Are Your Peripherals Monitoring You? 393
An anonymous reader writes " Engadget is reporting that
'Lexmark, makers of printers and scanners, has been caught monitoring users' printer, scanning, and ink cartridge usage.'" Newsgroup comp.periphs.printers readers noticed the software; the Engadget report says that "Lexmark say they're just tracking printer and cartridge usage, but the registration information and packets being sent say otherwise."
Please clarify (Score:4, Insightful)
Lexmark, makers of printers and scanners, has been caught monitoring users' printer, scanning, and ink cartridge usage."
Then you try to tell us this:
"Lexmark say they're just tracking printer and cartridge usage, but the registration information and packets being sent say otherwise."
So the evil Lexmark tells you that they are tracking printer and cartridge usage, which is what you tell us is what you found. Then you claim that the packets being sent tell you something different. Well, spill it! What did you find that Lexmark didn't say they are tracking? It seems that they told you what you'd expect to find if you monitored their packets.
I don't like the idea that some company is building drivers that call home. But it's not because I think my privacy is somehow invaded. I just don't like someone using up my bandwidth without my knowledge.
If I was really concerned with privacy, I doubt I'd be using a computer, much less connecting it to the Internet.
Posible reason (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this does not justify them sending the data without your knowing/asking. If they wanted to keep a flag in the printer and when you return the printer for a repair under warranty, they cold check for this flag and refuse to honor the warranty.
And, why would they want to hide their intent and send the data to a wierd sounding URL (lkcc1.com)? I would have first suspected some other scumware trying to phone home, never suspecting lexmark. Well, guess you cannot trust any compan to have honor ro ethics these days.
Re:Not clear? (Score:3, Insightful)
printing ripoff (Score:5, Insightful)
bullshit. i will never buy one of these printers again (this means you lexmark, canon, hp, and your friends). when will a manufacturer stand up and sell good quality printers, refillable by the user using just an ink bottle? there is a market of people who are willing not to buy the cheapest piece of shit printer because they know how that turns out. who will fill it?
Another Posible Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Didn't the users agree to this monitoring? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I buy a printer, it should print what I tell it too and fck all else. Adding a clause in a 30 page eula that says using this printer signs my kids over for experimentation isnt exactly playing fair.
fck lexmark.
Re:Not clear? (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Lexmark AFAIK is one of the companies who are participating in the stupid law assistance program where software and hardware should detect common types of currency and refuse to copy or print it. Going from there to ratting on the ones who scan/print it is only one step.
Inkjet cartridges... (Score:2, Insightful)
Lexmark sees you need a new model.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't find this at all shocking. Lexmark makes those lovely OEM Dell printers that you sometimes can get free with a PC. Not only is the software a commercial to buy ink from Dell but the cartages are keyed so you have to mail order the ink. Now Lexmark can track you by serial number and possibly detect if you've been a naughty user and used 3rd party cartages or refilled you cartages. Can anyone say warranty void? Even better still, they can collect enough information on your printing habits and offer you bigger and better printers.
There are good reasons to object to this. What we need are some solid facts as to what exactly is reported to Lexmark, and how to prevent this. Would adding "www.lxkcc1.com 127.0.0.1" to the hosts file be effective?
Why wasn't this popularised before? (Score:2, Insightful)
Whaddya bet.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please clarify (Score:4, Insightful)
Spying is spying, no matter if it happens daily or monthly. And who are you to be sure they don't collect other info, send ascii-only copies of your printed documents, scan for keywords and worse. Calling home once a month is enough to report back every info you hold dear. Plain ASCII, zip compressed doesn't need more bandwidth.
But none of us has a problem with others monitoring what we say or do. I have nothing to hide. I like orange jump suits and cable ties. I like the president. I am a happy citizen and I will go back to work now.
Re:As every printer manufacturer... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two much less intrusive ways to do this:
1) design the printer to use separate cartriges for each color, or
2) offer a used-cartridge trade-in discount and check how much ink is left of each color.
