Photoshop CS Analyzes Image Content!

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:21:08 -0500, Brian wrote:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

I’ve just tried scanning a UK £10 note through Photoshop CS to see if this was indeed the case and applies to other currencies other than the US dollar, and it’s prevented me from bringing the scan into the program. It pops up that same warning message and refuses to go any further.

Most interesting..

Regards,

Martyn
—
http://www.drake.org.uk
http://www.drake-hosting.info

In article , Brian
wrote:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

Pretty cool, eh?

The latest version of Paint Shop Pro does the same.
It caused quite a stir when PSP8 was first launched.
When questioned about it on their official discussion boards, folks from Jasc said that this was added at government request, and not something they just decided on their own to add to the program. I suspect the same is true for Adobe.

A friend who works for a copier/imaging company says that while there have been things in place for several years to
try to prevent the illegal copying and printing of banknotes the current technology is far more sophisticated, and
we will soon be seeing it incorporated into more and more things, like scanner software/firmware, digital cameras, etc.

"Brian" wrote in message

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

In article <ot1Lb.6250$>,
says…

The latest version of Paint Shop Pro does the same.
It caused quite a stir when PSP8 was first launched.
When questioned about it on their official discussion boards, folks from Jasc said that this was added at government request, and not something they just decided on their own to add to the program. I suspect the same is true for Adobe.

A friend who works for a copier/imaging company says that while there have been things in place for several years to
try to prevent the illegal copying and printing of banknotes the current technology is far more sophisticated, and
we will soon be seeing it incorporated into more and more things, like scanner software/firmware, digital cameras, etc.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you won’t even be able to take a photo of money? I
supose the ultimate would be ball-point pens that ran
dry when one tried to write "un-patriotic" sentiments. Mike

"JP Kabala" …. and
we will soon be seeing it incorporated into more and more things, like scanner software/firmware, digital cameras, etc.

Interesting. I wonder if that’s why Visioneer will no longer make drivers to work with Windows XP for it’s older model scanners that did work with Windows 2000 (they wanted me to exchange it for their newer model??). Some colors on copiers will not reproduce certain colors right now (accountants know which ones as they edit with certain pens).

Someone told me that the greenish color chameleon paint that changes color from different angles has the same color ink used in currency. As such, there is a tracking license that was needed to buy it (and at some ridiculous price too) to spray a car.

B~

Try disabling or blocking Photoshop’s access to the Internet – that may cure it.

Maris

Brian wrote:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:
We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.
However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus System Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 – Release Date: 1/2/2004

Nope – I just tried it and it didn’t work.

Maris

Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:

Try disabling or blocking Photoshop’s access to the Internet – that may cure it.

Maris

Brian wrote:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:
We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.
However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus System Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 – Release Date: 1/2/2004

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus System Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 – Release Date: 1/3/2004

But how does photoshop know its a banknote youre scanning? – surely it sees it as a collection of 1’s and 0’s like everything else

I’m not disputing that it does, i’m just interested in HOW?

Rich

www.digitalmood.co.uk

"Maris V. Lidaka Sr." wrote in message

Nope – I just tried it and it didn’t work.

Maris

Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote:

Try disabling or blocking Photoshop’s access to the Internet – that may cure it.

Maris

Brian wrote:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:
We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.
However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus System Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 – Release Date: 1/2/2004

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus System Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 – Release Date: 1/3/2004

"Rich" wrote in message

But how does photoshop know its a banknote youre scanning? – surely it sees it as a collection of 1’s and 0’s like everything else

I’m not disputing that it does, i’m just interested in HOW?

The same way virus checkers look for viruses. Bank notes have predictable patterns of 1’s and 0’s, it’s a trivial matter to search images for these patterns.

But talk about ludicrous — this is Big Brother mentality run amok. If anyone had any doubts that this country is ~150 years overdue for another revolution, this kind of nonsense is conclusive proof.

Rick

Mike wrote:
[re CS scanning for images of money]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

you won’t even be able to take a photo of money? I
supose the ultimate would be ball-point pens that ran
dry when one tried to write "un-patriotic" sentiments. Mike

LOL – not to worry.

You can always un-jam your ballpoint pen by writing "Ashcroft is my hero" 10 times 🙂

—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

As I will have to get money from the Bank from now on, I won’t be able to give as much to my friends and family, I might have to give up my Bermuda house, my yacht & my plane!!
How unreasonable can you get Adobe???
Harry

In article <ot1Lb.6250$>
"JP Kabala" wrote:

The latest version of Paint Shop Pro does the same.
It caused quite a stir when PSP8 was first launched.
When questioned about it on their official discussion boards, folks from Jasc said that this was added at government request, and not something they just decided on their own to add to the program. I suspect the same is true for Adobe.

Both my copy of Paint Shop Pro 8.00 and PhotoShop 8.0 scan and import US $20 bills just fine.

Of course, both are warez versions, so perhaps this ‘feature’ has been cracked…

A friend who works for a copier/imaging company says that while there have been things in place for several years to
try to prevent the illegal copying and printing of banknotes the current technology is far more sophisticated, and
we will soon be seeing it incorporated into more and more

things,

like scanner software/firmware, digital cameras, etc.

"Brian" wrote in message

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I

think it’s so

important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The

image does

*not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency

(it’s not even

close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s

wavy, as if

it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and

provides an error

message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction

and an

"information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop

7, of course,

has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely

unacceptable –

Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government

policy enforcer

or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

jjs wrote:

Pretty cool, eh?

No. Not in the least.

JP Kabala wrote:

When questioned about it on their official discussion boards, folks from Jasc said that this was added at government request, and not something they just decided on their own to add to the program. I suspect the same is true for Adobe.

Doesn’t make it right. In fact, that is every scarier (that the gov.t is now dictating the features that software vendors can and cannot implement).

Who’s to say I don’t need the image of a $20 for a DVD project? AFAIK there is absolutely nothing illegal with scanning or manipulating a digital image of currency – illegality begins on output, and even then it’s the paper, not the image, that is critical in any counterfeiting operation. Hell, you can find out that much on the History Channel. Surely the government and Adobe should realize this?

It’s a sad day when we allow shit like this to pass unprotested.

Rick wrote:

But talk about ludicrous — this is Big Brother mentality run amok. If anyone had any doubts that this country is ~150 years overdue for another revolution, this kind of nonsense is conclusive proof.

Damn right… but now we’ve both been tagged by the FBI, since they can now use our Usenet posts against us thanks to Patriot and Patriot II (which BTW was passed into law stealthily while the unsuspecting American sheep were too busy watching Saddam get a haircut on CNN).

Didn’t say it was right, just that it wasn’t just Adobe.

As to whether or not this violates my rights as a
citizen or artist. ……Where and how does my right to artistic expression and my citizen’s desire for a stable currency conflict? ……that’s too big a question this early
in the morning…I think I’ll leave that one alone.

As long ago as 1994 (I remember the year because of
the job I was doing and the project I was working on)
Xerox had a module in some high end color copiers that
would lock up the unit if you tried to use it to produce copies of currency– it could only be"unlocked" via a code from Xerox customer service…and the system
generated a report as to time, date, and access code…
I was part of a hardware procurement group at the time,
and clearly remember the Xerox rep pitching it as a hot security feature….

"Brian" wrote in message

JP Kabala wrote:

When questioned about it on their official discussion boards, folks from Jasc said that this was added at government request, and not something they just decided on their own to add to the program. I suspect the same is true for Adobe.

Doesn’t make it right. In fact, that is every scarier (that the gov.t is now dictating the features that software vendors can and cannot

implement).

Who’s to say I don’t need the image of a $20 for a DVD project? AFAIK there is absolutely nothing illegal with scanning or manipulating a digital image of currency – illegality begins on output, and even then it’s the paper, not the image, that is critical in any counterfeiting operation. Hell, you can find out that much on the History Channel. Surely the government and Adobe should realize this?

It’s a sad day when we allow shit like this to pass unprotested.

Brian wrote in news:3FFC7844.9000506
@nofreakinspam.com:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not

even

close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as

if

it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of

course,

has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

Amazing. A new market for coders, create a program that rips this feature out of any software that incorporates it?

Don’t you just love it when the software tells you what you can and cannot do?

Anyone done experiments to see just howmuch of a note it will tolerate?

Anyone from Adobe wish to comment? Like is this a big pluss feature with users or another reason not to upgrade?

Brian …

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

Can you post the image to the ‘net for us to see? That description sure makes it sound as un-currency-like as possible. I’d be very curious to know what the actual tolerances are. (I’m also glad I decided to upgrade to 7 rather than CS recently.) <grin>

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

So, there’s an information button that takes you to the web, but it DOESN’T explain the situation? I’m confused. What DOES the information button take you to, exactly?

I’d guess that the people in charge of fighting counterfeiting have found that a large percentage of the bad guys are using Photoshop to create their fakes. (A reasonable assumption, I think.) Therefore, they asked Adobe to put in the prevention code.

Referring back to the original notes of the original complaint, I’d be VERY hard pressed to come up with a reliable logic flow that would not only identify currency, but in particular come up with a code that compensates for waviness. Just grasping for ideas, maybe Photoshop internally converts the image to very few colors, and does some sort of shape trace, looking for the oval around the portrait, and the distinctive "20"s in the corners. This must’ve been YEARS in the making.

I suppose some graphic artists will settle for creating currency-like designs that don’t perfectly replicate actual money in the future. Which really isn’t that big a deal, is it? Besides, if legal tender isn’t protected by some form of trademark (even a special federal government form of it), I can’t see why it SHOULDN’T be protected from replication. If it’s for use in print ads, sufficiently less-than-perfect reproductions should be fine.

This is fascinating. I daresay in the next month we’ll probably see people complaining about fair use, and maybe a website showing samples of what does and doesn’t get caught by this filter.

Dennis

"Martyn Drake" wrote in message

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:21:08 -0500, Brian wrote:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

I’ve just tried scanning a UK

Dennis Kuhn wrote:

Can you post the image to the ‘net for us to see?

I’m sorry I cannot (it’s a client-supplied image, and it would be inappropriate to post their image online). However, you can test this against a normal scan of a $20 simply by scanning one, and then doing small manipulations to it (running the wave filter, for example, which is pretty likely what my client did).

