Slashdot Mirror
Canon Blocks Copy Jobs Using Banned Keywords
aesoteric notes that a future version of Canon's document management system will include the exciting breakthrough technology that will OCR your printed and scanned documents, and
prevent distribution of keywords. Documents containing the offending words can be sent to the administrator, without actually telling the user just what word tripped the alarm. The article notes that simply using 1337 for example will get around it.
This was under the category of "Your Rights Online", but this isn't about our rights unless our governments mandate that all citizens must use copiers with this capability and the capability is deployed. In more realistic terms, companies are perfectly within reason to deploy this technology and it's a good thing. This would be a big plus for HR, legal, R&D, corportate planning. A great deal of information in the business world is compromised via copy machines. This doesn't solve the problem, but it certainly will impact and interrupt the problem in certain circumstances.
What I do worry about is how deployment impacts copyright enforcement, we shall see. I'm all for copyright enforcement, but not for infringing upon fair-use.
You're doing it wrong. If there's anything I've learned in dealing with people, it is never try to create a technical solution to a social problem. If someone wants to make a copy of some secret document, they will quickly learn that the copiers have this software installed and will use a different machine. You need to figure out why they would want to make copies of something you don't want them to, and solve that problem. I could see this being marginally useful for preventing accidental release of information, however the article seems to state that they are trying to stop deliberate users.
A determined user who has guessed the prohibited keyword could get around it by simply substituting numbers or other characters for letters, such as z00 instead of zoo, representatives for Canon conceded.
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
"The system can optionally inform the user by email that their attempt has been blocked, but without identifying the keyword in question, maintaining the security of the system."
Until the user decides to compare his blocked page with blocked pages from other letters or does a binary search for the forbidden word. Glad they thought this through.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I am Dick Johnson and why aren't I getting any faxes?
Maybe because the photocopier is not enforcing "CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT COPY" -- it goes way beyond that, checking a blacklist of words? It is not that this technology itself is evil, it is more that it can be used for all sorts of evil things.
You seem to think that these machines will only be purchased by corporations. What gives you that idea? How do you know that public libraries won't have these machines installed? What about schools? The problem is that this technology can and most likely will be abused. Public libraries and schools already filter websites; this will take that sort of censorship to an entirely new level.
Palm trees and 8
This has nothing to do with foul language and everything to do with people walking out the door with account numbers, medical records, credit card info, social security numbers and other valuable private information.
This is not a privacy issue; there is little expectation of privacy in a workplace when using company property anyway. I personally feel this would be a nice help; imagine working for a government contractor and having having software automatically raise flags when someone copies documents with "DO NOT COPY" or "CONFIDENTIAL" in the OCR text. This is somewhat useful.
Then copy your own damn papers, its not like copiers are futuristic alien technology that only high end corporations have access to.
I mean damn, I know slashdot is paranoid, but this is ridiculous; this is for corporate enforcement, nothing more.
The obvious risks of copying my buttcheeks? Care to elaborate, 'cause it's not especially obvious to me. Stupid, maybe, but not risky.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
I renewed my card at Enoch Pratt a few years back, and the librarian looked over my record, said, "Oh, they were collecting SSN's back then--let me just delete THAT from the record..." Not your typical bureaucrats, there, not at all. They're not in it for the money or the power.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Have you considered that the glass platen on the copier may not be load rated?
Or slap a post-it over the 'do not copy' notice.
The obvious risks of copying my buttcheeks? Care to elaborate, 'cause it's not especially obvious to me. Stupid, maybe, but not risky.
How about the fact that many copiers now contain hard drives and keep records of images copied.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
will be some of the first 'banned words', I bet. Only in Chinese, not English.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This doesn't PREVENT people from doing anything. It actively ENABLES people to get fired...or blackmailed...
And the sysadmin gets a lot of interesting emails.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
This is something that occurred to me recently at one of our corporate love-fests....
