27 Central Banks Push Anti-Counterfeit Software

securitas writes "GlobeTechnology reports that the 27-member Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group is behind the anti-counterfeit software in Adobe Photoshop CS, Ulead PhotoImpact, Jasc Paint Shop Pro and others. Consortium members of the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group include the USA, Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia and many more. Law enforcement agencies and banknote-issuing authorities say that it is a response to the rapid growth of digital counterfeiting. The software is distributed free of charge to hardware and software manufacturers and is voluntary to use. But the European Union is drafting legislation to force manufacturers to include anti-counterfeit measures in all systems, scanners or printers sold in Europe. Counterfeiting and anti-counterfeiting with Adobe Photoshop and other products like inkjet printers have been the subject of recent discussion on Slashdot."

Comments

Help

[grub]

WANTED TO BUY:
1x Adobe Photoshop version
up to but not including CS.

1x High quality inkjet printer,
2002-2003 vintage

Will pay cash.

Re:Help

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant:

Will pay cash 1 week after delivery.

Oh well

[Da Weave]

There goes my replacement Monopoly money.

gimp and sane illegal

[sydlexic]

wouldn't an EU mandate make open source scanners and image manipulation illegal in the EU? it's not like their providing the source. And if they did, the couterfeiters would just strip it out.

Re:gimp and sane illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to this question was here on slashdot.

The software looks at 5 dots appearing (multiple times) on every money used in the EU.

There was even a link to a pdf file.

Re:gimp and sane illegal

[va3atc]

Is money the same color across the EU? (serious question, I've never seen any european money)

No problem, will just scan it and throw up a link for you...Oh, nevermind.

note: All is to be taken sarcastically

What happens to open source image software?

[LostCluster]

I'm guessing that this is just like most other bank note security systems, some of the clearer details are made public, but others are kept secret since we don't particularly want "Free as in Linux" money out there.

Therefore, I wonder how the central banks of the world are going to implement this in OSS image editors. Afterall, something commented as "//This is where we put the part that stops people trying to open images of money." is gonna be rather easy bypass, and would also require them to define all of the tricks they're using to identify bills in other software too or let some of those checks slide.

Re:What's the problem?

[iminplaya]

This is a nice smoke screen to get people to accept gov't mandated tech. After this kind of thing gets through, the next thing will mandated DRM. Old equipment will be banned fron the 'net. "Upgrade" now or go to jail.

Heh

[radicalskeptic]

Counterfeiting and anti-counterfeiting with Adobe Photoshop and other products like inkjet printers have been the subject of recent discussion on Slashdot."

Heh, not that the Photoshop effort was effective--all you need to do is search the applications section of suprnova.org to find "banknote patch Photoshop CS."

Re:What's the problem?

[capz loc]

There are many anti-counterfeiting measures already implemented on paper money. (cotton-based(IIRC) paper, color-changing inks, watermarks, and metallic threads. Instead of changing US currency again, why not train cashiers and other handlers of money to utilize the features that are already in place?

Won't stop the big crooks, but -

[Gleenie]

- it's not really designed to. Sure, the big organised crime gangs will get around it with no problems at all. But it will stop the casual counterfeiter. This is what it is designed to do.

The problem of course is that _sometimes_ it gets in the way of legitimate uses of digital technology. This is an example of one idiot ruining it for everyone. Life's like that. I pay high car insurance premiums because other people are stupid/lazy/drunk/asleep, even though I'm not.

Yeah, it's annoying, but that's life. It would just be nice if the companies would be more up-front about it. Good on Adobe for coming clean; but they needn't have denied it in the first place!

Dare I suggest...

[Anonymous Coward]

that rather than trying to fix the software that can copy notes, you design a note that's harder to copy in such a fashion? Maybe something that has a clear window, shadow image, fluorescent printing, and more? Something that makes it much easier for the end user to check (in several ways) the authenticity of a given note?

It's a never ending game. As E. E. Smith said, what physical science can devise, physical science can analyse and reproduce. We just have to keep moving the bar higher than the counterfeiters can easily reach. If the typical US bank note is too easily copied by technology available to the home user, then it's time for the typical US bank note to be updated. Not for the technology to be crippled...

Re:Dare I suggest...