So, there’s an information button that takes you to the web, but it DOESN’T explain the situation? I’m confused. What DOES the information button take you to, exactly?

A non-Adobe site, http://www.rulesforuse.org

I’d guess that the people in charge of fighting counterfeiting have found that a large percentage of the bad guys are using Photoshop to create their fakes. (A reasonable assumption, I think.) Therefore, they asked Adobe to put in the prevention code.

If it’s anything like Paint Shop Pro (which apparently also does this, and they say this was at the request of the government) then that is the likely scenario. Doesn’t make it right, however…

Besides, the image of currency is EXTREMELY easy to obtain through a variety of methods. It’s the PAPER that makes counterfeitting so difficult.

Dennis Kuhn wrote:
– snippage –

I suppose some graphic artists will settle for creating currency-like designs that don’t perfectly replicate actual money in the future. Which really isn’t that big a deal, is it? Besides, if legal tender isn’t protected by some form of trademark (even a special federal government form of it), I can’t see why it SHOULDN’T be protected from replication. If it’s for use in print ads, sufficiently less-than-perfect reproductions should be fine.

Art:
http://www.jsgboggs.com/
http://www.jsgboggs.com/trans.html

Your gubmint at work:
http://www.treas.gov/usss/know_your_money.shtml
http://www.moneyfactory.com/newmoney/
http://www.treas.gov/usss/opportunities.shtml

– snippage –

I suppose some graphic artists will settle for
creating currency-like designs that don’t perfectly
replicate actual money in the future. Which really
isn’t that big a deal, is it?

It would be a nuisance if Photoshop couldn’t be used for currency-based designs, but it’s not exactly a situation that comes up every day for most designers.

And if necessary, you could probaby just use an older version of PhotoShop for that particular job; I imagine that many professionals still the CDs of older versions in a drawer full of older software.

James

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Remove "NOSPAM" from my address when sending me e-mail. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
–

It would be a nuisance if Photoshop couldn’t be used for currency-based designs, but it’s not exactly a situation that comes up every day for most designers.

That is so not the point. There is principle involved here.

AM Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:21:08 -0500, Brian
schrieb:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

Turn the bill 90, 180 or 270 degrees. It should work at least at one angle. We had the same problem with an Euro-bill

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Hope you don´t make ads for customers of the banking sector …

Wolfram

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

In article wrote:

It would be a nuisance if Photoshop couldn’t be used for currency-based designs, but it’s not exactly a situation that comes up every day for most designers.

That is so not the point. There is principle involved here.

I’m sure the FEDs could get a version without this feature.

The latest info I have read is, as to U.S. money, the prohibition only applies to the newly-designed $20 and $100 bills, but not to the old $20’s and $100’s, nor to any other bills.

There is a Statute that permits use of an image as long as it is less than 75% or more than 150% of the actual size. I scanned a new $20 bill today at 50% and it worked fine. I tried scanning at 160% and 200% but the prohibition kicked in anyway.

Maris

Brian wrote:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:
We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.
However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus System Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 – Release Date: 1/2/2004

Full disclosure: I also work at Adobe, on Photoshop, and am passing along this reply

c.f. Article at the Adobe User to User Forums website
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@190.iklMbGUvTNf.5 @.2ccf3d27/2 69

Article at the Adobe User to User Forums website

Kevin Connor – 06:33pm Jan 8, 2004 Pacific (#269 of 319)

As someone at Adobe who was involved in the decision to include counterfeit deterrence in Photoshop CS, let me finally provide you with a response to all of these concerns and questions. Sorry for the delay!:

Photoshop CS does indeed include a counterfeit deterrence system (CDS) to prevent the illegal duplication of banknotes. The CDS was created by a consortium of central banks from around the world. We, along with other hardware and software manufacturers, have included CDS in our products at their request to address the threat posed by the use of digital technologies in the counterfeiting of banknotes. There are other software products from other companies that already use this same technology. There are also hardware products that use the same or similar technology. For example, most color copiers sold today will not allow you to copy currency.

As digital imaging technology advances, becoming more broadly available and user friendly, the old barriers to currency reproduction are becoming less effective. The unscrupulous are taking advantage of the functionality that is being provided to the vast majority of honest users for the purposes of counterfeiting currency. In the US and around the world, counterfeiting through digital means is increasing exponentially, and retailers and the general public–including our own customers–are at risk.

Counterfeit currency is essentially a hot potato. Whoever holds it last, loses. The person who loses isn’t necessarily the counterfeiter. There’s no government body in place to "reimburse" people who, through no fault of their own, get paid with currency that turns out to be counterfeit. In our implementation of CDS, we’ve worked very hard to balance the need to protect these unsuspecting victims of counterfeiting along with the need to continue to provide a product that efficiently does what honest customers need it to do.

There appear to be several major concerns and objections repeated throughout this message thread, so I’ll try to address each one individually:

1. Performance: CDS does not cause any noticeable slowdown in Photoshop performance. During most operations performed in Photoshop, CDS is not used at all. When it is used, the performance impact often is just a fraction of a second.

2. Legal use of notes: It is true that the current implementation of CDS will prevent you from scanning in your own banknotes even if your usage intent is entirely within legal boundaries. Regulations for using banknote images vary by country. It is the responsibility of the central bank in each country to provide images that can be used within the legal guidelines of that country. In other words, if you want to legally reproduce images of the new $20US bills on a Web site or in a marketing brochure, you can contact the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing for legal images that can be opened and manipulated in Photoshop CS. (You can visit them at www.moneyfactory.com.) Similar solutions should be available in other countries. If you find that your central bank is not providing adequate support to permit legal uses of their banknote images, then you should let them know.

3. Adobe’s intentions: Please be assured that this implementation of CDS is not a step down the road towards Adobe becoming "Big Brother." We know that one of the reasons people love Photoshop is because it’s an incredibly flexible tool that can be used for so many different things. That’s also one of the reasons we at Adobe enjoy working on new versions. Finding ways to prevent you from doing things in Photoshop really doesn’t interest us! Moreover, the CDS is not Adobe technology, but was provided by the central banks, who would have no reason to want to restrict anything other than bank notes. Counterfeiting is really a special case in which we could see how our own technology advances were making it easier to commit crimes and we were asked to implement a solution that would have minimal impact on honest customers. Yes, there is some impact, in that you need to contact your central bank for images, but our hope is that it’s not a huge inconvenience for that small group of customers who do need to reproduce these images in their graphic design work. It also provides the central banks with an opportunity to better educate customers on exactly what is and isn’t legal usage.

Of course, CDS in Photoshop CS is essentially a 1.0 implementation of a feature, analogous to the state of the layers palette in Photoshop 3.0. We realize that there may be room for improvement, particularly if there are corner usage cases that weren’t taken into account in our current designs. We do want to hear about your concerns, and we definitely want to hear if there’s a specific problem that this implementation has created for you. As with any Photoshop feature, we depend on hearing from customers so that we can make continual improvements release after release.

"Marc Pawliger" wrote in message [..]

Counterfeit currency is essentially a hot potato. Whoever holds it last, loses. The person who loses isn’t necessarily the counterfeiter. There’s no government body in place to "reimburse" people who, through no fault of their own, get paid with currency that turns out to be counterfeit. In our implementation of CDS, we’ve worked very hard to balance the need to protect these unsuspecting victims of counterfeiting along with the need to continue to provide a product that efficiently does what honest customers need it to do.

I haven’t read such unqualified, unadulterated bullshit in years. There are at least a half dozen safeguards against conterfeiting (at least for U.S. banknotes) that have absolutely nothing to do with the scanning or printing processes. And considering all versions of PS up to 7.0.1 do not have this CDS, exactly how does implementing it in CS deter anything, or accomplish ANYTHING else, except to make a chunk of Adobe
customers refuse to upgrade based on principle and fears of Big Brother?

This sets a VERY dangerous precedent. I’m shocked to hear this request was made by a private sector entity and not by the
U.S. government, and even more shocked that Adobe agreed
to their request. What’s next? If next month or next year private corporations start requesting that PS check e.g. for company logos, letterhead, etc etc, where will this nonsense end?

The point is, it’s not your business (or the business of any private sector entity, let alone the government) to dictate what people can and can’t do with their own images, or to second guess the intentions of your customers.

There appear to be several major concerns and objections repeated throughout this message thread, so I’ll try to address each one individually:

1. Performance: CDS does not cause any noticeable slowdown in Photoshop performance. During most operations performed in Photoshop, CDS is not used at all. When it is used, the performance impact often is just a fraction of a second.

Then that’s a fraction of a second too long.

2. Legal use of notes: It is true that the current implementation of CDS will prevent you from scanning in your own banknotes even if your usage intent is entirely within legal boundaries. Regulations for using banknote images vary by country. It is the responsibility of the central bank in each country to provide images that can be used within the legal guidelines of that country. In other words, if you want to legally reproduce images of the new $20US bills on a Web site or in a marketing brochure, you can contact the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing for legal images that can be opened and manipulated in Photoshop CS. (You can visit them at www.moneyfactory.com.) Similar solutions should be available in other countries. If you find that your central bank is not providing adequate support to permit legal uses of their banknote images, then you should let them know.

So Adobe is making it our problem, not theirs. Or yours.

3. Adobe’s intentions: Please be assured that this implementation of CDS is not a step down the road towards Adobe becoming "Big Brother."

That’s a bald-faced lie. The fact that PS now checks my scans whereas before it did not IS a step down Big Brother Road. Your claim to the contrary doesn’t change anything.

We know that one of the reasons people love Photoshop is because it’s an incredibly flexible tool that can be used for so many different things. That’s also one of the reasons we at Adobe enjoy working on new versions. Finding ways to prevent you from doing things in Photoshop really doesn’t interest us! Moreover, the CDS is not Adobe technology, but was provided by the central banks, who would have no reason to want to restrict anything other than bank notes. Counterfeiting is really a special case in which we could see how our own technology advances were making it easier to commit crimes and we were asked to implement a solution that would have minimal impact on honest customers.

More absurd logic. As with your half-baked activation scheme, the only people who will be impacted by CDS are honest customers. Stop attacking the very people who’re keeping you in business!

