[Cody Dawg]

Interesting article. It discusses how the government is quietly adding software interfaces to our software in an attempt to prevent counterfeiting of currency.

Though I think that this is probably okay, I think that our government and the software and printer companies have an obligation to let people know what is going to be on OUR computers: "Most companies have never publicly revealed to customers they include such counterfeit protections in products."

The technology detects and blocks attempts to view, scan or print copies of the redesigned $20 and $50 bills and, in a pop-up window, urges consumers to visit a Web site, www.rulesforuse.org, to learn about international counterfeit laws.

The technology, known as the Counterfeit Deterrence System, was designed by a consortium of 27 central banks in the United States, England, Japan, Canada and across the European Union, the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group.

Its broad adoption represents one of the rare occasions when the U.S. technology industry has quietly agreed to requests by government and finance officials to include third-party software code in commercial products. Most companies have never publicly revealed to customers they include such counterfeit protections in products.

Precisely how the technology works is a mystery. The U.S. government keeps its inner workings a closely guarded secret, arguing that disclosing too much information could help counterfeiters circumvent protections.

It also has declined to identify which companies have agreed to add the technology in their products, although Kodak, Xerox, Adobe Systems, Ulead Systems and Hewlett-Packard are among those known to use it. The European Union is considering a proposal to require all software companies to include such anti-counterfeit technology.

What does anyone else think of this? What else is on our computers that we don't know about?

[MilkmanDan]

Damn the gov! Next thing you know, they'll be preventing crime!

[Cody Dawg]

LOL!

No, it's not that.

What I'm trying to say is this: Why not just tell us?

Seriously? We've found out anyway. Why not just put that in fine print somewhere and let people know?

The Federal Reserve earlier this year denied a request and an appeal by The Associated Press under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to learn some details about the system. The AP, which first revealed the program's existence in January, sought to learn whether the technology surreptitiously tracks consumers who try to copy bills, which U.S. agencies and private vendors built it, and how much it cost.

What information are we going to be denied next?

[MilkmanDan]

I've always enjoyed the right to bare fruit. I hope that I never see the day where a man can not bare a fruit due to a harsh repressive government.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
What I'm trying to say is this: Why not just tell us?

Because Glasnost (гла́сность) is a Soviet Russian concept and the US government is not communist.

[itistoday]

I agree with Cody Dawg, it should follow the same logic that requires companies to include an ingredient list on food. I think that such companies could rightfully be sued under the pretense of "false advertising". You might say, "Who cares about this? It's just for counterfeiting money!" And, in a perfect world, your argument would be valid. However, we live in a world were allowing a small thing usually leads to more rights being taken away. You have to draw a clear line somewhere, so that any sort of action such as this that could be interpretted as an intrusion on your privacy be stopped. If they allow this, what's the difference between allowing them to install "hidden software" that prevents you from looking at child porn? Nothing wrong with that you might say, since everyone hates child porn. But what if next they expand it even further (and they will), and stop you from looking at any porn at all? It'll progress further and further until they're able to impose many restrictions on what you can do with your computer.

Thankfully we live in a capitalist society, where, if this was found out then no one would buy their computers. However, since the government is involved in this, what if the government passes a law requiring all computers to come with this software?

When dealing with the government, you have to think in the extremes, because the way people in power function, is that they slowly try their best to consolidate as much of it as possible.

Therefore, any intrusion of your privacy, no matter how nobel the intentions, have to be stopped. Many people don't understand this today, and such actions could lead to the government passing laws that police the internet—the last free frontier—such as already is done in such places like China.

[Cody Dawg]

I'm not understanding a fruit remark, sorry.



But, I'm not sure what I think of this.

On one hand, I don't care because I'm not counterfeiting currency and it is to protect society at large and the value of our currency.

On the other hand, I care because I don't like information on my computer that the government has authorized and has tried to keep a secret.

That's why I'm asking opinions. Like I said, there could be other information or software on our systems that is spying on us or reporting us and we don't know about it.

