Cheap Scanners Can "Fingerprint" Paper 88
carusoj writes "Researchers at Princeton University and University College London say they can identify unique information, essentially like a fingerprint, from any blank sheet of paper using any reasonably good scanner. The technique could be used to crack down on counterfeiting or even keep track of confidential documents. The researchers' paper on the finding is set to be presented at an IEEE security conference in Oakland, Calif., in May."
Update: 03/10 22:43 GMT by T : J. Alex Halderman, Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan and one of the authors of the study, writes with more: "My group has just put up a site about the work and a copy of the full paper, and we will probably add a video later tonight."
yeah, and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Professional counterfeiters won't be deterred by this. It'll only catch the teenagers that try to print twenty dollar bills to pay for their school lunches. Much like how Photoshop won't edit files with a certain shade of green, or how ink jet printers embed a unique identifier in the yellow ink output. *shrug* It's amusing that most counterfeit money comes from Iran from a pair of printing presses that are identical to the ones used here in the United States, yet there's all this effort on trying to curb production from Joe Average. Most real threats come from sophisticated operations like that, and require a team to combat. This is nothing more than a novelty.
useless! (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry, but this is only really useful in identifying leaks if the leaked document is either A) the original document or B) a high resolution/low contrast scan of the original document. Please note that documents are generally scanned at low resolution and high contrast to aid readability. The high contrast completely blows the background (i.e. the fingerprint) out.
Also, the minute a document is reproduced (fax, copier, laser printer, whatever), the fingerprint is destroyed.
Neat But... (Score:3, Insightful)
This won't stop money counterfeiters from creating money. Even if you added some kind of barcode that contained the fingerprint of the paper to every bill, the overhead to scan the bill would make it worthwhile only to large bills, so the counterfeiters stick to small bills. Or they reverse the fingerprint process and print valid barcodes on the bills they counterfeit.
But in terms of tracking objects, it's a great idea. If a document winds up in the wrong hands and the authorities recover it, they could then trace it back to its origins. Take it a step further and apply the concept to other objects. Maybe use xrays on components of a car to help ID stolen parts. Cost of implementation would make this work only with very high-end autos. Maybe something similar for weapons? Serial numbers can be filed down, but changing the unique composition of the metal would require a bit more work.
The best thing is it works with existing items, so you don't have to force people to buy new items for the system to work.
Re:Dirty Fingers (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not sure what's sounds more weird, needing a license to bartend or getting fingerprinted to be a bartender. Was this in the US or another country? If in the US, what state/region?
This makes very little sense (Score:3, Insightful)
The more I think about this less than astonishing breakthrough, the less sense it makes to me. It seems to me that, as described, the technique is useful only in proving that a piece of paper is identical to itself. Unless you're fascinated by tautologies, this is not exactly exciting; furthermore, none of the uses cited in the article seem plausible.
For example, how could this technique be used to detect counterfeit currency? As everyone who has ever thought of combining a 20 dollar bill and a Xerox machine knows, just copying the bill doesn't produce a convincing fake, because the mint uses special paper to print currency. Is the author of this article suggesting that we scan every bill that's printed, file the scans by serial number, then scan every bill that's spent, and compare the scan against the database? Even comparing only suspect bills seems impractical to me—besides, if the counterfeit is that good, not even the government wants to know.
The pharmaceutical label verification is equally ludicrous. Remember, you'd have to authenticate each particular label against the database to verify it. This is nuts. You don't just rely on the label to authenticate lab-grade products—you rely on procedures that include traces, accountability, and a documented chain of custody. If we're talking aspirin, then the cost would be ludicrously out of proportion to the gain. If we're really worried, say if we're dealing with plutonium or something, then we're not going to rely on a silly label for authentication. How do we know the label isn't real, and the stuff in the container was stolen in transit, and something else substituted?
Could we imagine a case where it would make sense to use this scanning method to verify the authenticity of a document? Say we have a very, very, important document. We want to make sure it doesn't get swapped out for a fake document that looks just like it? Aside from the question of why it would matter, I'd have to ask: which is more vulnerable to malicious tampering—a paper document or a database record?
There might be applications to this technology, but if so, the article isn't telling us.
Re:yeah, and? (Score:5, Insightful)