Rick

Brian …

Dennis Kuhn wrote:

Can you post the image to the ‘net for us to see?

I’m sorry I cannot (it’s a client-supplied image, and it would be inappropriate to post their image online). However, you can test this against a normal scan of a $20 simply by scanning one, and then doing small manipulations to it (running the wave filter, for example, which is pretty likely what my client did).

Since I didn’t get CS, I can’t really test this out. I’m sure others will, though.

I’d guess that the people in charge of fighting counterfeiting have found that a large percentage of the bad guys are using Photoshop to create their fakes. (A reasonable assumption, I think.) Therefore, they asked Adobe to put in the prevention code.

If it’s anything like Paint Shop Pro (which apparently also does this, and they say this was at the request of the government) then that is the likely scenario. Doesn’t make it right, however…

Besides, the image of currency is EXTREMELY easy to obtain through a variety of methods. It’s the PAPER that makes counterfeitting so difficult.

If that were really so, how come they only seem to change the design, and not the paper? Aside from the little strip of plastic that runs inside the bill and the portrait watermark, has the paper been changed along with the design?

Besides, doesn’t it follow that the government is _already_ carefully watching the paper makers to prevent counterfeiting? Somehow I can’t see paper mills complaining. This new filter seems like a logical step for the government to take to protect the economy, doesn’t it?

I’m not sure what you mean by "doesn’t make it right" though. How is this hurting you?

Dennis

In article <090120040044501741%
says…

Full disclosure: I also work at Adobe, on Photoshop, and am passing along this reply

Thanks for forwarding this. Why is there no "official" statement from Adobe regarding the incorporation of CDS, either during the product release of CS or now? It seems rather sneaky and obscure to hide this information from (potential) customers.

Article at the Adobe User to User Forums website
Kevin Connor – 06:33pm Jan 8, 2004 Pacific (#269 of 319)

Photoshop CS does indeed include a counterfeit deterrence system (CDS) to prevent the illegal duplication of banknotes. The CDS was created by a consortium of central banks from around the world. We, along with other hardware and software manufacturers, have included CDS in our products at their request to address the threat posed by the use of digital technologies in the counterfeiting of banknotes.

This does not explain *why* Adobe decided to incorporate CDS. This system could potentially flag "innocent" files, make the software less stable, slow down performance, and increase production costs. There must be compelling reasons to incorporate CDS regardless. Was it:

– Federal regulations? Not very likely; color reproductions are allowed, under restrictions outlined here:
http://www.moneyfactory.com/document.cfm/18/117

– Pressure by central banks? Not likely that banks would sure Adobe for producing a tool that may be used to print counterfeit money, considering the userbase and dozens of *legal* applications the software has.

– Adobe has grown a conscience, and decides to fight counterfeiting? Haha.

No, no. Something must balance the effort, risk, time and money Adobe invested in incorporation CDS. And most likely:

– The above mentioned consortium of central banks is PAYING Adobe to include CDS technology, and thereby crippling the feature set of PS.

This is IMHO unacceptable. There *are* legal applications of reproductions of currency. Of course it is Adobe’s right to block any features they find inappropriate, but they should tell potential customers up front that under certain situations the product does not perform as could reasonably be expected. If I buy a car in Massachusetts, I can reasonably expect it to work in Maine, unless stated otherwise by the manufacturer, not?

There are other software products from other companies that already use this same technology. There are also hardware products that use the same or similar technology. For example, most color copiers sold today will not allow you to copy currency.

The fact that other software/hardware vendors have installed similar technology is a bad argument for doing the same.

The legal basis for hardware not *printing* currency might be different than the legal basis for *loading/scanning* digital images into software.

As digital imaging technology advances, becoming more broadly available and user friendly, the old barriers to currency reproduction are becoming less effective. The unscrupulous are taking advantage of the functionality that is being provided to the vast majority of honest users for the purposes of counterfeiting currency.

Adobe is not part of the US Federal justice system, nor that of any countries where it sells its products.

In our implementation of CDS, we’ve worked very hard to
balance the need to protect these unsuspecting victims of counterfeiting along with the need to continue to provide a product that efficiently does what honest customers need it to do.

Sure, unsuspecting victims of counterfeiting will immediately point the finger and blame Adobe for their losses.

Adobe is not a philantropic institution with humanitarian goals:

– Adobe NEEDS to incorporate CDS because they were given a financial compensation to do so.
– Adobe NEEDS to provide a competitive, functional product, otherwise they will drown.

"Unsuspecting victims" are people that purchase graphics software and expect it to edit images of bank notes (among other things), and find out their software doesn’t allow this without any prior notice.

[…]

Of course, CDS in Photoshop CS is essentially a 1.0 implementation of a feature, analogous to the state of the layers palette in Photoshop 3.0.

Is that a "feature" as in the typical software developpers’ expression: "it’s not a bug, it’s a feature"?

We realize that there may be room for improvement, particularly if there are corner usage cases that weren’t taken into account in our current designs. We do want to hear about your concerns, and we definitely want to hear if there’s a specific problem that this implementation has created for you. As with any Photoshop feature, we depend on hearing from customers so that we can make continual improvements release after release.

i.e. "we want to know if you have found workarounds that allow you to import these files regardless of CDS, so that we can patch these holes as well".

Adobe, please focus on the desires of your customer base. Don’t incorporate "features" that cripple your software, aren’t legally required, and no one is asking for. Eventually customers will spend their money elsewhere.

I thank Kevin for stopping by to give us Adobe’s position, but I have to ask: why does Photoshop prevent the user from opening these images? Wouldn’t it be enough (in terms of covering their butts, reducing liability, etc.) to simply warn the user of the *potential* implications of improper use of currency imagery, and then go ahead and open the file after the user clicks OK? Clicking "accept" is legally binding in terms of accepting a EULA – wouldn’t a similar concept apply in this case?

While it would certainly be annoying I think I could live with that, knowing that they were just covering their interests and also warning an otherwise-unknowing user that they might be inadvertently breaking the law. But stopping me, without any possiblity of knowing what my motives or intentions are, well that’s something else entirely.

Brian

Brian
You have to ask yourself "Is this likely to deter counterfeiters?" I think that even in the rarefied world of the users of this newsgroup, the answer has to be "No"
Harry
"Brian" wrote in message

Wouldn’t it be enough (in terms of covering their butts, reducing liability, etc.) to simply warn the user of the *potential* implications of improper use of currency imagery, and then go ahead and open the file after the user clicks OK? Clicking "accept" is legally binding in terms of accepting a EULA – wouldn’t a similar concept apply in this case?

"Brian" wrote in message

I thank Kevin for stopping by to give us Adobe’s position, but I have to ask: why does Photoshop prevent the user from opening these images? Wouldn’t it be enough (in terms of covering their butts, reducing liability, etc.) to simply warn the user of the *potential* implications of improper use of currency imagery, and then go ahead and open the file after the user clicks OK? Clicking "accept" is legally binding in terms of accepting a EULA –

No it isn’t. Those who benefit monetarily from a pussy-whipped, brainwashed and fearful populace claim it is, but it isn’t. Except in Virginia and Maryland (in the U.S). Those are the only two states that have passed UCITA-type legislation, which redefines contract law to include bullshit such as shrink wrapped and online EULAs.

wouldn’t a similar concept apply in this case?

While it would certainly be annoying I think I could live with that, knowing that they were just covering their interests and also warning an otherwise-unknowing user that they might be inadvertently breaking the law. But stopping me, without any possiblity of knowing what my motives or intentions are, well that’s something else entirely.

I agree with your point. It’s just one more nail in the coffin of the First Amendment.

Rick

The Photoshop you have must be specific to US currency. I just scanned a note from another nation with my scanner’s software and it loaded into Photoshop 6 without problems… Quite good enough for a forgery too. Personally I see a great deal of good in taking steps to prevent people from counterfeiting banknotes.

Where ever anyone got the idea democracy was actually a good thing, I don’t know but I do know behind every successful multi-national company with it’s beginnings in America, is a single person who drove that company to excel in a dictatorial manner. If Microsoft was a democracy we’d probably only now be getting into workgroups – provided everyone agreed on sharing!

Wake up knockers… Adobe are probably only reacting to homeland security requests to prevent counterfeiters from using the best photo editing software in the world to sabotage America’s (and other friendly nation’s) financial stability. If you people crying "foul" can’t handle that, go an live in Bagdad of somewhere that doesn’t give a hoot.
ABC

"Brian" wrote in message

Rick wrote:

But talk about ludicrous — this is Big Brother mentality run amok. If anyone had any doubts that this country is ~150 years overdue for another revolution, this kind of nonsense is conclusive proof.

Damn right… but now we’ve both been tagged by the FBI, since they can now use our Usenet posts against us thanks to Patriot and Patriot II (which BTW was passed into law stealthily while the unsuspecting American sheep were too busy watching Saddam get a haircut on CNN).

Talk about fart brained – if you actually bothered to read the thread, you would know that it only affects PSCS. Kindly take your rather simplistic view of the world shove it.

In article <JeGLb.3240$>,
says…

The Photoshop you have must be specific to US currency. I just scanned a note from another nation with my scanner’s software and it loaded into Photoshop 6 without problems…

Exactly what part of "Photoshop CS" was too difficult for you?

Where ever anyone got the idea democracy was actually a good thing, I don’t know but I do know behind every successful multi-national company with it’s beginnings in America, is a single person who drove that company to excel in a dictatorial manner. If Microsoft was a democracy we’d probably only now be getting into workgroups – provided everyone agreed on sharing!

So now Microsoft invented networking and file sharing?

Wake up knockers… Adobe are probably only reacting to homeland security requests to prevent counterfeiters from using the best photo editing software in the world to sabotage America’s (and other friendly nation’s) financial stability. If you people crying "foul" can’t handle that, go an live in Bagdad of somewhere that doesn’t give a hoot.
ABC

Ok, changed my mind. Adobe shoult put even MORE restrictions in their software. If PS required users to pass an IQ test before loading the software you probably wouldn’t be spouting such bullcrap in this newsgroup.

