A recent story in USA Today notes that "civil liberties advocates" are concerned that a color laser printer technology will lead to government spying on political dissidents, whistleblowers, or "anyone who prints materials that authorities want to track."
According to the piece, laser printers leave microscopic yellow dots on each printed page to identify the printer's serial number--which could presumably lead to identification of the printer's owner. Invisible to the naked eye, the dots can only be seen using a blue LED light and are used by agencies such as the Secret Service to identify counterfeit bills created with a laser printer.
I asked computer hardware expert Lou Slawetsky, president of Rochester, N.Y.-based Industry Analysts, for his take on the privacy fears.
"I don't see it as a threat, but I'm not a dissident," he quipped. "The only people worried about being found out are those who are doing stuff they shouldn't be doing. Manufacturers used to embed a chip in copiers that would not allow currency to be copied--it would turn out blank--but since we have changed our currencies, that doesn't work any more. So now we have the dots.
"There are many ways to identify where a document came from," he explained. "You can go back and look at the URL. You can identify every server that e-mail or document came through to be printed. It's really not the printer itself that is the leak into your life, it's the computer."
I'm inclined to agree with Lou, who noted that the dots used to identify a laser printer are similar to the old methods of identifying a particular typewriter's output by unique characteristics of a certain letter, say a broken "e." Identifying the typewriter or printer, of course, doesn't positively prove that a certain individual wrote the document, but looking behind the scenes in the computer or network could do just that.
And, let's face it, does anyone out there seriously believe that someone with sufficient technology acumen--say the U.S. government or a 14-year-old hacker--couldn't easily find out this and much more information via legal and illegal incursions into your computer systems? That's one reason why no one should send an e-mail that he or she doesn't want his family, friends, boss, government or the rest of the world to be able to see.
Privacy in cyberspace is a comforting illusion that many cling to, but the reality is cold, hard and unrelenting. That doesn't mean we don't try to protect privacy of our personal and business communications. It does mean, however, that we cannot be foolish enough to think that we are then completely secure.
With so many other threats to corporate and individual privacy out there, I have to admit that identifying dots for laser printers are not high on my list of worries. But perhaps you feel differently. Either way, post your comments here.
Comments (2)
"'I don't see it as a threat, but I'm not a dissident,' he quipped. 'The only people worried about being found out are those who are doing stuff they shouldn't be doing.'"
Small comfort.
That's assuming that the people in charge (govt) won't abuse their power. THAT is the concern.
Posted by Kirk | July 17, 2008 10:22 AM
Posted on July 17, 2008 10:22
'The only people worried about being found out are those who are doing stuff they shouldn't be doing.'
The problem with this statement is it implies that the only use for privacy is to hide criminal activity, which is clearly false.
You hear this illogic trotted out all the time when the right to privacy is discussed: "What am I worried about, I don't have anything to hide." Most people nod their head in agreement, eager to be Good Americans, but they still sense there's something not quite right with this logic, even though they can't articulate it.
Here's another way to think about it: the next time you have to decide whether you should give the government more rights and powers at the expense of your own, try to imagine what your worst enemy would do if given these powers.
Posted by Dissident | July 17, 2008 1:08 PM
Posted on July 17, 2008 13:08