This seems more like the kind of thing that's only going to be done by pros anyway, since it requires more than just a good printer. A close approximation of the paper is one requirement for example that makes it unlikely that the 99% who are less than marginally smart would be a problem anyway.

It seems likely that this will be more of a hinderance to legitimate users than real criminals.

Actually, there have been quite a few instances of ridiculously bad counterfeits being passed off. One involved three dollar bills (wish I had the link here). I bet if I printed 20s on one of our $25k color laser printers, I could pass them off at least 1/4 of the time.

Yes, there are just as many less than marginally smart cashiers as there are criminals of the same intelligence level. Even so, I doubt that any of those instances involved large amounts of phony cash actually making it into circulation. This wouldn't be aimed at them anyway, since they're likely to be caught before the printer information can be used to track them down. ;)

I agree, and believe there are ulterior motives for the serial numbers, of course.

Arctic's post about sticking to a talk of the technology, not the politics, left me wondering. What technology? I mean, it's just the replacement of a single pixel in a sequence, not a lot of high-tech there. The other application could be as watermarking for copyright, but that doesn't seem so useful.

I suppose there's some technology in the software that incorporates the grid into an image so that while it can be seen, it isn't obvious to the point that it interferes with the print out. That could be a bit tricky. As an example, bright yellow dots on a dark image would jump out. Since the grid needs to be printed repeatedly, the software would need to recalculate for each grid. I admit it isn't very difficult or sophisticated, but hey, if you can patent the iPod's hierarchical menus, why not this? :D

I think you're right though, it does seem that the ulterior motives are the ones driving this.

Re: Technologies with "multiple applications"
 

Phil is right; my admonishment was for the sake of discussion – not brushing away the possibility that there may, conceivably, be ulterior motives for implementing the tracking technology for colour laser printers (which as Carlos points out seems low-tech).

Allow me, for a moment and by example, to examine a far more innocuous technology…

In Norway many road projects are financed by road tolls (as I’m sure they are many places). To catch the "cheaters", there is video surveillance installed. The recent version here in Bergen is based on pre-paid electronic chips read by sensors as you pass, and optical license plate readers (you get a giro in the mail if you don’t have a chip).

This is an expensive set-up! Many have pointed out that there are far cheaper ways to collect the money – the most effective being a fee for all drivers in the area or a direct tax.

A "side effect" is that this system renders most major towns into an electronic fortress, effectively keeping tabs on who enters and exits those town. (According to some – that is the prime motive behind its implementation. But of course those people are just paranoid, right?)

In a number of recent court cases, the prosecution has tried to gain access to video footage that can help identify drivers and passengers. With varying degrees of success. (The Norwegian Data Inspectorate is a force to be reckoned with, often preventing "multi-use" of databases, electronic tracks, etc.)

Now, what is what? What are motives and what are side effects? I would argue that it’s rarely possible to know. (Law-and-order afficionados and conspiracy buffs can argue until they’re blue in the face without getting any closer to agreement or bridging differences in perception.) But it is obvious that a wide range of technologies that have been implemented in recent years, or will be implemented in the near future, have "multiple applications".

I certainly believe that revealing and analysing those "multiple applications" – preferably before implementation – is an important public service. The technological nuts and bolts, the possibilities, the risks and benefit are all intertwined. Provided we can discuss it as sensibly as here, those are valuable topics in this Forum.


With best regards,
ArcticStones

@Carlos

Not true.

There is no central register of these printers. Ownership of these printers does not require that a government authority be notified.

@Everybody

Counterfeiters with ownership of a printing press must be linked to their product for a legal case to be successful. Normally, this is done by demonstrating that the press has a set of defects which are also on intercepted examples of funny money.

The top range printers produced by Xerox, and other manufacturers, not only produce consistent accurate output over time, but are also practically clones of each other. i.e the output is capable of rendering paper money accurately - and printouts produced by different printers can't be distinguished. So the money couldn't be detected, and even if it could, it couldn't be proven to be from a given printer. Hence the watermarks ... Their purpose is to allow detection and to prove legally that a given printer was used to produce funny money.

I would become concerned for civil liberties if I was required to register the printer.

I realise that ownership data might be held by the manufacturer of the printer, which could be handed over to a government authority. But my perception of this issue is coloured by the different legal position of such data here in the UK (and, I suspect, from AS's post, Norway.) [EDIT - UK law is also governed by 'EC Data Protection Directive' which means all complaint EU countries will have similar legislation.] Such data in the UK is legally still my data, and would require a legal procedure, subject to my authority, to obtain. Penalties apply - even to the police.

I can imagine that citizens of countries without any data protection laws (where ownership of data lies with its keeper) would have more concerns. Indeed, I am concerned enough to refuse to do business with a certain well-known online bookstore precisely because data obtained from me is stored outside UK jurisdiction.

A little paranoia is a good thing. The US may be a Republic or a Democracy, but since 9/11 laws have been enacted that many of us find downright scary. Rome was a Republic/Democracy too, and it didn't take long for it to make the switch to an Empire when it happened.

Rights are rarely taken away all at once. They are whittled away until a critical point is reached, when too much power has been ceded. Then the rest are lost as well. Technologies like this one aren't very harmful by themselves, but taken together with other changes and technologies, one has to wonder where we are headed.