There is right, and then there is right. Certainly, its true... the company has the right to buy whatever copier it wants, and place whatever restrictions on it, which they like etc.
I don't dispute this at all. What I do dispute is that well... ok "Confidential Do not copy" may be a good one. The first use that comes to mind is actually trying to catch people using the copier for personal things. Now, I will say yes, the company has every right.... ... but... does it actually serve the cause of creating respect for the company and the rules amongst employees if the actions that the company takes, however "right" seem petty? I mean, I grab mechanical pencils and toss them in my work folder with my notebook to take notes at meetings. Sometimes I whip out the old note pad and pencil off hours for personal reasons. Am I stealing pencil lead? Am I stealing lined paper? (actually, I buy my own pad of graph paper, because I like it, but, I could just as easily use their lined paper in my note pad). Am I misusing company property?
I mean, yes, in a very technical sense. However, its not like I am stealing RAM from the desktops (its happened actually). I am not taking equipment home for my own use, its a piece of paper and pencil that I grabbed and used out of convinience, because I carry them with me anyway and take my pack home with me (with the company laptop). If someone tried to give me shit for it, it would seriously degrade any respect that I had for them on account of such utter pettiness.
This isn't really the policy that made me think of this, but, its not too far off in terms of "right but over the top".
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
This doesn't PREVENT people from doing anything. It actively ENABLES people to get fired...or blackmailed...
I am sure the employees will be informed of this technology and the fact that it is in use, or there will be suitable signs on the machines (I cannot imagine what those signs might say), but no doubt the preventive power exists in the form of DETERRENCE. Employees would be told about body part recognition, and believe the sysadmin team will get an e-mail (whether or not they actually do is another matter).
[* Unless the sysadmin team is known to be a humorous bunch, and someone intentionally photocopies body parts, with messages aimed at the sysadmin staff. Then it might do the opposite of deter.]
I don't believe the manufacturer will necessarily be able to keep the 'mail it to the sysadmin' feature in the long run.
It possibly opens up the company (and the manufacturer of the device) to liability and lawsuits, related to privacy violations, and intentionally facilitating privacy violations; intrusion upon privacy and intrusion upon seclusion, in the form of 'bugging the photo copier'.
This is similar to placing a hidden microphone in a manager's office intending to invade upon their private affairs, without informing the employee there may be a hidden microphone.
The recording without their knowledge, coupled with a tortious intent, may give the recorded person a cause of action for a lawsuit against the employer.
From a corporate governance and security perspective, this function can also be a security risk, and possible issue in regards to compliance with security regulations... the sysadmin is not necessarily supposed to be privvy to the nature of all materials that might be copied.
Standard security practice typically requires separation of duties.
This would suggest the printer admins do not have access to workstations or servers used for other purposes.
The "e-mail to sysadmin" feature, especially if it can be performed without actually rejecting the print or copy job, could actually facilitate security compromises, or elevation of privilege (a sysadmin privvy over one area gaining access to information secured by other departments).
And "printing out a sheet of password cards" to lock in the vault or hand to employees (for password changes) becomes an extremely bad idea.
Care to elaborate where you think this happens. Most Librarians (grade school excluded) I know adamantly preserve privacy and enable access to information and despise and fight vigorously against anything that tries to infringe on those ideals. On the other hand if a Library (particularly Universities) does not control it's own computers (i.e. separate IT dept. that doesn't answer to Library heads) then your privacy is probably not protected in the same way with regards to internet access.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
no, as a word from the consumer, either be responsible and make sure everyone knows what your systems exactly do and the dangers of them, or B make a standard dumb machine and mind your own bees wax
You aren't the consumer. The person who bough the copier in part because of this advertised feature is the consumer. You're just a user. A user who doesn't need to know there are security protocols to protect customer information. The people who need to know about the feature I'm sure are well aware of it.
That's a FEATURE not a bug -- it stops fat american chicks from photocopying their asses but while allowing slim European beautys to do it with impunity.