The Photoshop you have must be specific to US currency. I just scanned a note from another nation with my scanner’s software and it loaded into Photoshop 6 without problems… Quite good enough for a forgery too. Personally I see a great deal of good in taking steps to prevent people

from

counterfeiting banknotes.

Where ever anyone got the idea democracy was actually a good thing, I

don’t

know but I do know behind every successful multi-national company with

it’s

beginnings in America, is a single person who drove that company to excel

in

a dictatorial manner. If Microsoft was a democracy we’d probably only now

be

getting into workgroups – provided everyone agreed on sharing!
Wake up knockers… Adobe are probably only reacting to homeland security requests to prevent counterfeiters from using the best photo editing software in the world to sabotage America’s (and other friendly nation’s) financial stability.

America has financial stability ? LOL at that one OH YES….

If you people crying "foul" can’t handle that, go an

live in Bagdad of somewhere that doesn’t give a hoot.

Or some other brown country that the US arms, then bombs the hell out of…

ABC

and that about the extent of it..

In article <ot1Lb.6250$>
"JP Kabala" wrote:

The latest version of Paint Shop Pro does the same.
It caused quite a stir when PSP8 was first launched.
When questioned about it on their official discussion boards, folks from Jasc said that this was added at government request, and not something they just decided on their own to add to the program. I suspect the same is true for Adobe.

Both my copy of Paint Shop Pro 8.00 and PhotoShop 8.0 scan and import US $20 bills just fine.

Of course, both are warez versions, so perhaps this ‘feature’ has been cracked…

A friend who works for a copier/imaging company says that while there have been things in place for several years to
try to prevent the illegal copying and printing of banknotes the current technology is far more sophisticated, and
we will soon be seeing it incorporated into more and more

things,

like scanner software/firmware, digital cameras, etc.

"Brian" wrote in message

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I

think it’s so

important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The

image does

*not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency

(it’s not even

close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s

wavy, as if

it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and

provides an error

message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction

and an

"information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop

7, of course,

has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely

unacceptable –

Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government

policy enforcer

or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified.

"Shai’tan" wrote in message

In article <ot1Lb.6250$>
"JP Kabala" wrote:

The latest version of Paint Shop Pro does the same.
It caused quite a stir when PSP8 was first launched.
When questioned about it on their official discussion boards, folks from Jasc said that this was added at government request, and not something they just decided on their own to add to the program. I suspect the same is true for Adobe.

Both my copy of Paint Shop Pro 8.00 and PhotoShop 8.0 scan and import US $20 bills just fine.

Of course, both are warez versions, so perhaps this ‘feature’ has been cracked…

Try it with one of the new multicolored $20’s and get back to us.

Rick

In article <btp7vp$9da2m$>
"Rick" wrote:

"Shai’tan" wrote in

message

In article <ot1Lb.6250$>
"JP Kabala" wrote:

The latest version of Paint Shop Pro does the same.
It caused quite a stir when PSP8 was first launched.
When questioned about it on their official discussion

boards,

folks from Jasc said that this was added at government

request,

and not something they just decided on their own to add to

the

program. I suspect the same is true for Adobe.

Both my copy of Paint Shop Pro 8.00 and PhotoShop 8.0 scan

and

import US $20 bills just fine.

Of course, both are warez versions, so perhaps this ‘feature’ has been cracked…

Try it with one of the new multicolored $20’s and get back to

us.

Aha.

I though I had, but I hadn’t.

Doesn’t work with the new bills.
Guess I’ll have to keep a copy of PS7 around in case I ever want to go into the counterfeiting business…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified.

Maybe this is why CS takes longer to open images. In addition to Digimark, it now does currency detection.

What I *really* want to know is how this works such that I can embed the same thing in my own images that I don’t wish tampered with otherwise. I doubt that it is scanning and testing the whole bill, so there is some minor feature that it sees and refuses to open. I can see a lot of places where dropping such an item as part of the image can be worthwhile. Of course this may reduce the value of Photoshop since there will be more and more images it can’t open, but that’s just the price one pays.

I doubt open source Gimp will have this restriction any time soon.

So what is it looking for? There must be some worldwide standard defined somewhere about this.

"Brian" wrote in message

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

David C. Barber wrote:

Maybe this is why CS takes longer to open images. In addition to Digimark, it now does currency detection.

What I *really* want to know is how this works such that I can embed the same thing in my own images that I don’t wish tampered with otherwise. I doubt that it is scanning and testing the whole bill, so there is some minor feature that it sees and refuses to open. I can see a lot of places where dropping such an item as part of the image can be worthwhile. Of course this may reduce the value of Photoshop since there will be more and more images it can’t open, but that’s just the price one pays.

I doubt open source Gimp will have this restriction any time soon.
So what is it looking for? There must be some worldwide standard defined somewhere about this.

It’s looking for a "constellation" pattern made up of small circles: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/eurion.pdf

I’m waiting for the T-shirt 🙂

—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

Brian writes:

Who’s to say I don’t need the image of a $20 for a DVD project?

…..so use the official image provided by the guvmint for said purposes.

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Brian writes:

That is so not the point. There is principle involved here.

….like the right to own automatic weapons, plastic guns, armor-piercing bullets, biological agents, anti-aircraft missles, pipe bombs, plutonium, etc.

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Rick" writes:

I haven’t read such unqualified, unadulterated bullshit in years. There are at least a half dozen safeguards against conterfeiting (at least for U.S. banknotes) that have absolutely nothing to do with the scanning or printing processes.

Please explain why the new $20 bills had to be redesigned AGAIN to deter counterfeiters.

Obviously there was a reason. Just because you don’t know it doesn’t mean it’s "unqualified, unadulterated bullshit."

3. Adobe’s intentions: Please be assured that this implementation of CDS is not a step down the road towards Adobe becoming "Big Brother."

That’s a bald-faced lie. The fact that PS now checks my scans whereas before it did not IS a step down Big Brother Road. Your claim to the contrary doesn’t change anything.

This "Big Brother Road" has been around for 40 years or more. The American Express Travelers Checks were printed in cyan just to make it more difficult to counterfeit. Xerox color copiers refused to copy certain colors exactly. Your phones could be tapped and your Internet transmissions can be captured. The technology has always existed.

I think that you haven’t noticed that these things have been around is an indication that one step can be taken doesn’t mean that you are forced to go down the entire road.

I’d rather the system simple stop working than secretly embedding information about you in the image so your actions can be traced without your knowledge.

Things could be much much worse…….

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

OLM writes:

This does not explain *why* Adobe decided to incorporate CDS. This system could potentially flag "innocent" files, make the software less stable, slow down performance, and increase production costs.

To put things in a different perspective, Microsoft make the IE web browser PART of the operating system internals. This added INSTABILITY, INSECURITY, and IMPACTED performance. And the ONLY reason this was down was to abuse Microsoft’s monopoly power and make sure Netscape would NOT be the most popular browser on the Internet.

The extra bloat in the OS forces you to upgrade your computer every 3 years. I personally think this is much much worse.

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Brian writes:

I thank Kevin for stopping by to give us Adobe’s position, but I have to ask: why does Photoshop prevent the user from opening these images? Wouldn’t it be enough (in terms of covering their butts, reducing liability, etc.) to simply warn the user of the *potential* implications of improper use of currency imagery, and then go ahead and open the file after the user clicks OK? Clicking "accept" is legally binding in terms of accepting a EULA – wouldn’t a similar concept apply in this case?

How will a EULA deter a counterfeiter?

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Mike Russell" wrote in message >

It’s looking for a "constellation" pattern made up of small circles: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/eurion.pdf

Mike
That is just one of the elements it looks for. It looks for all sorts of colors and patterns that are not being disclosed. This pattern will generate the illegal currency message in CS.

http://jyrikup.tripod.com/pics/new.png

This sort of thing is nothing new. It just seems new to people who live their lives in little boxes. For years all new shortwave scanners have been blocked from receiving cellphone frequencies. It caused the same sort of "outrage" among voyeristic scanner owners. Most large corporations scan internal e-mail for keywords and images.
When it gets to the point where any ten year old can go down to Kinkos and copy a few $20’s we have a problem.. and you don’t need special paper to make a passable $20 easily. All these technologies can certainly be hacked and cracked and they will not stop the sophiscticated counterfeiter. They have become necessary because the counterfeiting problem has evolved from the 100 sophisticated printers who each make 1000 $20’s to the 10,000 crackheads who make 10 at Kinkos. The law is aimed at the low-tech dickheads who are causing the new problem.
As fars as so called "civil-rights" are concerned there is always a cuttoff. If you start personlly getting stuck with fake $20’s you will start backing the new Central Bank technology. A lot of people say that just 2 World Trade Centers and 3,000 people is an acceptable price to pay for total personal information freedom, so where do you draw the line, after 10,000 dead, or maybe they could agree to some tighter security after 50,000 dead

In article <bts1br$36p$>,
spamhater91+ says…

OLM writes:

This does not explain *why* Adobe decided to incorporate CDS. This system could potentially flag "innocent" files, make the software less stable, slow down performance, and increase production costs.

To put things in a different perspective, Microsoft make the IE web browser PART of the operating system internals. This added INSTABILITY, INSECURITY, and IMPACTED performance. And the ONLY reason this was down was to abuse Microsoft’s monopoly power and make sure Netscape would NOT be the most popular browser on the Internet.
The extra bloat in the OS forces you to upgrade your computer every 3 years. I personally think this is much much worse.

Perhaps, but that’s unrelated and irrelevant. One thing that is subjectively *more* wrong doesn’t make the other one *right*. The fact that Jack the Ripper was never punished for his crimes does not give you the right to stop paying taxes.

In article <bts1ff$36p$>,
spamhater91+ says…

Brian writes:

I thank Kevin for stopping by to give us Adobe’s position, but I have to ask: why does Photoshop prevent the user from opening these images? Wouldn’t it be enough (in terms of covering their butts, reducing liability, etc.) to simply warn the user of the *potential* implications of improper use of currency imagery, and then go ahead and open the file after the user clicks OK? Clicking "accept" is legally binding in terms of accepting a EULA – wouldn’t a similar concept apply in this case?

How will a EULA deter a counterfeiter?