[amsalpemkcus]

what are they going to do about people out there who can conterfeit the rouble or swaziland's lilangeni and use that to buy legit uncle sam's greens?

[MilkmanDan]

Does no one get fruit humor these days.

Anyways, I think the problem is that technology for making easy copies of money is happening faster then the technology for preventing it.

The Gov intrudes in our lives all the time to prevent laws from being broken. Its not that big of a deal. Though we may be ticked off, most people will not notice or care.

[Cody Dawg]

itistoday
However, we live in a world were allowing a small thing usually leads to more rights being taken away. You have to draw a clear line somewhere, so that any sort of action such as this that could be interpretted as an intrusion on your privacy be stopped. If they allow this, what's the difference between allowing them to install "hidden software" that prevents you from looking at child porn? Nothing wrong with that you might say, since everyone hates child porn. But what if next they expand it even further (and they will), and stop you from looking at any porn at all? It'll progress further and further until they're able to impose many restrictions on what you can do with your computer.

[MilkmanDan]

We never had any 'rights' to begin with. We were given them by a government we were born into, and they limit the extent to which we can use them.

[Powaqqatsi]

If you scan a note (tested it once with a 100 euro note) and open it up in Photoshop, then Photoshop will tell you that you are not allowed to view/edit it. It was quite scary actually how Photoshop can recognize the image.

[Cody Dawg]

It was quite scary actually how Photoshop can recognize the image.

I'll bet it was!

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by MilkmanDan:
We never had any 'rights' to begin with. We were given them by a government we were born into, and they limit the extent to which we can use them.

What country do you live in?

[tooki]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
If you scan a note (tested it once with a 100 euro note) and open it up in Photoshop, then Photoshop will tell you that you are not allowed to view/edit it. It was quite scary actually how Photoshop can recognize the image.

That's why you keep a copy of PS 7 around — it's the last version without the currency-recognizer black box.

tooki

[Cody Dawg]

Tooki:

I was thinking the same thing!

(P.S., What does "Tooki" mean? Just wondering!)

In fact, I am going to start saving the "older" bills. I don't know why except that there is some degree of comfort in knowing that if I wanted to I could scan them without the government knocking on my door -- pretty soon that will start happening also.

[tooki]

It doesn't mean anything. I needed a name for a chat room many years ago, it randomly popped into my mind, and I kept using it!

tooki

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
LOL!

No, it's not that.

What I'm trying to say is this: Why not just tell us?

They did tell us, this is old news. They've been working with corporations since the mid 80s. At least in the U.S. it's been on the news quite a few times in the past.

[SafariX]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I agree with Cody Dawg, it should follow the same logic that requires companies to include an ingredient list on food. I think that such companies could rightfully be sued under the pretense of "false advertising". You might say, "Who cares about this? It's just for counterfeiting money!" And, in a perfect world, your argument would be valid. However, we live in a world were allowing a small thing usually leads to more rights being taken away. You have to draw a clear line somewhere, so that any sort of action such as this that could be interpretted as an intrusion on your privacy be stopped. If they allow this, what's the difference between allowing them to install "hidden software" that prevents you from looking at child porn? Nothing wrong with that you might say, since everyone hates child porn. But what if next they expand it even further (and they will), and stop you from looking at any porn at all? It'll progress further and further until they're able to impose many restrictions on what you can do with your computer.

Thankfully we live in a capitalist society, where, if this was found out then no one would buy their computers. However, since the government is involved in this, what if the government passes a law requiring all computers to come with this software?

When dealing with the government, you have to think in the extremes, because the way people in power function, is that they slowly try their best to consolidate as much of it as possible.

Therefore, any intrusion of your privacy, no matter how nobel the intentions, have to be stopped. Many people don't understand this today, and such actions could lead to the government passing laws that police the internet—the last free frontier—such as already is done in such places like China.

That was an amazing post. I agree 100%.

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I agree with Cody Dawg, it should follow the same logic that requires companies to include an ingredient list on food. I think that such companies could rightfully be sued under the pretense of "false advertising". You might say, "Who cares about this? It's just for counterfeiting money!" And, in a perfect world, your argument would be valid. However, we live in a world were allowing a small thing usually leads to more rights being taken away. You have to draw a clear line somewhere, so that any sort of action such as this that could be interpretted as an intrusion on your privacy be stopped. If they allow this, what's the difference between allowing them to install "hidden software" that prevents you from looking at child porn? Nothing wrong with that you might say, since everyone hates child porn. But what if next they expand it even further (and they will), and stop you from looking at any porn at all? It'll progress further and further until they're able to impose many restrictions on what you can do with your computer.

Thankfully we live in a capitalist society, where, if this was found out then no one would buy their computers. However, since the government is involved in this, what if the government passes a law requiring all computers to come with this software?

When dealing with the government, you have to think in the extremes, because the way people in power function, is that they slowly try their best to consolidate as much of it as possible.

Therefore, any intrusion of your privacy, no matter how nobel the intentions, have to be stopped. Many people don't understand this today, and such actions could lead to the government passing laws that police the internet—the last free frontier—such as already is done in such places like China.

Actually, I'm not sure I completely agree... This is a nice idea in theory - in that, it would keep you from having things you actually don't want on your computer - but, how far does this reach? I would hazard a guess that you and the majority of computer users know next to nothing about what is bundled with computers and how they work. Open a terminal and type `cd /' then `ls -a' - did you know that that stuff was there? Do you know what any of it is for? Now, I know I'm being a wee bit obtuse - your concern is purely about software bundled with your computer that might not be ethical etc; but it appears to stretch to you only wanting an operating system where you know it inside out and decide what you would like on it. Where does it stop? Would you know exactly what every binary does? Or are you going to look through the source of everything (assuming it's available), just so you are aware of everything?

It is purely the comment: "it should follow the same logic that requires companies to include an ingredient list on food" that i was disagreeing with. This post is a rather longwinded way of putting it - I apologise... Anyway - rather than apple providing a list, you can find out exactly what is on your computer - try using `locate' in the terminal, or various GUI ways...

I would imagine that if something was bundled that constricted our rights as legitimate Internet 'surfers' that it would either be overruled or someone would post a workaround... We'll be alright

[fireside]

Originally posted by KarlG:
What country do you live in?

yeah really.

[Cody Dawg]

Hi fireside!



I was talking to a friend about this today and we were kind of spooked by it.

I mean, don't you folks think this is shades of Big Brother? Seriously?

I think we have a right to know what our systems are capable of doing and not doing, especially if the government is involved. Why the secrecy? It says right there that the AP was denied any further information about this. What else are they hiding?

[itistoday]

Originally posted by Black Book:
Actually, I'm not sure I completely agree... This is a nice idea in theory - in that, it would keep you from having things you actually don't want on your computer - but, how far does this reach? I would hazard a guess that you and the majority of computer users know next to nothing about what is bundled with computers and how they work. Open a terminal and type `cd /' then `ls -a' - did you know that that stuff was there? Do you know what any of it is for?

Don't assume, I do know what all those files and folders are. This actually is one of the reasons I love Macs: I know what's going on in my system (I program in my spare time and am more than familiar with many *NIXs).

Now, I know I'm being a wee bit obtuse - your concern is purely about software bundled with your computer that might not be ethical etc; but it appears to stretch to you only wanting an operating system where you know it inside out and decide what you would like on it. Where does it stop? Would you know exactly what every binary does? Or are you going to look through the source of everything (assuming it's available), just so you are aware of everything?

It is purely the comment: "it should follow the same logic that requires companies to include an ingredient list on food" that i was disagreeing with. This post is a rather longwinded way of putting it - I apologise... Anyway - rather than apple providing a list, you can find out exactly what is on your computer - try using `locate' in the terminal, or various GUI ways...

