Seal of the United States. (Hell, the bill even labels it as such.) I wish people would just call it the Great Seal instead of saying "the back of the dollar bill". That's like refering to the White House as "the mansion on the back of the twenty".

Re:So What? -- It is not Bank's Computer by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-01-20 14:50 · Score: 1

Many years ago, in the day of the Process Camera, before the PC, as a test to see what I could do, I tossed a Social Security card on the plate, snapped a pic, and blew the negative ip to the size of a poster. I then burned it.

Had I not, I could have cleaned up the lines, printed it on nice bond, and done many illegal things with it. Same goes for money. Professional money forgers don't use color copiers or Photoshop.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Lemme rephrase that by Solandri · 2004-01-20 14:51 · Score: 1

Since you missed the forest for the trees.

The notion that "putting restrictions in software is inappropriate" is in itself a restriction, and thus invalidates itself. You claim that because freedom is more important, there shouldn't be restrictions in how software is used. I can claim that because freedom is more important, there shouldn't be any restrictions on what Adobe can put in their software - including restrictions on how their customers can use it.

The only way to rationalize those two positions is to decide that freedom isn't more important in one of those cases. So who should have more freedom - the people who write the software, or the people who use it? (At this point I'll cite conflict of interest and bow out since I'm a programmer.)

The problem with trying to come up with universal absolutes is that there are no universal absolutes. Except for this one. ;)

Re:Lemme rephrase that by Peaker · 2004-01-21 11:47 · Score: 1

The notion that "putting restrictions in software is inappropriate" is in itself a restriction, and thus invalidates itself.

It is a restriction, but not a restriction in software and thus it does not invalidate itself. What are you talking about?

Restrictions on what people can code in software they distribute is fine (are not allowed to distribute viruses, for example). Putting user-restrictions in the software itself (different from restricting the authors of the software) is not legitimate.

I am a software author myself, and I am against user-restrictions, and for some sorts of restrictions on what authors should be able to do with their software. If it was up to me, distribution of software would only be legal with the source included, and the freedom to modify and redistribute it. In such a case, user-restrictions in the software become a non-issue.

How to circumvent Currency protection by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 15:43 · Score: 0

All you need to do is break the image into 3 files. Each image file contains alternating rows of pixel. Print 3 times for each side. Then go shopping!!!

Please visit the site by bobalu · 2004-01-20 15:59 · Score: 2, Funny

because *I* did, and unless about a million OTHER people thing I did they may THINK I actually got there by trying to print a picture of currency which I would never ever do because I'm trying to think of ways to scam people *legally*, really really I swear and oh God i don't want the freakin' Secret Service to visit my boss, or well, fuck the neighbors but I swear I thought they said "Secret Squirrel" you see and I.... oh never mind.

--
The revolution will NOT be televised.

Better Solution by JoeCommodore · 2004-01-20 15:59 · Score: 1

Trying to put a cork in the real problem isn't gonna help matters, what governents *should do* is stop producing money on paper. I bet they would (or have already) whined about such a proposition but paper tech is too pervasive now and in the hands of the common man, it's about time governments got a bit more sophisticated.

Maybe it;s time to RFID all the +$5 bills or whatever they will call them. (domars?)

If we are going to a "Big Brother Society," I'll expect Big brother to do all my taxes for me.

--
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield

Re:PETA : PEOPLE EATING TASTY ANIMALS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 16:07 · Score: 0

I prefer eating cats.

Eating nice pussy tops anything you've eaten.

Fix for Photoshop CS is already out ... by UnknownSoldier · 2004-01-20 18:16 · Score: 1

Search for "Adobe_Photoshop_CS_Banknote_Patch-TIGER.torrent"

Includes a picture of a US 20 to test if the patch works.

Re:Spyware? Wrong term I think. by eclectro · 2004-01-20 20:15 · Score: 1

Why should we have our freedom of expression quashed to make up for the idiocy of others?

I don't see it that way. The ability for a citizen to make "easy" copies of currency is not essential to freedom of expression. Note that people still can make copies of currency, it's just harder to do so.

Freedom of expression is limited (in the US) by the damage it may cause others. Being able to make easy perfect copies of currency could damage not only somebody who takes counterfeit currency for payment but could harm the economic viability of an economy.

The other methods you mentioned will certainly be implemented in time. The only problem most of the other methods you mentioned will require high tech methods to implement (i.e. the average small merchant will not purchase).

Freedom of expression will not be quashed by currency detecting printers

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"

WTF!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 02:30 · Score: 0

You guys have 24" subs in Norway?

I don't see what all the fuss is about... by tiger99 · 2004-01-21 07:15 · Score: 1

In the UK we have had VERY strict law about copying currency for as long as anyone can remember, and no-one complains. If it is built in to products, it will make no difference, you can't legally scan a 10 note anyway, far less print it.

AFAIK you have to get special currency with SPECIMEN or something like that superimposed before you can let the face of a note be seen in a picture, even an advert. It seems fair enough to me.

The only silly case I remember was when an artist was prosecuted for painting a huge copy of a note, the difference between a painting and a copy is rather obvious, even without the size. Maybe they were scared that it would look reak when scaled down.

In some countries the currency is so poorly printed that duplication would be easy, and potentially disastrous for the economy. There was a program on TV the other night about how Hitler's cronies tried to bring the UK down during WW2 by printing bogus currency. The output of an inkjet or colour laser could fool some people so I am all for blocking it. The key thing is to ensure that it does not spoil other legitimate uses, by identifying harmless things as currency, which would be a real nuisance.

Re:HOLY **** by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2004-01-21 07:46 · Score: 1

"all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use."

You don't have to destroy your printer, hard drive, etc. until you're done using them. Most of the time they'll destroy themselves anyway.

Re:note design changes (anticounterfeit mania) by RobNich · 2004-01-22 02:46 · Score: 1

http://www.theinsider.org/news/dollar_bill_symbols .asp

http://watch.pair.com/mason.html#seal

I wasn't referring to the Seal, I was specifically referring to the Masonic symbols therein. Now I'm not saying I agree with these wa^H^Hwriters conclusions, but I think it's pretty obvious that the symbols are there.

Mkay?

--
Hello little man. I will destroy you!

Registration dots: by polyp2000 · 2004-01-22 04:26 · Score: 1

I used to work for a company that serviced and maintained amongst other things we serviced color laser printers. If those dots are on the same axis of the page either vertical or horizontal you might have a faulty part, maybe a drum or one of the rollers. We used to get this a lot on the QMS/Minolta Magicolor 330 (also rebadged under Xerox). Ususally fixed by replacing the OPC (if my memory serves me rightly)

--
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp

im a criminal, well only technically........ by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-27 01:04 · Score: 0

i copied a 5 pound note in a work photocopier once, but only cause i was walking past and there was a sign that said 'dont copy banknotes....blah, blah, blah'
even did the other side, cut em out, stuck em together.
not even close, the feel is so wrong, the colours are all washed out....
load of shit, blown out of proportion, as usual

Slashdot Mirror

Currency Detection Discovered in More Products

677 comments