[Nebrie]

This is why the US treasury has announced that they will start redesigning bills every few years. Having the largest amount of currency and fickle customers, they like to take things more slowly. http://www.moneyfactory.com/newmoney/main.cfm/medi a/releases09092003

Re:Dare I suggest...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the author of the grandparent post (honest! :). I've had a look at that site, and there are three main points about the new features:

1. The watermark - the faint image similar to the large portrait, which is part of the paper itself and is visible from both sides when held up to the light.
2. The security thread - also visible from both sides when held up to the light, this vertical strip of plastic is embedded in the paper. "USA TWENTY" and a small flag are visible along the thread.
3. The color-shifting ink - the numeral "20" in the lower-right corner on the face of the note changes from copper to green when the note is tilted. The color shift is more dramatic and easier to see on the new-design notes.

All three are useful anti-counterfeiting measures; there's no disputing that. However, if you look at Australia's techniques, there are two levels of protection: the blatently obvious, and the more subtle.

What do I mean by that? Well, the clear window is "blatently obvious". You see it, and it's immediately obvious that it's meant to be there; it's part of the design of the note. As you encounter more notes, you come to realise that it's seamless; it "feels" no different to the rest of the note. So when Joe Blow comes up to you and offers you a note with a window that doesn't quite fit, you quickly realise that it can't be a real note -- it has to be a fake. Anybody -- from any country -- should be able to pick up on that without too much trouble.

The more subtle things are things like the tiny writing (saying, for example, "FIFTY DOLLARS"); the seven point star that reveals itself only when you hold the note up to the light; that sort of thing. The seven point star actually is somewhere between "ultra subtle" and "obvious" -- looking at the note, it can be noticed without too much difficulty if you're observant.

I guess I'm saying that, to me at least, the new US $20 note doesn't follow what appears to be world's best practice, whilst the Australian note does. It's an improvement, yes, but it doesn't go as far as it could, and arguably, should. The more a currency is liable to be forged, the less value it will have in the long run, as nobody can trust the notes.

Just some random thoughts, is all.

The other thing is: to the best of my knowledge, Australia has had only two note designs in the period of decimal currency. The switch to plastic notes was well publicised, and started with the high value (and hence more often forged) notes, progressively replacing every note down to the five dollar (our two and one dollar denominations are coins these days, not notes). As xixax implies, redesigning your notes on a regular basis is not the best way to keep your currency safe from counterfeiting; in that sense, you are better off doing a major, major, MAJOR upgrade every, say, fifty years or so, rather than a string of minor upgrades every five or ten years. This sort of change to the US currency seems to me to be a minor revision, not a major overhaul...

Re:Dare I suggest...

[vivian]

Actually I seem to remember it was the other way round - the $5 note was replaced first, then the $10 note etc.
Top 5 reasons for going from boring monochrome paper to plastic colourful money:

1) it lasts a lot longer for notes that change hands a lot - a $5.00 paper note would get chewed up in something like 6 months, but the plastic vertions lasts a lot longer before it has to be replaced.

2) you never get a nasty crumpled greasy dirty note - the plastic notes are all but impossible to crease and don't retain dirt etc. nearly as well as paper.

3) we love the beach - and paper money generally doesnt. With the plastic notes you can go for a surf with the money to buy your lunch in your boardies, without having to take a wallet & leave it on the beach.

4) you can put the notes in the oven to shrink them down & make fun keyring tags ( actually I think that only worked with the first plastic notes - and I don't endorse defacing currency)

5) It was a great excuse to get republicly minded and replace the Queen's head with a bunch of other people no-one knows (but should).

6) Tourists (especially Americans who are used to all money being green) can't help but think of it as monopoly money ( because of all the pretty colors) and spend it accordingly.

7) All the pretty colors help in identification to prevent you buying a $100 kebab after a beery night out.

8) you can sticky tape two $100 notes together and make a cheezy pair of "$200" shades with the little plastic windows.

9)even the dodgiest back street dealers warez dealers take "plastic money"

10) it has a tendancy to stop filthy rich bastards lighting their cigars off $100 notes. I don't think it's absorbtive qualities are too good either, for any other mis-uses that might tempt the overly rich.

Good and Bad

[HappyCitizen]

What is the point, if anyone really wants to conterfiet software, they'll find a copy of older versions around. It will work just as well. Heck, why not use paint, with some skill that could work. This won't deter those who truely want to counterfiet. Maybe it will save a few $100 a year from those who are lightly considering it, but mainly it will kunut people who want crystal clear images which the software determines to look like money. This hurts, not helpes IMO

Re:What's the problem?

[blincoln]

Honestly, I don't see why people would be too up in arms about this.

Constantly checking for counterfeits steals processing power that I should be able to use for things I want my PC to do.

The software is never going to be perfect, either. What recourse do I have if I'm designing something that looks enough like currency to trigger it, but actually has a legitimate purpose (e.g. a prop for a film)?

