Secret Printer ID Codes May Be Illegal In the EU
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "In response to a query from a member of the EU Parliament, an EU commissioner issued an official statement (.DOC) saying that, while they do not violate any laws, secret printer tracking dot codes may violate the human right to privacy guaranteed by the EU's Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. If you don't remember what these are, Slashdot has discussed the issue before. In short, most color printers print small yellow dots on every sheet in a code that identifies the printer and, potentially, its owner. The EFF is running an awareness campaign, and a couple of years back made a start on deciphering the yellow dot code."
So to stay private, then, one should print sensitive documents on yellow paper?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
First topic on the agenda: biometrics for visitors.
Or was privacy only guaranteed to European Citizens?
1. Do not buy from the manufacturer.
2. Maybe pay cash when buying printer.
3. Do not send in warranty card.
4. Don't let a factory rep or facility service it.
If you can prevent the printer's serial # from being tied to your identity, you should be OK. Of course, some of the very high-end printers can only be bought from the manufacturer or a registered VAR, so don't use those types of printers for nefarious deeds.
I don't know about printers, but apparently with Canon digital cameras they will register the camera serial number with your name if you send it in to Canon for service.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
The EFF has some handy dandy info on this very subject, http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
Doesn't anyone notice that the EU's "official statement" was released as a .DOC file? So, if I'm a citizen of the EU, I have to pay money to Microsoft to participate in my government?
What's worse is that we're so inured to this sort of thing, nobody even noticed!
Fenestrae delendae sunt.
All of the documents produced in our office have a large brown ring stamped on them that can be traced back to the coffee mug of the engineer that produced them.
Have gnu, will travel.
There are a couple of differences between license plates and this.
a)The license plates are clearly visible, while the printer code is intended to be unnoticeable by the user. I.e, most users don't even know they are being tracked.
b)When you drive your car you are using public infrastructure, such as the roads. In many countries there is no obligation to have license plates on a car you only use in a private space.
c) The license plate identifies one particular car, not [necessarily] the factory that made it. The printer code identifies the printer, not the paper it is on.
I'm sure there is more, but clearly the parent post is just another example that car analogies suck.
even in the US constitution, is there ANY real clauses that talk about right to privacy?
Please see Amendment 4, Amendment 5, Amendment 9 and Amendment 10.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
There has been some research done in this area. It's not really intentional, but the nature of the CCD sensors. When they're made, they have a target count on how many megapixels it has and not all of them (at least short of research labs) are functional.
Sometimes you can see specifications like "12 Megapixels, 11.1 effective".
These defects are scattered among the surface of the CCD and are statistically unique from one camera to another, even among the same model. While the photos often aren't saved in raw formats, I'd wager if they find a picture of something illegal and wanted to prove your camera took the picture, it'd be trivial to take some pictures with it and match the output files' flaws even with the JPEG encoding by using a control camera of the same shot.
Like how they do ballistic analysis by finding a suspect's gun and fire off a few rounds and compare with rounds found at the scene of a crime.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Best suggestion yet.
Yes, in theory adding random dots would introduce noise into the signal and potentially degrade it to the points it's no longer useful, but only if you can interfere with the pattern. Put another way, unless you know the location of the dot codes, to reach the level of noise necessary to obscure you'd have to cover the page; there would be so many random yellow dots so as to be perceptible.