Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

0

What happened to privacy?

Forums > Off-topic discussion > What happened to privacy?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    First · Prev | 1 | Next · Last

    I read a story today that was on the Electronic Frontier Foundation Site (Here).

    It shows that US Government agencies have worked in cahoots with printer manufactures to place a secret code on every sheet of paper printed on a colour printer.

    Now I'm both amazed and upset about this.

    What do you think?

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links
    25 Oct 2005 - 3:23 AM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    Seems they've only gone for colour laser printers so they can track all those dodgy Excel graphs but nothing that is printed on an inkjet...!

    Well considering the cost of ink, I'm glad. I mean just imagine how much yellow ink would be wasted Wink

    lobsterboy
    lobsterboy (Site Moderator)
    9
    13574 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Oct 2005 - 3:41 AM
    0

    I remember this being proposed by the bank note printers many yaers ago when photocopiers and printers started to get good enough to produce counterfit notes.

    For a long time now law enforcement have been able to match documents to the typewriters they were produced on - whats the difference now they can match docs to the laserprinter they were produced on?

    conrad
    conrad (e2 Member)
    8
    10710 forum postsconrad vcard 113 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Oct 2005 - 4:02 AM
    0

    Hmmm, so if you want to print ransom notes, blackmail letters or something like that on a colour printer, youd better use a secondhand one...
    Wink

    Conrad

    raziel_uk
    25 Oct 2005 - 7:39 AM
    0

    Hang on, let's look at this subjectively. There are tens of thousands of printers sold just in the UK. So, unless the printer had some way of finding out and encoding where it is currently situated, then the code will only tell you what printer was used not where it's based.

    In the business centre where I work there are at least three companies with Epson printers - now imagine how many there are even in a town like Lewes with approximately 15,000 residents.

    So if I send a blackmail letter to someone outside of the town (and I wouldn't post it from my home town anyway), then how would they track the printer just from a secret code and what's to stop me from using someone else's printer?

    Ashley

    alick
    7
    25 Oct 2005 - 8:42 AM
    0

    Identifying the printer used does not prove who printed the document, it would be safer to buy a new printer then at least you know it hasn't been used for any ileagal printing. Photographers can use this technology to embed an invisible watermark (digimark)detectable using photoshop.
    Alick

    BradUK
    8
    553 forum posts England3 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Oct 2005 - 9:05 AM
    0

    Ah the EFF, I prefer their 'spam by anyone seeking profit or in support of anything against us' equals 'invasion of privacy' but 'spam by someone who wants to shout about something we agree with' should be allowed else 'infringement of their right to free speech'

    Like most anti-establishment propaganda, most of their arguments are flawed or skewed by warped logic.

    lobsterboy
    lobsterboy (Site Moderator)
    9
    13574 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Oct 2005 - 9:52 AM
    0

    "dentifying the printer used does not prove who printed the document".
    It does if you are the only person who has access to the printer...

    raziel_uk
    25 Oct 2005 - 10:02 AM
    0


    Quote: "dentifying the printer used does not prove who printed the document"... It does if you are the only person who has access to the printer...

    But how difficult would that be to prove?

    Are you the only one who lives in your house? If so do you ever leave a key with a neighbour while you are away? Do you pop out when workmen are in the house, etc.?

    Ashley

    lobsterboy
    lobsterboy (Site Moderator)
    9
    13574 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
    25 Oct 2005 - 10:40 AM
    0

    But its all part of building a case: means, motive & opportunity. When I did jury service we tried a chap who was unfortunate enough to:
    Look like the robber (but then you couldnt see all his face)
    Own a baseball cap that the robber was seen wearing (but more than one of those was made)
    leave his finger prints on the get-away car (along with many others)
    ...and few other things that I cant remeber now.

    Perhaps one of these would not be evidence but the combination of all these factors made him look pretty damn guilty to me.

    elowes
    9
    2793 forum posts United Kingdom
    25 Oct 2005 - 10:54 AM
    0

    Paranoia.

    It does no more (if it's for real) than mark a document as being printed by a laser printer. Great tool for identifying forgery but would be bloody miraculous if it could identify the owner of the printer.

    Second thoughts, stop registering the software and sending in the guarantee slips!!!!!!!

    Type is very identifiable and I don't recall any outcry about it being used as a detection tool.

    If your are a criminal -

    BIG BROTHER IS NOT ONLY WATCHING BUT IS GOING TO GET YOU

    By the way, you are more likely to get caught by leaving traces of DNA on the envelope you use to post the ransom demand.

    Get out more and take photographs.

    First · Prev | 1 | Next · Last

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.