Why *should* it deter counterfeiters? That is what a legal system is for. Adobe is not required to deter illegal use. Photoshop is not written, marketed and sold as a tool specifically for illegal activities. The majority of its userbase uses PS for entirely legal goals. As such, they don’t have to police how users use the software.

Adobe is prudent to protect itself against law suits, however not by restricting their customer base. They could simply state in the EULA that PS is not intended for counterfeiting or other illegal activities, and make the user agree during installation.

The pop-up EULA would be unnecessary, but it is a compromise and preferable over the current restriction.

"Dale Ireland" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message >

It’s looking for a "constellation" pattern made up of small circles: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/eurion.pdf

Mike
That is just one of the elements it looks for. It looks for all sorts of colors and patterns that are not being disclosed. This pattern will generate the illegal currency message in CS.

http://jyrikup.tripod.com/pics/new.png

This sort of thing is nothing new. It just seems new to people who live their lives in little boxes. For years all new shortwave scanners have been blocked from receiving cellphone frequencies. It caused the same sort of "outrage" among voyeristic scanner owners.

Cellphone frequencies are blocked on scanners sold in the
U.S. — not elsewhere. Those who want these frequencies
are simply buying scanners from Europe and elsewhere.

Most large corporations scan internal e-mail for keywords and images.

That’s an entirely different case. Corporate computer systems are owned by the corporations, not by their employees.

When it gets to the point where any ten year old can go down to Kinkos and copy a few $20’s we have a problem.. and you don’t need special paper to make a passable $20 easily. All these technologies can certainly be hacked and cracked and they will not stop the sophiscticated counterfeiter. They have become necessary because the counterfeiting problem has evolved from the 100 sophisticated printers who each make 1000 $20’s to the 10,000 crackheads who make 10 at Kinkos. The law is aimed at the low-tech dickheads who are causing the new problem.
As fars as so called "civil-rights" are concerned there is always a cuttoff. If you start personlly getting stuck with fake $20’s you will start backing the new Central Bank technology. A lot of people say that just 2 World Trade Centers and 3,000 people is an acceptable price to pay for total personal information freedom, so where do you draw the line, after 10,000 dead, or maybe they could agree to some tighter security after 50,000 dead

Talk about living your life in a little box.

Rick

I haven’t read such unqualified, unadulterated bullshit in years. There are at least a half dozen safeguards against conterfeiting (at least for U.S. banknotes) that have absolutely nothing to do with the scanning or printing processes.

Please explain why the new $20 bills had to be redesigned AGAIN to deter counterfeiters.

Obviously there was a reason. Just because you don’t know it doesn’t mean it’s "unqualified, unadulterated bullshit."

3. Adobe’s intentions: Please be assured that this implementation of CDS is not a step down the road towards Adobe becoming "Big Brother."

That’s a bald-faced lie. The fact that PS now checks my scans whereas before it did not IS a step down Big Brother Road. Your claim to the contrary doesn’t change anything.

This "Big Brother Road" has been around for 40 years or more. The American Express Travelers Checks were printed in cyan just to make it more difficult to counterfeit. Xerox color copiers refused to copy certain colors exactly. Your phones could be tapped and your Internet transmissions can be captured. The technology has always existed.
I think that you haven’t noticed that these things have been around is an indication that one step can be taken doesn’t mean that you are forced to go down the entire road.

I’d rather the system simple stop working than secretly embedding information about you in the image so your actions can be traced without your knowledge.

Things could be much much worse…….

Oh they are – did you know certain cells in your body are owned by certain companies, and that these companies are competing to own all human life ?

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:04:26 -0700, "David C. Barber" wrote:

Maybe this is why CS takes longer to open images. In addition to Digimark, it now does currency detection.

If you’re seeing Digimarc slowing down PS, and you don’t use it, then just delete the Digimarc folder in the PS plug-ins folder.

MJ

Bruce Barnett wrote:

…like the right to own automatic weapons, plastic guns, armor-piercing bullets, biological agents, anti-aircraft missles, pipe bombs, plutonium, etc.

You’re still missing the point. This sets a dangerous precedent, and who’s to say that at some future point someone will deem it inappropriate to open or view an image of a naked woman? Or a sacreligious image? Or anything else for that matter?

Photoshop has no business policing the images I open with it.

Dale Ireland wrote:

As fars as so called "civil-rights" are concerned there is always a cuttoff.

There should *never* be a cutoff – only in absolute freedom can we feel secure. I’m sorry, the concept of curtailing civil liberties to "fight terrorism" is utterly absurd.

Brian wrote:

There should *never* be a cutoff – only in absolute freedom can we feel secure. I’m sorry, the concept of curtailing civil liberties to "fight terrorism" is utterly absurd.

You must live a terrifyingly insecure and disappointing life if your expectation is "absolute freedom." It is an unattainable ideal; impossible, at least on this planet at this time.

"Absolute freedom" is an abstract the ceases to exist as soon as two conscious beings occupy the same space and time.
——————————-
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

Bruce Barnett <spamhater91+>…

"Rick" writes:

I haven’t read such unqualified, unadulterated bullshit in years. There are at least a half dozen safeguards against conterfeiting (at least for U.S. banknotes) that have absolutely nothing to do with the scanning or printing processes.

Please explain why the new $20 bills had to be redesigned AGAIN to deter counterfeiters.

There’s an obvious question that is NEVER asked when the supposed reason for the redesign is an attempt to thwart counterfeiters. And that is, if this REALLY is the reason, why keep the old $20’s as legal tender? If I’m a counterfeiter, wouldn’t I just continue to counterfeit the old $20’s? Of course!

Tom Thomas wrote:

You must live a terrifyingly insecure and disappointing life if your expectation is "absolute freedom."

I most certainly do not. It never hurts to strive to attain a principled goal, does it? That’s what civilized, free-thinking human beings do.

It is an unattainable ideal;
impossible, at least on this planet at this time.

"Absolute freedom" is an abstract the ceases to exist as soon as two conscious beings occupy the same space and time.

The only reason it difficult if not impossible is that too many people feel it necessary to inject themselves and their beliefs into the lives of others. If people could accept that others choose to live their lifes in a different manner, with different principles and beliefs, the world would be a much better place.

Absolute freedom, as I would define it, affects only me (or whomever the subject of conversation might be at the moment). My rights end where someone else’s begin, which in turn prevents me from causing physical harm to another, but within my personal "space" no one should have the right to dictate anything about how I live or what I do – if I chose to smoke pot, drive without a seatbelt, eat fatty foods, throw darts at a picture of the Virgin Mary, masturbate incessantly, whatever – who’s business is it but mine? I really don’t give two shits if some preacher, government official, neighbor, etc. doesn’t like how I live or my belief system; it’s none of their business anyway, and it’s not my job to please them.

And, getting back to the current situation in America, we’ve already given up far too many civil liberties before 9/11, and I don’t believe that the so-called "war on terror" is an excuse to strip more away.

Brian

"Brian" wrote in message

Tom Thomas wrote:

You must live a terrifyingly insecure and disappointing life if your expectation is "absolute freedom."

I most certainly do not. It never hurts to strive to attain a principled goal, does it? That’s what civilized, free-thinking human beings do.

Regardless of Adobe’s implementation, you still have the perfect freedom to choose a different program.

What about the concept of stopping forgeries of money to preserve the value of it?

In days before cheap repro gear, a highly skilled engraver had to spend hundreds of hours making a printing plate in order to forge some money. Today, you or I can do it in a few minutes and produce perfect replicas… Provided we have the paper to print it on. Banknote paper is restricted, why not the means to copy money?

Brian… If you are one of those people who actually think America has any civil liberties, you are like many of your fellow believers… Stupid.

When was the last time you tried to hire an airplane without first being investigated?
When was the last time you tried to hire an auto without having photo identity?
Why can you not board an airliner without being searched? When was the last time you refused to have Windows activation? Don’t tell me these things are not a violation of what you call "civil liberties"?

ABC
—————————-

"Brian" wrote in message

Dale Ireland wrote:

As fars as so called "civil-rights" are concerned there is always a

cuttoff.

There should *never* be a cutoff – only in absolute freedom can we feel secure. I’m sorry, the concept of curtailing civil liberties to "fight terrorism" is utterly absurd.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:52:03 -0500, Brian
wrote:

Bruce Barnett wrote:

…like the right to own automatic weapons, plastic guns, armor-piercing bullets, biological agents, anti-aircraft missles, pipe bombs, plutonium, etc.

You’re still missing the point. This sets a dangerous precedent, and who’s to say that at some future point someone will deem it inappropriate to open or view an image of a naked woman? Or a sacreligious image? Or anything else for that matter?

Photoshop has no business policing the images I open with it.

Adobe is also taking on responsibility for policing what is done with its software by an a priori assumption of guilt on the part of its customers. This would be analogous to an ISP taking responsiblity for what software or music is being passed around by policing its connections. This seems to me a very risky position to take, and one that may well be reversed.

Those who have purchased CS should consider returning the product (even though opened), claiming that it contained limiting "features" that were neither advertised or made known to the buyer prior to his purchase.

"Bobs" wrote in message

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:52:03 -0500, Brian
wrote:

Bruce Barnett wrote:

…like the right to own automatic weapons, plastic guns, armor-piercing bullets, biological agents, anti-aircraft missles, pipe bombs, plutonium, etc.

You’re still missing the point. This sets a dangerous precedent, and who’s to say that at some future point someone will deem it inappropriate to open or view an image of a naked woman? Or a sacreligious image? Or anything else for that matter?

Photoshop has no business policing the images I open with it.

Adobe is also taking on responsibility for policing what is done with its software by an a priori assumption of guilt on the part of its customers. This would be analogous to an ISP taking responsiblity for what software or music is being passed around by policing its connections. This seems to me a very risky position to take, and one that may well be reversed.

Those who have purchased CS should consider returning the product (even though opened), claiming that it contained limiting "features" that were neither advertised or made known to the buyer prior to his purchase.

If I were e.g. a rare coin and currency trader, and taking images of banknotes was a legitimate part of my business, I certainly would return CS, and if the retailer (or Adobe) refused to refund my money I’d take the case to court.

