Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

27 Central Banks Push Anti-Counterfeit Software 400

securitas writes "GlobeTechnology reports that the 27-member Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group is behind the anti-counterfeit software in Adobe Photoshop CS, Ulead PhotoImpact, Jasc Paint Shop Pro and others. Consortium members of the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group include the USA, Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia and many more. Law enforcement agencies and banknote-issuing authorities say that it is a response to the rapid growth of digital counterfeiting. The software is distributed free of charge to hardware and software manufacturers and is voluntary to use. But the European Union is drafting legislation to force manufacturers to include anti-counterfeit measures in all systems, scanners or printers sold in Europe. Counterfeiting and anti-counterfeiting with Adobe Photoshop and other products like inkjet printers have been the subject of recent discussion on Slashdot."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

27 Central Banks Push Anti-Counterfeit Software

Comments Filter:
  • by sydlexic ( 563791 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:40PM (#8301282)
    wouldn't an EU mandate make open source scanners and image manipulation illegal in the EU? it's not like their providing the source. And if they did, the couterfeiters would just strip it out.
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:40PM (#8301287)
    I'm guessing that this is just like most other bank note security systems, some of the clearer details are made public, but others are kept secret since we don't particularly want "Free as in Linux" money out there.

    Therefore, I wonder how the central banks of the world are going to implement this in OSS image editors. Afterall, something commented as "//This is where we put the part that stops people trying to open images of money." is gonna be rather easy bypass, and would also require them to define all of the tricks they're using to identify bills in other software too or let some of those checks slide.
  • by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:43PM (#8301308) Journal
    This is a nice smoke screen to get people to accept gov't mandated tech. After this kind of thing gets through, the next thing will mandated DRM. Old equipment will be banned fron the 'net. "Upgrade" now or go to jail.
  • Heh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by radicalskeptic ( 644346 ) <x@@@gmail...com> on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:43PM (#8301309)
    Counterfeiting and anti-counterfeiting with Adobe Photoshop and other products like inkjet printers have been the subject of recent discussion on Slashdot."

    Heh, not that the Photoshop effort was effective--all you need to do is search the applications section of suprnova.org [213.158.116.15] to find "banknote patch Photoshop CS." [213.158.116.18]
  • by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:46PM (#8301340) Homepage Journal

    Therefore, I wonder how the central banks of the world are going to implement this in OSS image editors.

    They won't have to. They're incorporating the technology directly in the printers. It may be a while before we see opensource firmware for printers. :(
  • Trimming the edges (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rzbx ( 236929 ) <slashdot@rzb x . o rg> on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:50PM (#8301371) Homepage
    "Officials with the RCMP and the Bank of Canada refuse to identify or discuss the technology because they don't want to tip off would-be counterfeiters about ways of thwarting the system."

    This won't prevent professional criminals from counterfeiting. At least they stated it correctly by saying "would-be counterfeiters". Still, someone with enough ambition and the resources and/or knowledge will still find a way. I'm simply stating the obvious here though.

    I am curious though as to how the software prevents counterfeiting. I thought maybe one possibility was comparing a picture with data of an actual bill, but that would mean having data in the software that contained information of the real bill which presents a problem. If anyone has any ideas or information, please share.

    Personally, I see major shifts in this area within the next few decades. Improved bills? Increase in amount of counterfeiting equipment? Some sort of digital verification system? Just some ideas.

    Also, what about open source software?
  • by LinuxParanoid ( 64467 ) * on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:54PM (#8301402) Homepage Journal
    I tried creating very small (~16x16?) GIF icons 4 years ago using Paint Shop Pro (the 30-day trial version) and I noticed that whenever I saved an image, it kept adding some sort of watermark to the image, shifting the color of a handful of non-adjacent pixels within what had previously been a solid band of color to a slightly different color in a way that was barely noticeable to the eye, but very noticable to me when trying to hand-edit the GIFs while zoomed in.

    I kept trying to change the pixels back and re-save the image, and whenever I saved the image, the mysterious watermark pixels would re-appear.

    I think I switched to something more primitive like MS Paint (eep) to workaround the problem.

    --LP
  • by IshanCaspian ( 625325 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:54PM (#8301409) Homepage
    Now, I'm sure this post is going to be flooded with tons of people saying "what's the problem? I don't want to counterfit money." Neither do I, but I'm still worried about this. It sets a precedent for software being crippled to suit the government. This is no different in principle from having an email program that alerts the department of homeland security when you send emails that advocate terrorism. It's our right to have all of the finest tools for breaking every law imaginable so long as we do not exercise them. That means owning guns, copies of the anarchist's cookbook, whatever. That's what the second amendment is all about...the founding fathers did not trust the government to disarm us, and rightly so. I have the right to be able to counterfit money...it's only once I actually counterfit money that the Government has a right to tell me what I can and cannot do.
  • by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:56PM (#8301414) Journal
    I can anonymously buy cash cards at any mall around here, with Visa and MC logos... They cost $1 (no matter the amount you buy - so a $500 card is .2%) - The vendors hate it, because it costs them even more (and, by extension, the consumer).

    So, the question is - don't you all think it will come down to point where the Government issues cash cards?

    It saves them money (vs printing money) AND It (should) be harder to conterfeit than paper money (e.g. cryptologically secure).

    It will piss off the credit card companies, but wouldn't it be a solution?

    Along these lines - would coins be any harder to fake? I wouldn't mind carrying more change, if, say $20 coins were the size of dimes...

    It goes without saying, that I wouldn't buy such a card if it weren't anonymous...

  • by extra the woos ( 601736 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @11:58PM (#8301436)
    This is only gonna prevent some guy at home from making a funny counterfeit bill on his little inkjet to show off to his friends. I know, i've done it before. I'm like hey check out this...Then i tore it in two and they were like "WHY ARE YOU THROWING AWAY A PERFECTLY GOOD DOLLAR BILL?"...When i tossed the 2nd one, they went to grab it..then I told them to look closely. Oh by the way, that isn't illegal either! And neither is scanning a bill in and printing it out, then printing some propaganda on the other side, and leaving it places, so people will pick it up thinking its a real bill. Or making funny alterations (such as the sex dollar bill)...There's reasons to scan in money that don't involve counterfeiting. I know, I've scanned in money before for the above reasons. I would have been very annoyed if the software wouldn't let me scan it in. But know what, that wouldn't have stopped me, I woulda just scanned it into some crappy software then imported it into photoshop or psp.

    Face it, maybe .01% of all the counterfeiting going on is done on some little inkjet by some guy using photoshop. This isn't going to stop *anything important*. This is just some feel-good measure, and THATS ALL IT IS.

    Now, the scary thing is, what do you wanna be that these "image recognition" techniques are being patented, marketed, and sold. Imagine not being able to scan in somethign from a magazine or book because it has a code on it marking it as copyrighted. After all, if you were going to scan it in, you were *obviously* going to do something bad, like make an illegal copy! That's where I see this going: sort of a drm thats built into scanners, printers, and image software!
  • by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @12:00AM (#8301447) Homepage Journal
    The paper bank note is 200 year old technology so why don't I hear ANYTHING about a replacement for the banknote? And while I think that the US has done some interesting things with anti-counterfeiting measures, strong arming corporations like Adobe et al into causing their products not to work as intended is not a real solution, does not directly address the problem and in the end only goes to make for more problems for people like you and me.

    This mentality of "kick the people" has gone on for way to long. Are we not capable of outdoing Benjimam Franklin [about.com]? He is the one who invented paper currency to begin with.
    Funny that all he did was put to use the printing press, an invention which has been around since 1440 [about.com] to make these bank notes with. Sort of ironic that he made the money hmself with a press he owned... whooda thunk that people could counterfeit money with printing presses and printers?!?!? So now that printing capabilities a mere 200 years later are more advanced, do you think it's time we look for new ways to produce paper currency? Or should we just start walking backwards down the path of personal empowerment because the tech has gotten too powerful?
  • Re:Dare I suggest... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @12:02AM (#8301460)
    that rather than trying to fix the software that can copy notes, you design a note that's harder to copy in such a fashion?

    Oh my God, you're speaking the truth! There's a reason why the U.S. dollar is so favorable to people outside of the country.. well two reasons, actually. 1. The currency value is (relatively) stable. 2. The bill is SO easy to counterfeit compared to even the currency of third world countries. I'd just love to see someone try to print out a convincing counterfeit Thai note on their top-of-the-line inkjet printer. It's just not going to happen.
  • by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @12:04AM (#8301476) Journal
    I never carry more than a couple of hundred dollars in cash anyhow - so lugging 1/2 oz [15g] of gold isn't that much of a burden to carry around.

    I suppose you could still fool the clerks with gold plated tungsten, but hey, you wouldn't have to alter software to protect against conterfeiting.

    Side [OT] question - how much do you spend in cash? I am sure I am less than 10%, judging by ATM withdrawls vs my tax filings... [credit cards and checks, then automatic debits, and finally cash is "where it all goes" in my house].

  • by alienw ( 585907 ) <alienw.slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @12:09AM (#8301509)
    This kind of technology has been present in most color copiers and such for a long time. Also, I fail to see how storing an image of a real bill presents a problem. What's more likely, however, is that the system detects patterns that the bill includes (i'm sure there is some nonrandom distribution of dots or lines or something). It probably also depends on the actual software. I have no experience with that stuff, just some ideas for how such a system could be implemented.
  • by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @12:31AM (#8301681)
    "Constantly checking for counterfeits steals processing power that I should be able to use for things I want my PC to do."

    Especially if they 'enhance' the current method.

    As I understand it, there is a pattern of circles on the currency, and the software checks for this.

    If the bill is scanned or printed slightly offset from straight up and down (I've heard that just 1 degree can do the trick) then the pattern matching doesn't work and the bill is scanned/printed.

    For them to fix this, they would need to check each increment of rotation for those circles.

    I can see that taking quite some time...

    (Better luck next time, guys!)
  • by ProfMoriarty ( 518631 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @12:34AM (#8301708) Journal
    a local man was charged with counterfeiting money [grandforks.com] ... (2nd story)

    You know ... I'm really suprised that people still try to make counterfeit money since the penalties are so stiff, and usually are crappy copies.

    I think that a credit/debit cards are the future, and that physical money is on the way out. However, that smacks against my privacy ... since it would be tracable.

    The problem is that there is no good ANONYMOUS way to purchase things without currency.

  • by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @12:40AM (#8301762) Journal
    If I buy a new card every 500 or 1000 dollars worth, what good is tracking it...

    Hmmm. I buy my cards in cash... but if there were no cash... I am starting to think of some problems here.

  • Irony (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sam1am ( 753369 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @01:12AM (#8301948)
    When this story first broke, to create the graphic for our campus television station, we had to revert to an old version of Photoshop; even the online image from the Treasury Dept. was blocked by Photoshop CS. At a low resolution.

    Ugh. But the Eurion technology is nifty on its own..
  • Old Measures (Score:5, Interesting)

    by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @01:16AM (#8301965)
    I worked for a check printing company that had many scanners, printers, and film output devices that had been stripped of their anti-counterfieting devices. This was a must have since people were routinely designing watermarks, elaborate borders, and color washes that would set off the criminal circuits and freeze he device.

    I actually saw these devices as marketshare protection devices. My company and its handful of competitors were rapidly having the marketshare for high quality printing eaten away by good commercial printers. The marketing department may have made all sorts of blather about "finer attention to detail" and "knowing the banking industry" but the process of MICR printing on 2400dpi presses from Macs using Adobe Illustrator could honestly have been done by anyone willing to follow standards.

    But it would have been a bit of a problem if this low-end competition were trying to output a check prototype with a watermark, color wash, and elaborate border that continuously set off their anti-counterfieting software. The high end check and document printing business wasn't a monopoly, but I strongly suspect that these were devices strongly desired by every player in the market to keep the sellers from expanding.

    Are these measures the same way? They surely sound motivated by similar private market interests.
  • by Thomas Shaddack ( 709926 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @01:19AM (#8301978)
    That is defeatable by chipping the printer. You can check if it happens by scanning a source, printing it, scanning the result, and then fine-aligning and then subtracting the second scanned image from the first one. Or just by manipulating gamma on the CMYK channels. Common printers can go up to 1200 DPI, higher-end office-grade scanners can go up to 4800 DPI. I already used a scanner successfully when I wanted to amplify a weak pencil image left after its erasing, so it could work.
  • Reproducing coins (Score:1, Interesting)

    by AlphaPB ( 741406 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @01:29AM (#8302023)
    There's been a spate of coin forgery in Hong Kong, and it's reached a level where the government is replacing those easy-to-forge coins with higher-tech paper bills.

    The funny thing is, the coin was designed to be difficult to counterfeit. It consists of a silver ring around a golden center.

    And the payoff? HK$10 = US$1.30. I really wonder how the hell the counterfeiters are making money. They seem to be mostly passing them off to tollbooths and occasionally exchanging them en masse at banks.
  • by SiliconJesus101 ( 622291 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @01:56AM (#8302176) Homepage
    Several years back I worked for a company that printed high security checks, auto registrations, and auto titles (among other standard business forms). All of these are very complex documents and are best done the old fasioned way, on a press. Although the offset press may not be quite as good as using hand etched plates it most definitely can turn out more complex images than any inkjet or color laser printer could ever hope to do.

    Simple process, photograph the bill, do your color separations in an older version of photoshop, etc; then burn plates from the color seperated negatives. Better yet, bypass photoshop completely and take several photographs of the bill using different filters over the lens to directly produce your color seperated negatives.

