Yes, your color printer is spying on you

Shaun Eli wrote:

I suggest that before people say it doesn't matter unless you break
the law, you go find a history book and read about The Federalist
Papers, which were instrumental in our country's foundation.

That aint the current situation, stupid.

And anyone with a clue who wants to do
subversive things wont be printing it out, stupid.

They were written anonymously by (we
now know) Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

Had they had a printer which they knew could
reveal their identities, they might not have written.

Or they may not have been silly enough to print it.

The First Amendment doesn't say anything about yellow toner.

Pathetic, really.

Doesnt say anything about fingerprints or DNA either.

Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote
Shaun Eli wrote

I suggest that before people say it doesn't matter unless you break
the law, you go find a history book and read about The Federalist
Papers, which were instrumental in our country's foundation.

They were written anonymously by (we
now know) Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

Had they had a printer which they knew could
reveal their identities, they might not have written.

If they were published under the Orwellian rule of a government
that had the ability to collate every document to its author,

Pity that aint even possible.

we might not have retained the right to even discuss this at *all*.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed paranoid fantasys.

Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote

They make possible what was not possible before. Specifically,
taking any printed page and discerning it's origin with no other
evidence at all. Before this "tag" implementation an abusive
government or employer would typically have to sift through
hundreds or thousands of potential dissidents to build a list of
potential targets. And that list would be imperfect because the
document might have been printed at any time. Now, the document
itself pinpoints at least the machine it was printed on, and the
exact time. And most likely a very tiny list of targets as a result.

In essence, any of this sort of identification is
forcing someone to sign every document they print.

Nope, not when a particular printer cant
be associated with a particular individual.

Yeah, well... that's just been proved a whole lot easier in *all* cases,

Lie.

and unavioadable in many or most.

Lie.

ALL the authoritys know is that all the documents came
from one particular printer and the date it was printed etc.

If you discount everyone except off the shelf buyers who pay cash
and buy considerable distances from their homes, you have a point.

I have a point with a hell of a lot more situations than just that one.

If you include the vast majority of personal and business consumers,
you're simply looking at the problem with very narrow vision.

Another lie.

It's a direct and indisputable assault against
privacy and anonymity, under the guise of "security".

Just like countless other situations are, like ID for bank
accounts, cameras in ATMs, ID for license plates, etc etc etc.

Red herring.

Another lie.

Personal identification is an absolute necessity in those scenarios.

Another lie.

It's not necessary to the printing of a document.

It doesnt happen when printing a document either.

A punishment of the whole for the actions of the minority.

Bull****. No 'punishment' at all for those who dont breach the law.

I'll be over tomorrow to install the software that
tracks your every move on the net. It's OK with
you, right? You have nothing to hide after all...

That is correct, I have nothing to hide.

I dont give a flying red **** that most of my purchases
are trackable to me because I use a card either.

Ditto with all my phone calls, and some of my movements too.

Akin to fitting each and every citizen with an ankle bracelet
because a few have proved themselves deserving of electronic
monitoring.

Nothing like. Not even as intrusive as social security numbers.

You're right. Social Security numbers are one of the most abused
forms of "identification" in use today. Thanks for pointing that out.

Pathetic, really.

ClubCX wrote

It's not just the government. These yellow 'signatures' have
been decoded by other groups now, and that information will
soon become public knowledge. Everybody will be able to
determine the source of a document

Lie.

and take whatever retribution against the author they like.

They get to deal with rotty and the shotty if they are that stupid.

Rod Speed wrote:

Had they had a printer which they knew could
reveal their identities, they might not have written.

If they were published under the Orwellian rule of a government
that had the ability to collate every document to its author,

Pity that aint even possible.

You truly think it's a "shame" that government's can't ID the author of
every document?

If that's the case, it says more about you than it does the reasons you'd
pose such inane, narrow minded arguments. Your arguments could be mere
mistakes, but your dejection at the inability of your handlers to monitor
you is insidious.

we might not have retained the right to even discuss this at *all*.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed paranoid fantasys.

There's ya' go... fire off a salvo of ad hom. Always a sure fire way to get
your point across. snicker

--
Hand crafted on October 20, 2005 at 17:12:54 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

EFF reveals codes in Xerox printers

NEW YORK (AP) -- Just because a document from a color laser printer
doesn't carry your name doesn't mean no one can trace it back to you,
privacy advocates warn.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation says it has cracked the tracking
codes embedded in Xerox Corp.'s DocuColor color laser printers. Such
codes are just one way that manufacturers employ technology to help
governments fight currency counterfeiting.
If you want to see exactly how it works, see

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_10.php#004063

and

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/

The serial number and the date.

How does a printer, or standalone copier, know the date and time?
Why would anyone bother to set it accurately?