Rick

Larry Bud wrote:

Bruce Barnett <spamhater91+>…

"Rick" writes:

I haven’t read such unqualified, unadulterated bullshit in years. There are at least a half dozen safeguards against conterfeiting (at least for U.S. banknotes) that have absolutely nothing to do with the scanning or printing processes.

Please explain why the new $20 bills had to be redesigned AGAIN to deter counterfeiters.

There’s an obvious question that is NEVER asked when the supposed reason for the redesign is an attempt to thwart counterfeiters. And that is, if this REALLY is the reason, why keep the old $20’s as legal tender? If I’m a counterfeiter, wouldn’t I just continue to counterfeit the old $20’s? Of course!

….and use PS7 or earlier which doesn’t have the ‘limiting feature’!

Stuart

Brian writes:

You’re still missing the point. This sets a dangerous precedent, and who’s to say that at some future point someone will deem it inappropriate to open or view an image of a naked woman?

The precedent has existed for 40 years or more. This is just the first time you ran across it.

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

OLM writes:

The pop-up EULA would be unnecessary, but it is a compromise and preferable over the current restriction.

And would accomplish NOTHING.

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Brian writes:

There should *never* be a cutoff – only in absolute freedom can we feel secure. I’m sorry, the concept of curtailing civil liberties to "fight terrorism" is utterly absurd.

So you want your neighbors to have the ability to buy automatic weapons, armour-piercing bullets, and weapon-grade plutonium?

Listen – there are no simple borders. Life would be great if we had black and white rules. But life isn’t simple.

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

OLM writes:

The extra bloat in the OS forces you to upgrade your computer every 3 years. I personally think this is much much worse.

Perhaps, but that’s unrelated and irrelevant.

I disagree. In both cases, the vendor added bloat into the software, without adding benefit to the user. In fact, Microsoft’s bloat is much worse.

Anyone who objects to the instability added to Photoshop should be much more disturbed about the instability and INSECURITY added to Windows.

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Brian wrote:

I most certainly do not. It never hurts to strive to attain a principled goal, does it? That’s what civilized, free-thinking human beings do.

But when one person’s "principled goal" conflicts with another person’s, which one is entitled to "absolute freedom?"

The only reason it difficult if not impossible is that too many people feel it necessary to inject themselves and their beliefs into the lives of others. If people could accept that others choose to live their lifes in a different manner, with different principles and beliefs, the world would be a much better place.

Very idealistic, but not very practical. Sometimes those different principles and beliefs conflict. That is reality. Idealism is fun to fantasize, but seldom attainable. Your "absolute freedom" to drive 100 mph down my one-lane road conflicts with MY "absolute freedom" to walk down the middle of the road.

Absolute freedom, as I would define it, affects only me (or whomever the subject of conversation might be at the moment).

In the real world, nothing you do affects only you. Newtonian physics apply to personal interrelationships: for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction.

My rights end where
someone else’s begin,

Which of you gets to decide where that line is?

which in turn prevents me from causing physical
harm to another, but within my personal "space" no one should have the right to dictate anything about how I live or what I do – if I chose to smoke pot, drive without a seatbelt, eat fatty foods,

…. all of which contribute to your potential to have an accident, be injured, or be unhealthy — ultimately affecting my insurance rates. Would you choose to be uninsured so that your actions don’t infringe upon my pocketbook?

throw darts at a
picture of the Virgin Mary, masturbate incessantly, whatever

Wow. Um … the psychological implications of those actions considered together are mind blowing. 😉 I’ve heard of "chokin’ the chicken" or "spankin’ the monkey" … but … um, well … "tossin’ darts at the virgin" is a new one on me.

who’s
business is it but mine? I really don’t give two shits if some preacher, government official, neighbor, etc. doesn’t like how I live or my belief system; it’s none of their business anyway, and it’s not my job to please them.

"Absolute freedom" of thought is one thing. When thought translates to action there is little you can do that doesn’t affect someone else. As I said, when more than one conscious being inhabit the same space and time, one or the other ultimately will have to compromise. So much for your concept of "absolute freedom" in the real world. It’s a great ideal, but unattainable except in the mind.
——————————-
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

In article <bu0o76$pcu$>,
spamhater91+ says…

OLM writes:

The pop-up EULA would be unnecessary, but it is a compromise and preferable over the current restriction.

And would accomplish NOTHING.

Wrong. Adobe would strengthen their legal position…

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

…. much like you’re trying to do.

jjs wrote:

Regardless of Adobe’s implementation, you still have the perfect freedom to choose a different program.

Not necessarily – for my freelance design work, sure. For my prepress business, absolutely not – can you imagine the business I’d lose without Photoshop? The Gimp just doesn’t cut it for prepress and print production work…

Bruce Barnett wrote:

The precedent has existed for 40 years or more. This is just the first time you ran across it.

Oh really? So 40 years ago software manufacturers were deciding what content was appropriate to use with their application(s)? I think not.

In article <bu0oup$qjb$>,
spamhater91+ says…

OLM writes:

The extra bloat in the OS forces you to upgrade your computer every 3 years. I personally think this is much much worse.

Perhaps, but that’s unrelated and irrelevant.

I disagree. In both cases, the vendor added bloat into the software, without adding benefit to the user. In fact, Microsoft’s bloat is much worse.

Microsoft is not Adobe. This is comp.graphs.apps.photoshop, not alt.comp.microsoft.windows. The topic was PS CS analyzing image content, not Microsoft’s added bloat to their OS. Unrelated.

Anyone who objects to the instability added to Photoshop should be much more disturbed about the instability and INSECURITY added to Windows.

I’m disturbed about global warming. I’m disturbed about global political instability. I’m also disturbed (though far less) by instability added to Windows. Irrelevant.

In article <bu0oup$qjb$>,
spamhater91+ says…

OLM writes:

The extra bloat in the OS forces you to upgrade your computer every 3 years. I personally think this is much much worse.

Perhaps, but that’s unrelated and irrelevant.

I disagree. In both cases, the vendor added bloat into the software, without adding benefit to the user. In fact, Microsoft’s bloat is much worse.
Anyone who objects to the instability added to Photoshop should be much more disturbed about the instability and INSECURITY added to Windows.

besides, should I care about the instability and insecurity added to Windows if I’m running Photoshop on a Mac?

why keep the old $20’s as legal
tender? If I’m a counterfeiter, wouldn’t I just continue to counterfeit the old $20’s? Of course!

…and use PS7 or earlier which doesn’t have the ‘limiting feature’!

Because they are thinking a little past the ends of their noses. the lifetime of a $20 is very short. In a year or so an old twenty will look suspicious and they are being taken out of circulation. PS7 will become obsolete. You might keep a copy but it won’t be readily available. The whole point is that these new systems are not aimed at the sophisicated counterfeiter they are aimed at the casual, hit and run, conterfeiter that has become a huge problem.

OLM writes:

Wrong. Adobe would strengthen their legal position…

But the point is that it does NOTHING to stop counterfeiting. It’s just a CYA from Adobe.

Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

… much like you’re trying to do.

Hey – it helps pay for my time fighting spam.

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Dale Ireland wrote:

why keep the old $20’s as legal
tender? If I’m a counterfeiter, wouldn’t I just continue to counterfeit the old $20’s? Of course!

…and use PS7 or earlier which doesn’t have the ‘limiting feature’!

Because they are thinking a little past the ends of their noses. the lifetime of a $20 is very short. In a year or so an old twenty will look suspicious and they are being taken out of circulation. PS7 will become obsolete. You might keep a copy but it won’t be readily available. The whole

That will be a few years away but there isn’t anything in PS7 to stop people copying the new ones, is there?

point is that these new systems are not aimed at the sophisicated counterfeiter they are aimed at the casual, hit and run, conterfeiter that has become a huge problem.

My point was – what is stopping them using PS7, casual or not?

Stuart

In article <bu0ofn$qjb$>, Bruce Barnett
<spamhater91+> wrote:

So you want your neighbors to have the ability to buy automatic weapons, armour-piercing bullets, and weapon-grade plutonium?

I have a problem with the third one, since it is illegal.

Brian writes:

jjs wrote:

Regardless of Adobe’s implementation, you still have the perfect freedom to choose a different program.

Not necessarily – for my freelance design work, sure. For my prepress business, absolutely not – can you imagine the business I’d lose without Photoshop? The Gimp just doesn’t cut it for prepress and print production work…

Here are some options besides those which involve patching/pirating Photoshop.

1) Boycott ALL versions of Photoshop
2) Boycott Photoshop CS and future versions
3) Use Photochop CS with a government-approved scan of the $20.
4) Use Photoshop CS for everything EXCEPT those programs that
modify an image that contains a non-approved image of the bill modified by an earlier version of Photoshop

Yes, #4 is a pain. But how many times does this happen? Why can’t you recreate the image using the government-approved scan of the $20?

—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Brian writes:

Bruce Barnett wrote:

The precedent has existed for 40 years or more. This is just the first time you ran across it.

Oh really? So 40 years ago software manufacturers were deciding what content was appropriate to use with their application(s)? I think not.

Forgive any errors. I did a brief search to check some facts, because I don’t trust my memory.

In 1962, Xerox inserted a tiny camera in some copy machines in the USSR.

In the 1960’s (?), when money was reproduced in print, it could not be exact size.

In the 1970’s, you would have has a hard time taking a American Express Traveler’s Check, and getting it reproduced. The check was cyan-colored, just to make it more difficult for counterfeiters.

In 1983, Caonon developed the first color copier. I found references to the Cannon CLC350 and CLC550 which has anti-forgery features.

The US Treasury forced Xerox to "detune" the color copier so it would not be able to reproduce money. Also, companies with a halftone screen of 300 DPI had to be certified by the government.

In 1990, England redesigned their 5 pound note to defeat photocopiers.

Software vendors insert information to let people know where copies come from. Some think that every document you create using Microsoft software contains a GUID – Globally Unique ID. It contains info on your Ethernet card, which can track documents back to you.