    The fact of the matter is that the "big boys" in counterfeiting are NOT using a $50.00 scanner and a $19.99 inkjet printer.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:10AM (#8302240)
    "Dimes etc. arent that hard to counterfit,"

    If the $20 coins had $20 worth of metal in them, counterfitting wouldn't be that much of a problem. That is why dimes were once made of silver. Not even the government could fake them. (which was the point BTW!)
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @02:54AM (#8302398) Homepage
    I've seen images of currency that contains the key pattern of five 1mm circles, but does anyone have a pure image of the trigger pattern, for general use in protecting documents?
  • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @03:22AM (#8302491)
    The US Treasury holds about 11 billion dollars in gold, in bullion and coin: "US Treasury Owned Gold" [treas.gov] Microsoft could buy the lot and scarcely notice the dent in it's cash reserves. Where do you find enough gold to sustain the world economy at it's present level and avoid a catastrophic deflationary spiral in which "real" money becomes unobtainable?
  • 1984 approaching (Score:4, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @04:31AM (#8302707) Journal
    Yeah well we dont want all these 'Open Source' terrorists with their 'GIMP' (a very dangerous counterfeiting tool) and their 'GCC' (a 'C' compiler with no DRM restrictions) and their MPlayer (a pirate media player also with no DRM). Don't forget their modified drivers for printers, scanners and digital cameras that allows people to copy money!

    Btw did any of these fuckwit DRM mandating freaks think about how they are possibly going to make this work with currency accross the world and how it will work when a country needs to change a note for whatever reason??
  • Re:Genuine question. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fred911 ( 83970 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:33AM (#8303123) Journal
    About 10 years ago a friend of mine gave me a USD $20. Not a debt payment, just a test. Told me, look at it. Not thinking he was playing arround, I took a closer look. He handed me a nice reproduction. A Photoshop scanned job printed on a new (at that time) Epson 300 at an amazing 300dpi!
    My friend (who had no financial need to produce currency) decided on a mission, to knock off a bill. He shopped the paper, practiced justification time after time. The rejects hit the trash.

    Forward 2 months and there's a knock on the door. The secret service is here to ask questions. Primary question, "do you have any kids".. he drops his pants (rightfully).. "I'm the kid"

    Someone at the landfill saw the rejects and made the call. The SS sees my friend is just an idiot. The tell him they don't know what they will do, possibly take his computer/printer, possibly nothing. They tell him if they ever see the serial number in circulation, they'll be back.

    He calls me in a panic and asks if I can talk. I ask about what, he's not willing to talk.

    He destroys the joke he gave me and that's the last we ever heard.

    10 years ago! Bet it's much easier today.
  • by Gabhlan ( 531413 ) <gabhlan@gmail. c o m> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @07:16AM (#8303227) Homepage
    The Mac version of Adobe Photoshop CS doesn't seem to include the anti-counterfeit system, I just scanned a $1 bill (the only american currency I have, I'm in the UK) at 1200DPI with a Canon D646U scanner, and it opened with no problems in Photoshop CS. I tried with various UK notes as well and they all opened fine. Yet another reason Apple should be advertising to the criminal/organised crime market ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @08:18AM (#8303475)
    How about getting rid of cash and checks in the first place and simply rely on electronic money?

    Over time, that's more or less the idea. Not so much to get rid of cash - there will always be a place for cash, among folks who want a certain amount of privacy and anonymity - but to get rid of paper checks. US consumers stubbornly hang on to paper checks for whatever reason, but US banks would dearly love to get rid of them. Paper checks are a a major source of fraud, and check processing is far more expensive than electronic payments are - not just because of the fraud, but because it's so much more labor-intensive, with the printer who makes the checks, the teller who takes the check, the encoder who translates the check so the MICR reader can turn it into electronic data, the sorter whose job it is to load checks by the shovelful into a crufty old IBM mainframe, the clearinghouses who make sure that the checks get from the depositing bank to the bank they're properly drawn on, and so forth and so on. It takes a lot of people for even a medium-sized bank to handle paper checks, all of whom are costing the bank - and by extension, the customers - large amounts of money.

    And that's without even getting into the cost of fraud, because check forgery is far more common than currency forgery - we have tools to catch fraud, but ultimately, we don't pay for it, the customers do. All of that is why US banks are pushing things like electronic payments and debit cards so hard - everyone would desperately love to get rid of paper checks once and for all. Cash will always be around, I think, because as I said, some people will tend to prefer cash for a variety of reasons - privacy and anonymity for one, convenience for another. But barring that, it's much easier nowadays to live a cashless life than it used to be.

  • by Mateito ( 746185 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @08:59AM (#8303621) Homepage
    The new Chilean 100 peso coin is exactly the same size, shape, colours and weifght of the 1 Euro coin. They work well in vending machines.

    1 Euro is around 800 Chilean pesos, so you get an 8 for 1 deal on your Euro.

    I believe that Chile is actually under pressure from europe to change the coin.
  • Download some (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Royster ( 16042 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @11:12AM (#8304669) Homepage

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...