I would imagine that if something was bundled that constricted our rights as legitimate Internet 'surfers' that it would either be overruled or someone would post a workaround... We'll be alright

The point you seem to be missing is that it has nothing to do with awareness of what every little program does. Though I know what about 99% of my GUI apps do, I don't know exactly what every command line-only program does. However, I do know that they are all tools, and are not constantly running in the background, preventing me from doing this or that.

The software referred to by the original poster is designed to run independantly with the purpose of preventing you from accomplishing some task. What's worse, is that this software seems to be supported by the government. If in the future a law is passed by the government ordering all computer manufacturers to embed this software in their products then your "workarounds" will be illegal. This will most likely incriminate a lot of good people who otherwise would be law-abiding, productive citizens.

Science fiction? No, this is already seen in many countries, and our government already has similar laws in place with regards to "illegal" drugs.

[Y3a]

You would think the Federal Government would FORCE MICROSOFT to fix the holes in server software, and get CISCO to fix the other stuff so spammers and pop-up and spyware software wouldn't go across the net, but just be deleted, or ignored.

[theolein]

Originally posted by tooki:
That's why you keep a copy of PS 7 around — it's the last version without the currency-recognizer black box.

tooki

Alternatively just use Linux and GIMP. That way you truly have the opportunity to check what's in the software. One more point for OSS in the closed/proprietry pissing match, that is, until this software becomes part of low level scanners and printers as well.

[cold_reality]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Because Glasnost is a Soviet Russian concept and the US government is not communist.

Yeah, the U.S. would become a dictatorship long before communisim

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Don't assume, I do know what all those files and folders are. This actually is one of the reasons I love Macs: I know what's going on in my system (I program in my spare time and am more than familiar with many *NIXs).

OK - I wasn't actually assuming; re-read what I wrote - I would imagine that a hazarded guess cannot be interpreted as an assumption Hmm... Possibly an argument of semantics, but it's not what I meant.

Originally posted by itistoday:
The point you seem to be missing is that it has nothing to do with awareness of what every little program does.

Actually - I wasn't missing the point, it's just that I was only addressing one point

Anyhoo - I'm just not into the whole conspiracy theory thing. I may be wrong - but so may you be. It seems to me that the developers at Adobe have some ethics and have decided that counterfeiting money is wrong - they may not have covered every single currency, but that is a hard task, and what they have done so far is a good start, no? Now, please excuse me if I don't project that in the future everything we do will be within a 1984 context. It may be naive of me, but it's much easier to believe than embedding myself in the latest conspiracy theories...

Anyway - that's my opinion, and it may be as wrong as I believe others are...

[itistoday]

Originally posted by Black Book:
OK - I wasn't actually assuming; re-read what I wrote - I would imagine that a hazarded guess cannot be interpreted as an assumption Hmm... Possibly an argument of semantics, but it's not what I meant.

Actually - I wasn't missing the point, it's just that I was only addressing one point

Anyhoo - I'm just not into the whole conspiracy theory thing. I may be wrong - but so may you be. It seems to me that the developers at Adobe have some ethics and have decided that counterfeiting money is wrong - they may not have covered every single currency, but that is a hard task, and what they have done so far is a good start, no? Now, please excuse me if I don't project that in the future everything we do will be within a 1984 context. It may be naive of me, but it's much easier to believe than embedding myself in the latest conspiracy theories...

Anyway - that's my opinion, and it may be as wrong as I believe others are...

Yeah, I think in that second post I went a bit off course, but it's not meant to sound like a "conspiracy theory". It's simply that every now and then someone gets it into their head to introduce a bill or something else into our government that's not good. Usually they don't pass though, so really I was just ranting about the general concept of such ideas.

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I'm not understanding a fruit remark, sorry.



But, I'm not sure what I think of this.

On one hand, I don't care because I'm not counterfeiting currency and it is to protect society at large and the value of our currency.

On the other hand, I care because I don't like information on my computer that the government has authorized and has tried to keep a secret.

That's why I'm asking opinions. Like I said, there could be other information or software on our systems that is spying on us or reporting us and we don't know about it.

I think that the fruit remark refer's to children as in "fruit of loins"