Re:Please clarify (Score:2, Insightful)
Well I'm concerned with privacy, but I still want to use a computer and also connect to the internet. I don't necessarily disagree with your argument but you weaken it here.
Re:Data stealing (Score:4, Insightful)
We (or at least me, though I seriously doubt I'm alone) generally have no problems with `spyware' if it's installation is *completely* voluntary and if the user is educated on what it is and does clearly (and not in some 500 page document) before it's installed. Especially if it's something that the person has to manually install the program, and especially if the program is benign and useful (counting linux users = benign, but not terribly useful for a given user.)
You may think this has something to do with Linux, but it really doesn't -- we generally don't have problems with Microsoft Update either, for example, even the automatic functions, and they phone home on a regular basis as well. This could change, however -- for example, if we were to learn that the program was reporting back more information than we were told it did.
Closed source considered harmful (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethereal? (Score:3, Insightful)
While we may not find out what all of the data is, at least it should be fairly easy to establish whether they are collecting your name, or your username, or your IP. If this is installed quietly, it seems unlikely that they would bother with encryption. They don't seem too interested in privacy in the first place.
As an aside, I can see how real usage information from the field could be extremely valuable to a printer company, but it should say in big red letters "this product phones home". If the consumers are acting as their research lab, they better be volunteers...
Re:printing ripoff (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, we don't miss the color. Wife or myself takes the camera or media card to the drug store and crop and print a picture for 25 cents. (less if doing multiple prints)
Re:Are yet just, plain, mad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two main reasons for that:
1) historical "everyone runs as admin" meant no pesky user permissions getting in the way of what you wanted your software to do
2) orders of magnitude larger install base - you have X amount of time to develop this crap, do you target 95%+ of the market, or just the remaining 5%?
Re:Didn't the users agree to this monitoring? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does ANYONE WITH A LEXMARK PRINTER (that has the tracking software installed by Lexmark) have a EULA that they can post for us to see? That would be great so we can check it out ... no matter how dumb, boring, or theoretically unenforceable it might be. Some of us just want to see if it covers that tracking software aspect.
TIA
Re:Not clear? (Score:5, Insightful)
While virtually everyone on slashdot knows to install anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall, firefox etc, it's all getting way out of control. Who the FUCK (except from a tin foil hat nerd) would expect a PRINTER DRIVER to spy on you? Isn't it great how this sort of crap is legal, but (for example) modding a console isn't?
Re:Not clear? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just why is this stupid? Counterfiting is illegal and undesirable. Please explain your opinion.
I'm neither the original poster, nor do I necessarily agree with him. But I think I can do a good job as advocate for the Devil.
The obstensible objection to the hardware and software currency detection would probably be that it does nothing to catch actual counterfeiters but does inconveniance legitimate users. Do you really think that people such as these [independent.co.uk] are going to be bothered by such little measures. In order to procure the equipment, inks and papers to forge modern currency (at least in Europe), you have to be a professional. The only remaining result of this technology is the inconveniance to legitimate users.
Now that said, there is a secondary reasoning behind objecting to the law which is less commonly stated, but often underlies such arguments.
You stated that Counterfeiting is illegal and undesirable. Placed in a criticism, this indicates that you feel the law is essentially a good thing and that legality is an indication that something is acceptable. There are many who would agree that counterfeiting is undesirable (it reduces the value of their own / family's money) but would not instinctively add illegal as a criticism. This is because many now feel the government is an adversary, especially in recent times and especially in the US and the UK. They are heavily concerned about increasingly unjust laws and this is colouring their view of the entire legal process. The relation of something as large as this to something as small as the anti-counterfeiting technology is twofold. Firstly, in foisting this technology on innocent people, they naturally resent the presumption of wrong-doing. Much the same as you would feel about having people come around to search your home for stolen goods without grounds for suspicion, or having someone wire your car so that it couldn't go over 70mph to prevent speeding, or outlawing firearms (in the US). It's insulting to many people who no longer feel the government is their friend. It's especially insulting that this redundant technology was diseminated secretly and sneakily amongst people who did not know that what they bought had that it had been fiddled with by government agencies. Remember, many people no longer regard the government as friendly.
