WATPA: Fw: [TECHNOLOGY] Why Government-Sponsored Printer Identification Raises Serious Privacy Concerns

I'm passing on an article that I found astounding. Were others unaware of
this?

Jeanne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald A. Griesmann" <Dgriesmann@AOL.COM>
To: <TECHNOLOGY@CHARITYCHANNEL.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:52 PM
Subject: [TECHNOLOGY] Why Government-Sponsored Printer Identification Raises
Serious Privacy Concerns

> Hi
>
> This article from FindLaw, Modern Practice Feature, is worth reading in
> full -
>
> Printers and Privacy: Why Government-Sponsored Printer Identification
Raises
> Serious Privacy Concerns
> By Anita Ramasastry
> December 2005
> In _my last column_
(http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051110.html) ,
> I explained how the government now might be able to track us by using
data
> generated by our cell phones. In this column, I will discuss another
method of
> tracking - one that has been around far longer, but has gotten little
> publicity until recently.
> This longstanding tracking method - which I will call "printer
> identification" -- may be just as dangerous to privacy as more newfangled
technologies.
> Below, I discuss safeguards that can minimize privacy concerns.
> It is important to remember, moreover, that not only privacy, but also
First
> Amendment concerns play a role here: A large proportion of the papers that
go
> through our printers count as First Amendment-protected speech. And we
need
> to remember that, in a sense, laser printers are the modern form of the
> printing press.
> Printer Identification: Why It Exists and How It Works
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) noted in a report last month that
a
> certain model of Xerox color laser printer generates a tiny series of
dots -
> invisible to the naked eye -- on all printed pages. The source of the dots
is
> a chip embedded within the printer - one that, it seems, cannot be
removed
> by the user without breaking the machine.
> Xerox is not alone: As a 2004 article in PC Magazine revealed, such
> identification has been in place in many manufacturers' (including
Canon's) color
> printers for nearly two decades, pursuant to a government-requested
program
> devised by the U.S. Secret Service.
> Nor is the U.S. alone; PC Magazine reported in a separate article that the
> Dutch government uses a similar identification system.
> With the right illumination and magnification - the EFF suggests "a blue
LED
> light--say, from a key chain laser flashlight" and a magnifying glass,
these
> dots can be seen.
> Once decoded (and EFF offers free software that will do just that), the
dots
> contain
> a unique serial number for the printer, and also indicate the time and
date
> of the printout.
> The serial number can then be matched up with the company's customer
records
> to identify the owner of the printer. Such identifying information exists
> because distributors often record the name of the purchaser, or a
purchaser may
> register his purchase as part of a warranty registration program. If you
buy
> a printer with a credit or debit card (which is often the case), the
> distributor or sales agent will have a record of the purchase.
> The purpose of the program is to prevent counterfeiting. That's certainly
a
> worthy aim, and high-end color laser printers may be among counterfeiters'
> favorite tools.
> But the government can - and should - both pursue this aim, and protect
> privacy at the same time.
> Privacy and Free Speech Safeguards Are Essential
> When companies cooperate with law enforcement, they become agents of the
> state. The government should have told the public about this program when
it
> began.
> And now that the program has been revealed, it ought to more fully explain
> the extent to which printer tracking is used and for what purpose. Can any
> government agency access this information, for any reason - even when
> counterfeiting is plainly not an issue?
> Currently, no law restricts this information to counterfeiting
investigations
> alone. In practice, according to Xerox, the Secret Service has only
> requested information from the company when counterfeiting has been
suspected - but
> there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
> And what about foreign governments? Can this information be shared with
them?
> Imagine a foreign student studying in the U.S., who anonymously protests
his
> government's actions and tries to get attention for them here. Could the
> student be tracked down and punished when he returns home because the
U.S.
> government provided his government with information allowing them to
identify
> documents as having come from his printer?
> Finally, what about non-government entities? What if, for instance,
litigants
> want to employ the dots to aid the authentication of documents, or
establish
> an evidentiary timeline?
> According to the EFF, there is also no law "regulating the distribution or
> reuse of information obtained through the use of marking technologies and
> customer databases. "
> <SNIP>
>
> For the full article see -
>
> _http://practice.findlaw.com/printers-1205.html_
> (http://practice.findlaw.com/printers-1205.html)
>
> For the Electronic Frontier Foundation see -
>
> _http://www.eff.org/_ (http://www.eff.org/)
>
> This for me raises concern about tax exemption and advocacy. Do you see
> other issues?
>
> Best,
>
> Don
> Donald A. Griesmann, Esq.
> Community Service Support Center, Inc.
> Ventnor NJ
> Don Griesmann's Grant Opportunities
> _http://charitychannel.com/enewsletters/dggo/_
> (http://charitychannel.com/enewsletters/dggo/)
Received on Wed Dec 7 20:20:18 2005