Finally, it's just another symptom of the nanny-state mentality that is pervading modern society. I shouldn't have automated systems watching over my every move to make sure I'm not doing anything unfavourable.

What is the real problem?

[ObviousGuy]

The heart of the problem is that the legal tender is easily replicable. Coins are harder to reproduce and the payoff is much lower than paper money. Paper money, because it must be printed is susceptible to counterfeiting.

The counterfeiters who are truly making a dent in the money supply don't use Photoshop, though. For the most part, they have real drum printers and very sophisticated printing plates. They are printing money onto real fiber paper. They certainly aren't printing bills out on their Epson Deskjet onto White Shark recycled office paper.

At the extremely low level of low-cost counterfeiting which these software controls attempt to prevent, there simply isn't enough money being produced to worry about. The guy in his basement printing maybe a hundred thousand dollars a day out of his inkjet printer can only use so much of that before getting red flagged by some clerk who notices that his $100 bill isn't quite right (usually because the paper is different).

These software controls don't do anything to attack the real problem of counterfeiters who are doing the real damage printing millions of dollars which are indistinguishable from real money.

Genuine question.

[totatis]

This is a genuine question : how is it a bad thing ?

For me, that means two things :
1) if you want to do some parody bill, well, you'll still can, you'll just have to make sure that even from far it looks like parody.
2) 15 years old kids that get drunk for the first time and think that it is a good idea to make some cheap bill to get that coke free won't go 15 years in jail.

This thing just means that if you want to make false money, you'll have to dig a little bit. And if you do, it's clear that you wanted to counterfeit, and you'll go to jail. On the other hand, some kid won't be able to pool a cheap prank that can get him in serious troubles. Good chances are that he'll think "hey, if i've got to go to www.falsemoney.ze, maybe the police/secret service/whatever will notice, so maybe I shouldn't".

Remember, this thing is not, has never been, and will never be to deter mafias from counterfeiting. It's just to make it hard enough for Joe Schmoe that he has to think about his actions, and then decide that it would be stupid to risk 15 years for a prank.

legislated software features??

[dilvie]

Does anybody else think it's a BAD idea to try to legislate software features? Am I the only one who thinks that could cause a lot of problems? - Eric

on the bright side

[BinaryJono]

the number of GIMP users will balloon as all the counterfeiters switch from photoshop!

you forgot something...

[Roman_(ajvvs)]

How were you expecting to get the image into photoshop in the first place, hmmm? draw it yourself? :)

News broadcast: a man was caught trying to pass off counterfeit $20 bills at the candy store. The store owner got suspicious when he noticed none of the colours stayed within the lines. When questioned, he responded: "I guess I feathered my alpha mask too much."

Can't we just go cashless?

[NotQuiteReal]

I can anonymously buy cash cards at any mall around here, with Visa and MC logos... They cost $1 (no matter the amount you buy - so a $500 card is .2%) - The vendors hate it, because it costs them even more (and, by extension, the consumer).

So, the question is - don't you all think it will come down to point where the Government issues cash cards?

It saves them money (vs printing money) AND It (should) be harder to conterfeit than paper money (e.g. cryptologically secure).

It will piss off the credit card companies, but wouldn't it be a solution?

Along these lines - would coins be any harder to fake? I wouldn't mind carrying more change, if, say $20 coins were the size of dimes...

It goes without saying, that I wouldn't buy such a card if it weren't anonymous...

here's the funny thing

[extra the woos]

This is only gonna prevent some guy at home from making a funny counterfeit bill on his little inkjet to show off to his friends. I know, i've done it before. I'm like hey check out this...Then i tore it in two and they were like "WHY ARE YOU THROWING AWAY A PERFECTLY GOOD DOLLAR BILL?"...When i tossed the 2nd one, they went to grab it..then I told them to look closely. Oh by the way, that isn't illegal either! And neither is scanning a bill in and printing it out, then printing some propaganda on the other side, and leaving it places, so people will pick it up thinking its a real bill. Or making funny alterations (such as the sex dollar bill)...There's reasons to scan in money that don't involve counterfeiting. I know, I've scanned in money before for the above reasons. I would have been very annoyed if the software wouldn't let me scan it in. But know what, that wouldn't have stopped me, I woulda just scanned it into some crappy software then imported it into photoshop or psp.

Face it, maybe .01% of all the counterfeiting going on is done on some little inkjet by some guy using photoshop. This isn't going to stop *anything important*. This is just some feel-good measure, and THATS ALL IT IS.

