Slashdot Mirror
Hidden Codes in Printers Cracked
r84x writes "A research team led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently broke the code behind tiny tracking dots that some color laser printers secretly hide in every document.
The U.S. Secret Service admitted that the tracking information is part of a deal struck with selected color laser printer manufacturers, ostensibly to identify counterfeiters. However, the nature of the private information encoded in each document was not previously known.
"We've found that the dots from at least one line of printers encode the date and time your document was printed, as well as the serial number of the printer," said EFF Staff Technologist Seth David Schoen."
Before anyone has a conniption, consider this: do you really think that "they" have a database they could reference to find out what printer serial number goes to what citizen? I don't. I know they could, but I choose to believe (most likely for good reason) that they don't.
Just realize that 99.9% of the world doesn't give a shit about anything you do, and all that paranoia just slips away. That's what I did.
I love conspiracy math: Lets see, conservative estimate of 400 million printers in North America alone, and no method of tracking serial number to location or owner past the original purchase, assuming cash was not used. So, hmmmm a data base with 400 million records, tied to dubious information... yeah, that's useful, but on second thought, it would allow police to figure out if the printer that counterfit documents were created with was in North America or Europe... that would be helpful, but not really worth putting on the tin foil hats.
:)
Anyway, so the government requires each printer manufacturer to maintain a database of all printers sold, so that if needed, they can subpeona the records? No wonder printer ink costs so much
I'm thinking that this would only go so far, and not be much more useful than a database of gun rifling marks?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
That is true in an uncorrupted system. The question remains what would happen if someone did use their power like J. Edgar Hoover did, and others in history that have got away with abuse of power in such a manner.
And there is the case of just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean that something is a wrong thing to do.
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
Repeat after me, "Cost does not equal value". No one is forcing you to buy inkjet cartridges. The value of something is what the market will bear. These companies are watching their revenue go up as they raise prices. that's their job, maximize revenue. If there is collusion among printer manufacturers, which I doubt, then it is illeagal. Otherwise, buy a laser.
Spencer Ogden
Hell, it's not like anyone actually cares what you print unless you're doing something illegal that would warrent them spending a lot of time and money to try and find you.
The people that do not want their houses randomly searched must be hiding something, after all, why would they not want searched? I know, point taken to the extreme but where do you draw the line?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
This stuff is almost exactly how they caught the BTK killer
I think it's great that finally, we will be able to frame people we don't like with the greatest of ease. Just user their printer to print something illegal, or burn a CD on their PC!
A new crime, anyone? "Breaking And Entering With Intent To Print"
'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
Of course, this might actually prove useful in the future for historians analyzing our garbage for dating our documents. Assuming, of course, that these tiny dots can survive for a useful amount of time.
To me that's perhaps the biggest issue. At one point this was supposed to be a democracy, now it seems we're sliding into acceptance of secret laws and practices, and a general acceptance that "they" are watching (without even knowing who "they" are). We used to deride "conspiracy theorists" for thinking this kind of stuff was happening. Now we know it is happening, so we just deride the conspiracy theorists for caring.
>point taken to the extreme but where do you draw the line
I don't know but after thinking about it for half a second a good place to start might be that this printer system causes no inconvenience to the user (AFAIK) whereas a house search would.
The "if you have nothing to hide" apologists for elimination of freedoms is a slippery slope to totalitarianism. Orwell would snicker!
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Afraid I don't share your optimism.
First of all: there is an intrusion, a loss of freedom, even when the power is not abused. In the 60s, your average hippy could pretty much buy a car using cash and drive to San Franciscoi - now you need a ton of paperwork, legal docs, and so on. You can no longer buy a car using cash - not a new car anyway. Another example: in the 1960s the government did not know what I spent my money on. Now it does. That represents a serious loss of freedom even if the government does not curremtly abuse that new power. These losses of freedom may or may not be necessary, but they need robust discussion and debate before they happen.
The second point: these powers DO get abused. An example. During German occupation in WW2, the Dutch sent more Jews to the concentration camps, as a percentage of the population, than any other nation save Germany. Why? They had a very efficient tracking system that from birth to grave tracked everyone's address, race, relatives' addresses, and so on. Guess what - at the first opportunity, the new people in power abused that power and traced all Jews and sent them to their deaths. Interestingly, in the years leading up to WW2, the Dutch had a debate much like this one, and the consensus was that "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".
Examples abound: when you give away your freedoms you (a) lose those freedoms (and the freedom to buy a printer anomymously may not seem such a big deal to you - but it IS a freedom!), and (b) over time, they sometimes get abused: you can count on a certain percentage of this happening.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
They deal with people who are abusing their kids;
...Or take that job upon themselves with creative use of the
ever-popular "resisting arrest" claim. Clumsy kids, always
going around breaking their own ribs while locked alone in a
jail cell.
or acting indignent because they got pulled over for speeding;
Or driving while black. Or a personal favorite, driving on the wrong side of the road - On a lineless back road barely wide enough for a single car (the sort where you literally stop and one car pulls totally off the road if you meet another car coming the opposite way).
or drunk and screaming obscenities in public places;
Or ordered to step outside a bar, given a sobriety test, and charged with public drunkenness.
or involved in horrible accidents and shootings.
You mean like when a cop panics over a 2YO kid with a cap gun, and ventilates him? Or when they zealously chase a gas station drive-off at 110mph leading to three deaths over $30 in fuel?
It's even more unlikely that the government is going to use this against you, unless you do something to draw the attention of say, the FBI.
You mean like anonymously distributing a (legal) pamphlet critical of the wrong politician, who wants revenge and has convenient connections?
I appreciate what police do. They keep a bunch of unruly domesticated primates from killing one another.
But don't glorify them - They chose that job because they get to act the most like unruly domesticated primates, and justify it as part of the job. Politicians chose their job because they like power (or money, or both). WE all need to do our part to keep the police, and the government in general, in check.
"Free speech is not free *anonymous* speech."
How do you figure? If I'm free to speak, but free to get hounded by the FBI/fired/audited by the IRS if I say something that the authorities don't like, that's a pretty thin kind of freedom.
"We don't want the world flooded with forged documents"
Says you. I don't really think that it's as much of a problem as you do.
"Deal with it."
Ah. That must be in the hidden text in the 10th Amendment. You know, the one written in invisible yellow dots.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"Even if you should be able to carry box cutters on to a flight, what reaction do you think other passengers will have?"
I don't care. It's none of their business.
"I certainly would be very suspicious of someone carrying one on to a flight. In fact, I would be sleeping with one eye open."
You sleep however you want. Your sleep habits are none of my business.
"remotely linked to something that people are paranoid about at the time"
I shouldn't have to keep track of the things that you're paranoid about. You, on the other hand, have a handy list of things that I have a right to do. (That is, loosely speaking, almost anything that doesn't cause direct harm to my fellow humans.).
"but how far are you willing to go to ignore behaviour like that?"
Very far. I am not afraid of terrorists. I am very concerned about police states. Historically, police states are much more dangerous than wackos with box cutters/sticks of dynamite/RPG's.
"How do you filter those people out at check in?"
You can't. You also can't be sure you won't get run over by a crazyperson on your way to work. Your odds of being killed by a terrorist are vanishingly small wrt the odds of you being killed by a distracted motorist.
You don't have an inalienable right to safety.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!