It's worth keeping an eye on, for sure, which is something Roman citizens could not do as we do today. The problem is that sometimes the common good is better served through prudent security measures than through an absolutist position on personal rights. E.g., the issue of counterfeiting, which hurts everyone in the long run, and which technologies like this one might help to discourage (until the "bad guys" figure out how to circumvent it). How/where these lines are drawn re rights and security is an ongoing discussion, which is a good thing, imo, the extreme alternatives being either a police state or a community so naive about security risks as to leave itself wide open to destruction. How one perceives one's society on that contiuum often says as much about the perceiver as what happens to be the case.

True. My worry is that many people are unaware of recent changes either because of ignorance or blind faith in their leaders. That can easily lead them to perceive things through rose colored glasses. This technology, like most others is neutral. How it will be used is another question.

Perceptions, threats and security measures
 

Couldn’t agree more!
I think it is worthwhile for each of us to ask where on that continuum we think our nation/society finds itself. And are we willing to admit that we just might be very wrong?

Perhaps with today’s technologies and fascinatingly intertwined human networks, the "controls"/influences available to potential behind-the-scenes power players need neither be particularly overt – nor especially bothersome to the average citizen?

I seem to recall a Pentagon report that in 2003 (I believe) the total numer of deaths in the world due to terrorism were at a 25 year low! Compared to deaths due to drunk driving, street violence, domestic violence, alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking or even the common flu – the total number of casualties due to terrorism is negligible. (But painful and real enough!)

The media focus and the political focus act as a magnifying glass, grossly enlarging those threats.

May I be permitted to say that some security measures will entail the destruction of the free society that I, for one, love – far more effectively than ongoing or threatened terrorist acts.


With best regards,
ArcticStones

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. It should be especially bothersome to the average citizen that terrorism wasn't prevalent in 2003, yet security levels were repeatedly raised and lowered during that time. Now that there are no pending elections, how many of us know what the current security level is? I find that very disturbing, and reason enough to worry about any technology that might infringe on my rights in the future.

I can't think of a single high end printer that isn't registered to its user at the time of sale. These aren't things you pick up anonymously at your local computer store. Sure, there's no government registry, but the manufacturer knows where it went.

And the laws about privacy and procedure are unenforced here; who are you going to call, the police? There are plenty of documented cases of industry handing over private data to police without due process. Delta airlines giving up all of its passenger lists is just one example.

The (relatively) low numbers are no doubt due, at least in part, to effective measures in many countries. Needless to say, a lot of those efforts have not been made public. Hence I don’t think there is a contradiction.
I think the issue is complex – and, as Phil points out, a balance must be sought. I see both sides of this.

Consider that one of those could, next year, be a nuclear attack or some form of bio-terrorism. A culture would have more difficulty dealing with that than it would with its ongoing struggles with flu and drunk-drivers.

Sometimes taking preventive measures to avert possible (not hypothetical) worst-case scenarios is in keeping with prudence. Ask the residents of New Orleans, who were only prepared to deal with a Cat. 3 hurricane. A Cat. 4 or 5 every 500 years is a low-probability occurrence, but when it finally does come and you're not prepared . . . :(

Anyway . . . yeah, complicated, for sure, especially where to draw the lines when you're dealing with possible rather than hypothetical threats.

Preparing for a worst case is always a compromise. It takes money and effort. If nothing happens, that money and effort is wasted. If it happens, it was worth it. Some would cry out that any human life is worth any amount of money, but realistically, that's simply not true or workable.

Money is not infinite. If NO were to be prepared for what happened, what would the cost have been? What would have others had to do without in order to free up that money? Housing, food, etc?

Phil, I think prudence has helped, as I pointed out in my reply to cwtnospam. I am in no way arguing against measures and prudence!

Best regards,
ArcticStones

cwtnospam, do you sleep OK at night? Just wondering . . . ;)

What rights do you think you've lost, btw? I haven't lost any . . . none that I'm aware of, or experience to any significant degree.

Not to say that vigilance re. government policies isn't called for, of course.

Carlos, the levees, floodgates, marsh rehab and other measures required to help NO withstand a Cat 5 hurricane with any significant probability of success would have cost over $200 billion, according to some estimates I've seen. That's what's being requested from the U.S. gov't over a period of years to help rebuild the city.

I'm not sure they want to gamble again, but the story's not yet over.

-----

Edit:

It takes money and effort. If nothing happens, that money and effort is wasted.

Unless it actually helps entice people and businesses to settle in an area. That kind of influence is hard to measure monetarily, however.

I think terrorism is a special case (so I'm going to ignore your example :)), and I don't doubt that there are cases in the US where private data has been handed over for dubious reasons to the police.

This is essentially my point. As a US citizen, you have few if any rights over your personal data. There is no equivalent in US law to the UK's Data Protection Act. I feel that the lack of what I consider a basic right can't help but make Americans adopt a more negative attitude of the use of technology such as the little dots than myself because the possibility of its misuse is higher than in the UK.

The possibility of its misuse is not zero here, just less. In the case of the printer, I am well within my rights to demand the printer manufacturer delete all records relating to myself, nor to pass on information to 3rd parties without my consent. Access (within limits) can be denied to the police. Civil and criminal remedies are available in the event of the printer manufacturer breaching these requirements.

For me, the ramifications of having watermarked documents are limited to their stated purpose.