The second secret reason behind the objection may be that in order for this technology to work there has to be some subversion of people's computer systems. It can't be implemented in The Gimp [gimp.org] and if Photoshop or Lexxmark is calling the FBI when it detects a banknote, then this is basically taking control away from the user. He can no longer trust his computer. Who knows what information it's providing to other parties. This will be especially true with technologies enabled by Trusted Computing. The issue about the anti-counterfeiting technology is not the thing in isolation, but that is part of a broader sweep of taking power away from the user and making their computers work for someone else, not their owner.
Okay, that's my analysis. Of course, the OP may not think this way at all, purely basing his comment on the fact that the technology is flawed (which it is) and inconveniances innocents (which it can do); but I think that many people do feel the way that I've described.
For myself, I just want someone to post the pattern so that I can mix it into my own images and mess with people's heads.
Re:As every printer manufacturer... (Score:2, Insightful)
printer ink prices (Score:2, Insightful)
i looked at work a while ago for the cheapest non-generic printer cartridge with the most ink for your buck. if you were to fill you car with printer ink from this cheapest of ink cartridges, it would be about $3,059 dollars a gallon. (how much is my tuition again?).
lexmark needs to stop being so greedy. they already make money hand over fist. the common printer company tactic of making cheap cheap printers that eat cartridges like candy that cost $35 a piece (mind you, printers have a color and a black ink cartridge) should be enough for those guys. shoot, i already feel dirty enough shelling out that money, but having my computer sniffed is going too far.
--no sig.
You need to think some more. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm concerned with privacy, so I use free software. Sure, my ISP can log my web habits but I don't have to worry about them selling information about what I do inside my own network to spammers. Nor do I have to worry about being compromised by some kind of email worm or malicious web site, which are just as large a threat to privacy.
You might be a little more concerned if you think about how any business can function without internet connected computers and what information your company might want to protect. All of that gets thrown out the window with M$ junk.
Re:Does no one else check for drivers *first*? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not change the norms of proper social and civilized behaviour OK?
Re:Not clear? (Score:1, Insightful)
Capitalism is not sentient or capable of malicious action.
The problem, as always, is unethical people and not the system they abuse with their immorality. But of all the human systems tested to date, capitalism has proven to be best-immunized against corruption and abuse.
Re:Please clarify (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not clear? (Score:3, Insightful)
making their computers work for someone else, not their owner
Nicely put. That's a really simple and concise way of stating the problems with all this "Trusted computing", DRM, and anti-counterfeiting ruckus. Now if someone could only explain this to the computer industry and lawmakers.
Re:Are yet just, plain, mad? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the public's fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I really don't think that's a very constructive attitude.
There is simply too much small print in an average person's life for them to read and absorb all of it. That would probably still be true even it it were written in plain $LANGUAGE, and not deliberately obfuscated by lawyers. Hence it is unrealistic to expect anyone to understand and, if necessary, challenge everything that they might not agree with if asked in isolation.
To protect society from the unscrupulous behaviour of those who would capitalise on this systematic weakness, we have a legal system. We elect people to form a government that can spend its full time in administration on our behalf, so we don't have to. Their remit is to look after our interests for us in cases like this.
The problem with a lot of technology is that it takes a fairly long time for the elected government's knowledge and views catch up with informed professionals (who, of course, can dedicate their whole working life to the technology industry, an advantage the lawmakers don't have). Consequently there is a fairly large window of opportunity for profitable spamming, spyware, adware, etc. that aren't really in the general public's interests before it becomes illegal.
The only realistic solution to this problem is to educate the lawmakers and draw their attention to new problems faster so they can act against them. Expecting to educate everyone in society about every potential threat to their finances, privacy, security, work-life balance, etc. just isn't a realistic possibility, which is why comments like the parent post aren't very helpful.
Re:What about Macintosh Drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about those things is that they really do have three drivers, but typically only one driver installer. If you're particularly unlucky the drivers only ever unpack themselves to ao temp directory, and you have to use that winhandle program to even figure out where it is half the time.