If it's network-connected it can probably find out, say, from a
server at the printer manufacturer. If it's a low-end printer
connected through a parallel port to a computer, how would it
get the date? If it's a standalone copier, same issue?

Gordon L. Burditt

Rod Speed wrote:
umbers.

You're right. Social Security numbers are one of the most abused
forms of "identification" in use today. Thanks for pointing that out.

Pathetic, really.



Ignorant Rod has no idea how the number is the start of identity theft.
Then again, who wants to steal the identity of a welfare loser?

Rod Speed wrote:

You might get away with not being identified by not sending
in the reg card, but if you believe a printer's serial number
can't be at the very least tracked to a specific retail location
and general date/time of sale you're mistaken. If "they" want
you bad enough it may be as easy as reviewing store
security tapes, or interviewing employees.

Plenty of obvious ways around that.

Pretend they're not so obvious, and enumerate them.

And I couldnt give a flying red **** about them being able to
work out which printer a particular page was printed on anyway,
I almost never print anything that leaves my place, and I couldnt
care less if what I print is identified to my printer anyway.

That's you. Now what about every one else? Or is your privacy the only
privacy that matters?

And that's just for bottom end printer buyers. The people who
can walk into Wal*Mart or Office Max and leave with a cash
sale "SOHO" or "Entry Level" printer. There's a whole world of
mid range to upper end equipment you can't even touch without
dealing with a company rep, and *usually* signing a service contract.

Who cares ? I dont need one of those printers.

Obviously you *are* the only person worthy of the right to privacy on your
planet. I mistakenly thought you were a member of the human species. My
bad.

Your privacy is flatly breached every time you print a document because
you're being forced to essentially put a digital signature on it.

Lie. It isnt a digital signature, its just the serial
number of the printer and the datestamp.

It most certainly is. It's a marking that denotes the originator of a
document, produced by a digital device. Not a classical cryptographic
digital signature, but essentially the same thing.

And without people who watch out for such things,
you wouldn't even know about it. It's surreptitious "RFID"
for hard copy documents. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another lie. Its nothing like a real RFID.

Thus the paraphrasing quotes. It is however a (suppose to be hidden) form of
identification that travels with the document at all times. Just like an
RFID tag travels with it's host.

If you're OK with that, I'd like you to use this new operating system
i wrote, or this new "security" chip I want to install in your machine.
Don't worry about those little digital "tags" tacked to every packet
of information that leaves your computer, they're harmless... ;-)

Clowns like you wont be putting anything into anything of mine.

Why? You have nothing top hide. You said so. You have no problem with the
documents you print having your digital "thumb prints" on them, what's the
difference between that and a beacon attached to everything else?

Methinks me sells a hypocrite...

--
Hand crafted on October 20, 2005 at 17:18:35 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

Rod Speed wrote:

Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Still not spying on you.

So then you'll have no trouble at all using this new operating
system I'm writing, or the new computers I'm building?

Never ever said anything like that. I JUST said that
that particular printer clearly isnt SPYING on anyone.

No, printers don't have that ability. They're inanimate objects. It's the
people reading the documents that you have to be concerned about. Being
from another planet maybe you're having trouble making the distinction?

The ones that put a little digital serial number and time
stamp in every packet that leaves your machine, and
every block of data that's written to any media?

Different issue entirely.

How so? One is paper and the other digital. They're both just data coming
from your computer hardware. Why do you have no problem with the paper
copies having identifying marks, but balk at the binary versions being
tagged? They may in fact be the exact same text in many cases.

It's just a record of on what machine and at what time
that information was created. They're just tools to thwart
counterfitters and terrorists after all. I won't do anything
funny with the information I collect... scouts honor. Cross
my heart and everything. Really. No take backs or nothing.

Pathetic, really.

How so? Claiming something doesn't make it true. In fact broad dismissals
like this tend to make people believe you're hiding something. It's in your
best interest at this point to retain some credibility by explaining what's
"pathetic" about my offer.

FWIW, it really wouldn't be *too* much trouble for me to hand you some code
that would tag all your packets. Why would you not trust me, but trust
other strangers?

Oh and by the way, I'm going to make you use these things
without your permission anyway, so your answer is irrelevant.

No you cant.

You were made to use your printer without such knowledge, whose to say I
haven't already installed my packet marking software on your system?

You may now return to the rest of the flock. We've checked for
rectal prolapse, it's not time for your shearing. Have a nice day.

Wota terminal ****wit.

Just a friendly warning by the way... you should Google someone before you
get all chest puffy with them. You may take one too many pokes at me, and
find you're pulling back a bloody stumps.

--
Hand crafted on October 20, 2005 at 17:27:29 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx