Big brother reads your 'Xerox' copies

Did you know that most leading copiers/laser jet printers print along with your stuff an unseen code?
Not that surprising, but not a nice reassurance about the ever watchful big brother...
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/Ne...1819331,00.html
And here is how it works:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/

Now I know how come they didn't catch Binladen yet...
He doesn't use laser jet printers...

How does that help Big Brother read your copies? Its to prevent people photocopying money etc. Scanners have similar tech inside too to identify money.

It doesn't help him read them, but identify them.

Yes thats what they say, but the fact is, there is no law frame for the use of this, or other similar "tags" in other devices.

These "Secret codes" are mainly used on Color lasers and highend Inkjets.. Slashdot post a story about this just a few days ago...

The marks (Grid of yellow dots) only allow the cops/etc. to track a printout to a certain printer.. In the story the grid was decoded by the EFF and it's contents contained: Printed Date,Time of Printout and printer serial #..

Now if you were smart enough NOT to have gotten caught printing Euro's/Dollars/Etc. how are they going to trace that printout back to you if you didn't fill in the warrentee card and mail it back... AH HA there's the kicker.. (They Can't)

No wonder Dan Rather got caught falsifying Bush's service record...

@Darkknight
Well, my reasoning works a bit differently...
I do believe that various "secret services" do misuse such things as the above (and other stuff in other issues) to get information that legally they would not be allowed to.
However, I think such measures as the above one, is meant more to target firms, corporations and such, where printers and copy machines do get regular checks and full warranty plans. (in addition to the official reasons)
I don't think big brother bothers with us 'little people' as long as we "stay in our frame".
(i.e do not threat the guys in power)
Once a person is identified as deemed as "worthy of spying on" they can use all their nice gadgets specifically "aiming" at that person.
Its a known fact that e.mails, and phone calls and other means of daily communication are being monitored all the time, some of them are more "open secrets" then others.
(which by the way is one of the reasons that some states do not allow PGP, or put restriction on using it!).

The main reason for me NOT to be worried from the above printer tagging is the simplicity of the code. (Even I can read it, with out the use of any tool)
On the other hand, what if the code has layers, and the one decoded above is only the obvious one?
But then again, what other information can you have from a copy machine?

@LSB

I do believe that the dot patterns do conform to some sort of standard, to make it easier
for "Big Brother" to decode them. Just think haw much hassle it would be if every make/model of printer
had a different code..

As for the rest, here's something that might help..

[img]http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/kutcherside.jpg[/img]

@Darkknight
But a standard and coding complexity have nothing to do with each other.
The standard is "how" the data is stored, a "protocol".
The complexity is the coding it self, which in this case is a simple binary coding, which would be the first one to be tried with a pattern as this one by someone who wants to decode it, and more complex one would not demand any more effort on the side of the "spys", if they have the decoding function.
Just look at it, you can read it with out any decoding tools, that's what I meant.

Nice hat, not in the "paranoid fashion" any more though, you need to get updated

These dots that are printed are really aimed at the high end machines used in the modern printing industry such as the Docucolor and the iGen's...

The quality of digital printing has reached a level that is, to the untrained eye, identical to offset print quality. In fact Xerox did a study a few months back to prove that very fact and I have countless adverts from Xerox that combine offset and digital print to demonstrate that very fact. The high end machines are very popular in the security print business for printing out a variety of different statements for banks, utility companies, shareholder schemes and the like. Obviously the fraud threat there is relatively high.

A desktop inkjet printer just does not have the comparible print quality..

RTFA. Every manufacturer does use a different coding scheme. The EFF has only broken the encoding scheme for the Xerox DocuColor series. They have requests out for sample pages and printer info for all other manufacturers and models.


RTFA. The dots are found in almost every colour printer line. The outrage isn't that the US Secret Service wants to use this to help trace counterfeiters. It's because there are no laws restricting the use of any identifying information for any purpose.

woof.

RMFRYD. I am not interested in the fact that these dots can be found in every model or the actual article. And I know a fuck load more about this than you do. I am merely pointing out that the dots are pretty much there to help out organisations tracking counterfeiters. Owners of desktop machines do not really have to worry too much about their printouts being analysed. Well, unless they are planning on counterfeiting in any way, shape or form. The whole point of the thread was to warn us about this and what these organisations are now capable of.

Traditional offset machines obviously do not carry this technology and tracing is more difficult (you can track it to a certain make of machine but not to a particular location). However, if you are wanting to distribute counterfeits quickly and cheaply then use digital colour machine as they are considerably cheaper for low end runs and you have less raw material (i.e. evidence) to dispose of.

QFPOTYC [stay on-topic]


Then what the fuck are you doing posting on this thread? This threa... erm... discussion centers around an an article (a number of them, actually) concerning the fact that colour printers are embedding identifying information in documents. It's not about counterfeiting and it's not about offset presses. At the heart of the matter it's about privacy, or more correctly, the lack thereof.


Uh-huh. You not only fail to back up this claim with even a hint of a reason, you have no idea about my knowledge of the subject.


Wrong again, Kemo-sabe. The encoding scheme is not public; it's available only to the US Secret Service and, one would surmise, any other branch of US law enforcement. Organisations can do little with it.


So you're in the "If you're innocent you should have nothing to hide" camp? Anonymity is a terribly important concept and need. Ask any Chinese dissident.

The cats bell themselves.

woof.

OK, so lets do a little test.. For eveybody who has a color printer be it laser or inkjet, print out a document and see if you can see/find any of theses dots on the page, when it is held under a blue light source..

Save some time and look here first.

woof.

My claim to know more than you about this subject is the fact that I have worked in the industry since 1991 both in the UK and Germany. I could send you my CV if you want but I guess you would not read it. Yes, I know you worked in publishing. You mentioned this in other thre... discussions..

Why did I post to this thread? Well quite simple. The whole point of the article was saying that if the Secret Service or other organisations have the ability to track down counterfeiters using this technique then how can the innocent population be sure they are not being watched over? As the article says in the extract


I am just saying that although this could be a further invasion in the privacy of Joe Public, I doubt the secret service is really all that interested in what we print out on our home printers (of course, I could be wrong but until I see proof then I will take that view). Now, of course, there are many different sectors where this technique could be abused and I can imagine that, until laws are put in place, there are some slightly concerned faces out there.


Where did I say that the encoding scheme is public knowledge? And when I say "organisations" I am talking about law-enforcement "organisations". Apologies for not being more specific.

Such articles just serve to make the general population more paranoid.

Most of those are color laser / dyesub printers.. So unless you have one of these types of printers, it's better to check for yourself..