People buy a multifunction device for the same reason they use to buy macs - and I'm talking about when there was only one reason here, and that was because anything else confused them. The thing about that is that multifunction devices are more complicated, not less. They're harder to support (if something goes wrong you will have more trouble) and if your network should ever grow, well, you can't hook them up to a print server and still use their scanning and modem functions. And believe me, even people with no computer knowledge and/or experience end up asking people who do to set up stuff like print servers for them in their house so they can have two computers print to the same printer without having to make sure one is on :P
Multifunction devices are not cheaper, they're not easier, so what's left? The belief that they take up less space? Multifunction printer/scanners are almost all huge, because they have a flatbed built into them and a large printer mechanism underneath so there's an excuse for the ridiculous physical size. We have a 720dpi inkjet that's about one third the size of the average scanner/printer/fax. It and my scanner together, maybe one-half. My scanner is USB-powered, about 1.5" thick, and provides a pretty good 1200dpi scan, although not very rapidly. Won't be any worse than a combo box, though. It came with a cute plastic stand that will keep it upright on a desktop, but I usually put it on a shelf or something. When I'm not using it I unplug it from the front panel USB connector, but it's got a USB B jack on it, so you can just leave the cable connected all the time.
Postscript isn't about cool, and it doesn't have to be postscript, it can be PCL. The important part is to minimize the amount of data you send to the printer, which improves your print speed. Fast printing is convenient, much as fast CD burning is.
Being able to upgrade the individual components that are provided in one of those units is worth buying them separately all by itself. Being able to decide that the inkjet isn't working for you and move up to a laser without having to get a new scanner is the way things should be to say the least. We aren't getting modular devices where you could just replace the printer part of the combo unit, so it only makes sense to just buy the separate devices.
There is just one reason I can see to buy one of those things: If you wanted an inexpensive copier/fax machine. I wouldn't even want to hook it up to a PC, although I would consider hooking it up to one that did nothing but act as a print server.
Give them the 'Gomer Pyle' treatment... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, there was an episode where he would use a particuliar jeep. Everytime he had the jeep, his buddies would keep filling it with gas for fun, and not tell him. He thought that he was getting like 100 miles per gallon. When the sargent had the jeep, they'd siphon off the gas...
You could really screw with their numbers. Your Lexmark printer could report 200 reams per ink cartridge. Depending on the detail of their reporting back, you could make it look like you printed 1000 sheets all red, then all blue. You could mess with their metrics. Worse yet, if you falsify your registration number, you could fill their databases with fake data and even collide with other numbers already registered. How do they interpret data when the same printer is being reported numerous times with different behaviors. They shouldn've used strong crypto to ensure data integrity...
They probably should have had a click-to-authorize this activity as on option with their driver, with some benefit attached. Most would click it anyway, or not read the advisory...
http://www.iamsam.com
Re:Not clear? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, not pure, unregulated capitalism. Regulated capitalism, perhaps.
You see, capitalism by itself encourages corruption and abuse. Consider, for instance, a society that operates under "pure" capitalism, and which has no laws against murder, assault, etc. A corporation which provides an essential good or service (such as food) in that kind of environment would literally eliminate its competition, by assassinating the owners and executives of any competing firms. Eventually that corporation would have no competition because nobody would be stupid enough to risk certain death in order to compete.
The reason things would go down that way is that capitalism encourages unethical behavior. Think about it: unethical behavior is basically behavior which does not follow a certain set of restrictions (e.g., on killing or harming others). Capitalism encourages this because it rewards those who are willing to go further to get what they want. Someone who acts ethically is restricting the set of actions he can take, while someone who acts unethically is not restricted in that way. The person acting unethically has available to him a superset of actions available to the person acting ethically. That means that the person acting unethically has more options than someone acting ethically, and some of those additional options will give him an advantage, and being unethical he will use those. Since the system doesn't have any built-in mechanisms to discourage such unethical behavior, the person who behaves unethically will win, pretty much every time.
Organized crime is what you get with unregulated capitalism.