Now, the scary thing is, what do you wanna be that these "image recognition" techniques are being patented, marketed, and sold. Imagine not being able to scan in somethign from a magazine or book because it has a code on it marking it as copyrighted. After all, if you were going to scan it in, you were *obviously* going to do something bad, like make an illegal copy! That's where I see this going: sort of a drm thats built into scanners, printers, and image software!

Re:What's the problem?

[C10H14N2]

They already do. However, there are many, many issues of US currency out there. Part of the problem is that all US currency is legal tender. If you can conterfeit a 1980 note, that's as good as a 2004. Could you tell a counterfeit 1980 $5 or $10 note with a line of people at your register? Would you sit there dutifully checking every bill under a UV light to make sure the paper is good? Nah, you just hope to god it's good and leave it to the bank to sort out, who most of the time don't check anything but the pH of $20 or larger notes anyway. You'll get more scrutiny with $50s and $100s, but hardly ever, if ever, $1-10 notes. Also, what of vending machines (read also: Slot Machines)? If you think that Vegas and Atlantic City haven't sent a few lobbyists out on this one, think again.

Nanny-State Mentality

[handy_vandal]

Finally, it's just another symptom of the nanny-state mentality that is pervading modern society.

The nanny-state mentality (nice phrase) isn't peculiar to modern society -- it's common throughout history.

Check out, for example, the history of sumptuary laws ... or how Calvinist Geneva was practically a police state ... or how Sparta was literally a police state ... or how most of Roman history is characterized by subordination of the individual to the state ... for that matter, consider that most of human history is characterized by the institution of slavery.

On the balance, the nanny state has been the historical norm; widespread respect for individual initiative is a relatively recent phenomenon.

-kgj

Re:What's the problem?

[BitterOak]

Honestly, I don't see why people would be too up in arms about this.

Because devices (hardware and software) that I buy and pay for should be working for me, not the government. My computer's CPU cycles should not be utilized against my will to ensure that I am complying with the law. Let the Secret Service buy computers to do their work, and let me use my computers to do my work.

The Real Problem

[burris]

The problem is that once these copy protection controls are installed everyone will want to use them. Markus Kuhn of Cambridge University has discovered one of the patterns used for detection of bank notes, known as the EURion Constellation. Sure, it's not that big of a deal when only bank notes have the constellation, but expect to see the constellation start showing up in the darndest places.

Soon everyone and their brother will start printing the Constellation onto whatever they feel needs "copy protection." You'll see it printed on photographs and forms and all kinds of junk. Regular people will have their right to make copies and the ability to use their own equipment usurped by others abusing a mechanism that was only supposed to inconvenience counterfeiters.

Re:What's the problem?

[Frymaster]

I'd still like to see how someone would go about copying transparent sections of notes

this brings up a very good point, though: the only true way to prevent counterfeiting is to have the legitimate currency producer have exclusive and restricted access to the materials required to mint money, those being:

1. paper
2. ink

if the paper and ink are noticably unique to money and access to those materials is restricted to the minter, counterfeiters are out of luck - no mater what software they have.

i should note that in canada the new $100 bill really stresses unique inks as an anti-counterfeit measure - there's translucent printing, a holographic stripe and some funky watermarks. read up on it here.

even my city's municipal currency (a local "barter" currency) uses this crazy plasticized paper that is custom designed for printing money and is only sold to legit minters.

so, go ahead and get that old version of photoshop and yr swank inkjet... it won't do you any good if you want to make canadian $100's or calgary $1's!

The real counterfeiters are using printing presses

[SiliconJesus101]

Several years back I worked for a company that printed high security checks, auto registrations, and auto titles (among other standard business forms). All of these are very complex documents and are best done the old fasioned way, on a press. Although the offset press may not be quite as good as using hand etched plates it most definitely can turn out more complex images than any inkjet or color laser printer could ever hope to do.

Simple process, photograph the bill, do your color separations in an older version of photoshop, etc; then burn plates from the color seperated negatives. Better yet, bypass photoshop completely and take several photographs of the bill using different filters over the lens to directly produce your color seperated negatives.

The fact of the matter is that the "big boys" in counterfeiting are NOT using a $50.00 scanner and a $19.99 inkjet printer.

Re:What's the problem?

[wibs]

Yes, this is the main problem. It seems to be generally agreed that this won't stop anyone who's serious, but when you're using image/pattern recognition to prevent scanning and printing, it's not a big leap to putting copyright enforcement patterns in magazines, books, etc etc. And as much as I can sympathize with wanting to protect your copyright, there are perfectly legitimate and legal reasons for scanning something out of your magazine/book/etc. The question is how long it will be before this kind of protection is implemented, and if we'll be told when it happens. Sorry for sounding paranoid, but it seems warranted.