Some of the information can be found in the links below:

http://www.c-prompt-dev.com/bulletin.0119.asp
http://www.flutterby.com/archives/1999_Dec/7_Updateoncopierc oderumor.html http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.08.19
http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.08.18
http://www2.xerox.com/xsis/dataglph.htm
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&a mp;oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=1993May20.134720.11263% 40uvmark.uucp&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dcanon%2B%252 2copy%2Bmoney%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF -8%26safe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26filter%3D0
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=CMM.0.90.1.764914477.ri sks%40chiron.csl.sri.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccHc1Ea00Vsa80odwi%40an drew.cmu.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&a mp;oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=ccHc1Ea00Vsa80odwi%40an drew.cmu.edu&rnum=183&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522copy%2 Bmoney%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa fe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26start%3D180%26sa%3DN

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&a mp;oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=5j2plp%24anm%40idiom.co m&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522reproducing%2Bmoney %2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Do ff%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3D5j2plp%2524anm%2540idiom.com%26rnu m%3D7%26filter%3D0

My point it that anti-forgery features have existed for a long time. This is nothing new.
—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

But the point is that it does NOTHING to stop counterfeiting. It’s just a CYA from Adobe.

So? It’s not Adobe’s job to stop counterfeiting. That’s the job of the Treasury department and the United States Secret Service.

It is not the job of a manufacturer of hammers to make sure that houses follow building codes. The manufacturer makes a tool, nothing more. It is not the job of a cutlery manufacturer to police its citizens. It is not the job of Adobe to enforce counterfeiting laws.

There are legal reasons to create representations of currency. An a priori assumption of guilt on the part of anyone reproducing currency is wrong, both legally and morally–but worse, it’s STUPID.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Bruce Barnett" <spamhater91+> wrote in message

Brian writes:

Bruce Barnett wrote:

The precedent has existed for 40 years or more. This is just the first time you ran across it.

Oh really? So 40 years ago software manufacturers were deciding what content was appropriate to use with their application(s)? I think not.

<SNIP A lot of stuff that does not apply to the question.>

Back to the original question.

40 years ago software manufacturers were deciding what content was appropriate?

A history of copy machine technology since 1960 is not applicable.

Tom

In article <bu14rh$fjn$>,
spamhater91+ says…

OLM writes:

Wrong. Adobe would strengthen their legal position…

But the point is that it does NOTHING to stop counterfeiting. It’s just a CYA from Adobe.

And that would be sufficient. No need for paternalistic restrictions. Let the justice system take care of fighting counterfeiting.

AND the Federal Reserve for that matter, but then with respect to their OWN product. Compare the $20 note to any value Euro note. The latter has an embedded metal strip, holographic printing, and various other features to stop the average Joe with a scanner and color printer from counterfeiting. It is a pipe dream to stop counterfeiting at the end user by restricting features in readily available mainstream equipment.

By the time the average consumer has access to holographic printers, the Federal Reserve should already be one step ahead. Embedded ID chips, whatever.

"Dale Ireland" wrote in message

why keep the old $20’s as legal
tender? If I’m a counterfeiter, wouldn’t I just continue to counterfeit the old $20’s? Of course!

…and use PS7 or earlier which doesn’t have the ‘limiting feature’!

Because they are thinking a little past the ends of their noses. the lifetime of a $20 is very short. In a year or so an old twenty will look suspicious and they are being taken out of circulation. PS7 will become obsolete. You might keep a copy but it won’t be readily available. The whole point is that these new systems are not aimed at the sophisicated counterfeiter they are aimed at the casual, hit and run, conterfeiter that has become a huge problem.

According to whom? Do you have any reference for that claim?

Rick

Bruce
Game Set & Match to you!!
Tom
Retire gracefully (feign injury if you like!)
Harry
"Bruce Barnett" <spamhater91+> wrote in message

Brian writes:

Bruce Barnett wrote:

The precedent has existed for 40 years or more. This is just the first time you ran across it.

Oh really? So 40 years ago software manufacturers were deciding what content was appropriate to use with their application(s)? I think not.

Forgive any errors. I did a brief search to check some facts, because I don’t trust my memory.

In 1962, Xerox inserted a tiny camera in some copy machines in the USSR.

In the 1960’s (?), when money was reproduced in print, it could not be exact size.

In the 1970’s, you would have has a hard time taking a American Express Traveler’s Check, and getting it reproduced. The check was cyan-colored, just to make it more difficult for counterfeiters.
In 1983, Caonon developed the first color copier. I found references to the Cannon CLC350 and CLC550 which has anti-forgery features.
The US Treasury forced Xerox to "detune" the color copier so it would not be able to reproduce money. Also, companies with a halftone screen of 300 DPI had to be certified by the government.

In 1990, England redesigned their 5 pound note to defeat photocopiers.
Software vendors insert information to let people know where copies come from. Some think that every document you create using Microsoft software contains a GUID – Globally Unique ID. It contains info on your Ethernet card, which can track documents back to you.
Some of the information can be found in the links below:
http://www.c-prompt-dev.com/bulletin.0119.asp
http://www.flutterby.com/archives/1999_Dec/7_Updateoncopierc oderumor.html http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.08.19
http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.08.18
http://www2.xerox.com/xsis/dataglph.htm

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&a mp;oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=1993May20.134720.11263% 40uvmark.uucp&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dcanon%2B%252 2copy%2Bmoney%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF -8%26safe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26filter%3D0

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=CMM.0.90.1.764914477.ri sks%40chiron.csl.sri.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccHc1Ea00Vsa80odwi%40an drew.cmu.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&a mp;oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=ccHc1Ea00Vsa80odwi%40an drew.cmu.edu&rnum=183&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522copy%2 Bmoney%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa fe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26start%3D180%26sa%3DN

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&a mp;oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=5j2plp%24anm%40idiom.co m&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522reproducing%2Bmoney %2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Do ff%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3D5j2plp%2524anm%2540idiom.com%26rnu m%3D7%26filter%3D0

My point it that anti-forgery features have existed for a long time. This is nothing new.
—
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

In article <btrv26$36p$>,
spamhater91+ says…

Brian writes:

Who’s to say I don’t need the image of a $20 for a DVD project?

….so use the official image provided by the guvmint for said purposes.

that’s all very nice if that one suits your needs, but:

– What if the government does not provide an "official" image? First of all, *IS* there an "official" image from the US Federal Reserve, and second what about other countries (PS is crippled for some non-US currency as well).

– What if the "official" image doesn’t open in PS? If such a thing exists, has anyone tested this yet???

– What if the included "SPECIMEN" marking doesn’t meet the needs?

– What if the resolution of the official image is too low? (the US regulations state size requirements, and not resolution).

– What if I don’t care about the official image, but I want to scan MY $20 note? For instance, I’m a collector of bank notes and want to archive my collection digitally.

In article <bu1rlq$nhu$>,
says…

Bruce
Game Set & Match to you!!
Tom
Retire gracefully (feign injury if you like!)
Harry

My god, a Brit talking in tennis terms.

Funny, the last Brit to win the men’s singles at Wimbledon goes back to 1936.

In article <btjd8m$o69$>
"Harry Limey" wrote:

As I will have to get money from the Bank from now on, I

won’t be able to

give as much to my friends and family, I might have to give up

my Bermuda

house, my yacht & my plane!!
How unreasonable can you get Adobe???
Harry

Well, what will happen is that everybody who wants to copy- protect their books, magazines, and artwork will add that circle- constellation.

And people who can no longer scan a page of a book or magazine or picture will switch to software that has no such limitation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified.

Hagar wrote:

In article <btjd8m$o69$>
"Harry Limey" wrote:

As I will have to get money from the Bank from now on, I

won’t be able to

give as much to my friends and family, I might have to give up

my Bermuda

house, my yacht & my plane!!
How unreasonable can you get Adobe???
Harry

Well, what will happen is that everybody who wants to copy- protect their books, magazines, and artwork will add that circle- constellation.

And people who can no longer scan a page of a book or magazine or picture will switch to software that has no such limitation.

Celebrities won’t venture out of the house without their "paparatzi scarves", whcih makes it impossible to open a photograph containing that scarf in a photograph. Had poor Fergie only been tatooed with the pattern …. hmmm.

—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:58:23 -0800, "Rick" wrote:

"Bobs" wrote in message

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:52:03 -0500, Brian
wrote:

Bruce Barnett wrote:

…like the right to own automatic weapons, plastic guns, armor-piercing bullets, biological agents, anti-aircraft missles, pipe bombs, plutonium, etc.

You’re still missing the point. This sets a dangerous precedent, and who’s to say that at some future point someone will deem it inappropriate to open or view an image of a naked woman? Or a sacreligious image? Or anything else for that matter?

Photoshop has no business policing the images I open with it.

Adobe is also taking on responsibility for policing what is done with its software by an a priori assumption of guilt on the part of its customers. This would be analogous to an ISP taking responsiblity for what software or music is being passed around by policing its connections. This seems to me a very risky position to take, and one that may well be reversed.

Those who have purchased CS should consider returning the product (even though opened), claiming that it contained limiting "features" that were neither advertised or made known to the buyer prior to his purchase.

If I were e.g. a rare coin and currency trader, and taking images of banknotes was a legitimate part of my business, I certainly would return CS, and if the retailer (or Adobe) refused to refund my money I’d take the case to court.

And your answer would be like this:

You can scan any rare or old coin or currency with CS.

You can not scan the most common currencies in the world (originals available at the next bank counter).

Have fun with the software.

Michael

Rick

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:20:04 +0100, OLM wrote:

In article <bu1rlq$nhu$>,
says…

Bruce
Game Set & Match to you!!
Tom
Retire gracefully (feign injury if you like!)
Harry

My god, a Brit talking in tennis terms.

Funny, the last Brit to win the men’s singles at Wimbledon goes back to 1936.

The difference in fan spirit:
Some are fans of sport, some are fans of winnig.

The latter are boring.

Michael

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:42:15 +0100, OLM wrote:

In article <bu14rh$fjn$>,
spamhater91+ says…

OLM writes:

Wrong. Adobe would strengthen their legal position…

But the point is that it does NOTHING to stop counterfeiting. It’s just a CYA from Adobe.

And that would be sufficient. No need for paternalistic restrictions. Let the justice system take care of fighting counterfeiting.
AND the Federal Reserve for that matter, but then with respect to their OWN product. Compare the $20 note to any value Euro note. The latter has an embedded metal strip, holographic printing, and various other features to stop the average Joe with a scanner and color printer from counterfeiting. It is a pipe dream to stop counterfeiting at the end user by restricting features in readily available mainstream equipment.

And, BTW, all the features of the new US$20 note that prevent CS from scanning it.

The European Central Bank was involved in that (as it seems) madatory feature of newer image processing software.

Michael

By the time the average consumer has access to holographic printers, the Federal Reserve should already be one step ahead. Embedded ID chips, whatever.

That is definitely not cricket to mention our lack of sporting achievments!! Or should I say "hitting below the belt"
Or "sailing a little close to the wind"
Oh Hell!! can someone help with a non sporting analogy.
Harry
(I could mention rugby, but cannot think of anything appropriate, and in any case you probably don’t follow it)

"OLM" wrote in message

In article <bu1rlq$nhu$>,
says…

Bruce
Game Set & Match to you!!
Tom
Retire gracefully (feign injury if you like!)
Harry

My god, a Brit talking in tennis terms.

Funny, the last Brit to win the men’s singles at Wimbledon goes back to 1936.

Harry Limey wrote:

That is definitely not cricket to mention our lack of sporting achievments!! Or should I say "hitting below the belt"
Or "sailing a little close to the wind"
Oh Hell!! can someone help with a non sporting analogy.
Harry
(I could mention rugby, but cannot think of anything appropriate, and in any case you probably don’t follow it)

….and we don’t care about American Football or Basketball either!

Stuart

In article ,
says…

And your answer would be like this:

You can scan any rare or old coin or currency with CS.

You can not scan the most common currencies in the world (originals available at the next bank counter).

Commom currencies in the world will eventually become old, possibly rare and would still not be scannable.

In article ,
says…

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:20:04 +0100, OLM wrote:

In article <bu1rlq$nhu$>,
says…

Bruce
Game Set & Match to you!!
Tom
Retire gracefully (feign injury if you like!)
Harry

My god, a Brit talking in tennis terms.

Funny, the last Brit to win the men’s singles at Wimbledon goes back to 1936.

The difference in fan spirit:
Some are fans of sport, some are fans of winnig.

So how do you categorize the poster whose only contribution to the thread was "Game Set & Match to you!!"?

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:51:51 +0100, OLM wrote:

In article ,
says…

And your answer would be like this:

You can scan any rare or old coin or currency with CS.

You can not scan the most common currencies in the world (originals available at the next bank counter).

Commom currencies in the world will eventually become old, possibly rare and would still not be scannable.

That depends on the version management of the suppliers of the detection routine.

OTOH: The 100 and 200 Euro bills are always rare here 🙂

Michael

On 11 Jan 2004 17:01:04 GMT, Bruce Barnett
<spamhater91+> wrote:

Brian writes:

That is so not the point. There is principle involved here.

…like the right to own automatic weapons, plastic guns, armor-piercing bullets, biological agents, anti-aircraft missles, pipe bombs, plutonium, etc.

Sadly, you may be right, but perhaps for the wrong reason. The actual root of the problem (as in so many cases) is in overpopulation, since as population density increases, the felt need for government control also grows. For this reason we are never going to be "free" in the sense that our fathers and grandfathers knew, and you’d be blind not to see the decay in our rights and freedoms even over your own lifetime. We are irritated to see small examples (such as this) occurring frequently, but in the larger picture we are ourselves to blame for this, and the litigenous, overpopulated condition we have so blissfully come to accept.

In article ,
says…

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:42:15 +0100, OLM wrote:

And that would be sufficient. No need for paternalistic restrictions. Let the justice system take care of fighting counterfeiting.
AND the Federal Reserve for that matter, but then with respect to their OWN product. Compare the $20 note to any value Euro note. The latter has an embedded metal strip, holographic printing, and various other features to stop the average Joe with a scanner and color printer from counterfeiting. It is a pipe dream to stop counterfeiting at the end user by restricting features in readily available mainstream equipment.

And, BTW, all the features of the new US$20 note that prevent CS from scanning it.

Sure, the ECB had an affordable opportunity to extend their control, and they grabbed it. They probably want much, much more. Who’s to say Adobe is not going to give them the rest of the hand if ECB starts waving with another bag of money? (regardless of that "we don’t want to become Big Brother" BS) Heck, they already have Product Activation built in; it’s only a small step to implement customer reporting, or mandatory re- activation after scanning bank notes.

The European Central Bank was involved in that (as it seems) madatory feature of newer image processing software.

It is not mandatory. If it was, Adobe wouldn’t be so secretive about it, but simply state the laws that they have to comply with.

In article
Brian wrote:

Rick wrote:

But talk about ludicrous — this is Big Brother mentality

run amok.

If anyone had any doubts that this country is ~150 years

overdue

for another revolution, this kind of nonsense is conclusive

proof.

Damn right… but now we’ve both been tagged by the FBI, since

they can

now use our Usenet posts against us thanks to Patriot and

Patriot II

(which BTW was passed into law stealthily while the

unsuspecting

American sheep were too busy watching Saddam get a haircut on

CNN).

Not if you use chained enrypting remailers.

Never thought those would be necessary in the USA, ut apparently they are now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified.

AM Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:03:39 +0100, OLM schrieb:

In article <btrv26$36p$>,
spamhater91+ says…

Brian writes:

Who’s to say I don’t need the image of a $20 for a DVD project?

….so use the official image provided by the guvmint for said purposes.

that’s all very nice if that one suits your needs, but:

– What if the government does not provide an "official" image? First of all, *IS* there an "official" image from the US Federal Reserve, and second what about other countries (PS is crippled for some non-US currency as well).

Scans of the Euro can be _bought_ at the central bank of every state. Do you also have to pay for the scanned dollar ?

Wolfram

See, THIS is the problem I have with it. What if you have some completely NON-currency related pattern that happens to trigger the software? I can’t make patterns out of little dots now?

I’d actually be OK with agreeing to a EULA or something that WAS binding promising not to use the software for any illegal purpose if I wasn’t worried about setting off the alarms and getting god knows what code included from some third party with an agenda of its own. And do you imagine they’ve not got some kind of tracking going on on the Website that CS sends you to for your corrective lesson on good citizenship? And I totally see a slippery slope – are they going to introduce this "feature" into Acrobat? Prohibit you from scanning in something that’s copyrighted? "It looks like you’re scanning a book! Did you know that’s illegal?" and zaps you off to the CCC for a good spanking…

Argh.

"Dale Ireland" …

"Mike Russell" wrote in message >

It’s looking for a "constellation" pattern made up of small circles: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/eurion.pdf

Mike
That is just one of the elements it looks for. It looks for all sorts of colors and patterns that are not being disclosed. This pattern will generate the illegal currency message in CS.

http://jyrikup.tripod.com/pics/new.png

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:42:42 -0500, Brian
wrote:

jjs wrote:

Regardless of Adobe’s implementation, you still have the perfect freedom to choose a different program.

Not necessarily – for my freelance design work, sure. For my prepress business, absolutely not – can you imagine the business I’d lose without Photoshop? The Gimp just doesn’t cut it for prepress and print production work…

At least that helps us identify the value you place on your principles: they are very important to you …. up to the point where they cost you money.

Brian!

That is so interesting. Man can learn until he dies. However, I think that this is not a real problem. I didn’t try anything concerning the scanning of money bills. However, security bills have certain features such as watermarks of ultraviolet ink, inherent paper paste watermarks, silver foil, and maybe some digimark-like noise. For a software company to take into consideration the prevention of money reproduction, they’ll have to ship a large database with the software in order for them to cover all versions, unless if there is some limited number of digimarks for all banknotes. Maybe you may take into consideration an older version of such a banknote.

In order for we to get around this inconvenience, we may do many things, such as re-encoding of the TIFF file you have, by circulating RGB or CMYK values. The procedure is relatively simple. If the scanner does not accept notes, you may get around that by covering the note with rubylith film and try to scan and then to correct the scan using Photoshop. I NEVER DID THAT BEFORE, and that my thinking maybe so naiive in getting around this. One other thing to do is by scanning the note in parts then you assemble the parts again using Photoshop. Of course ideas are endless… If you think of OCR things, then you may arrive at inputing the banknote only by covering the alphanumeric characters then you scan each thing apart and then you assemble.

However, I have to draw the attention of people who try to forge money to the fact that money printing is far behind scanning them and make printouts, and counterfeit could be easily discovered by several ways.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

I hate to interrupt the flame war, but I just tried scanning a US $20 bill on my Epson 1240U and opening it in Photoshop CS. No problems. Perhaps the anti-counterfeiting software is built into the newer SCANNERS?

OK, carry on with your argument

Tom Nelson

"Tom Nelson" wrote in message

I hate to interrupt the flame war, but I just tried scanning a US $20 bill on my Epson 1240U and opening it in Photoshop CS. No problems. Perhaps the anti-counterfeiting software is built into the newer SCANNERS?

OK, carry on with your argument

Tom Nelson

Now try it with one of the new multi-colored $20’s.

Rick

Just to clear up a few facts…
The International banks agreed to include a "constellation" of small circles on their bank notes which scanners and photocopiers could immediately read. Adobe incorporated the recognition of this identity into their software. If you scan a note with this measure on it at 50% or 200% the constellation is out of size and not recognised. Notes made before the agreement in 2003, will scan and open in CS. It’s only the newer notes which trigger the security. It’s the paper that will produce a good counterfeit, not Photoshop!

ABC
———————–
"Rick" wrote in message

"Tom Nelson" wrote in message

I hate to interrupt the flame war, but I just tried scanning a US $20 bill on my Epson 1240U and opening it in Photoshop CS. No problems. Perhaps the anti-counterfeiting software is built into the newer SCANNERS?

OK, carry on with your argument

Tom Nelson

Now try it with one of the new multi-colored $20’s.

Rick

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:21:08 -0500, Brian
wrote:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

…If anyone’s still interested, a patch for CS is now available to circument the issue on a.b.w.ibm-pc.0-day.

on my newsgroup it was incomplete 🙁 …

steve

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:21:02 GMT, KenP wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:21:08 -0500, Brian
wrote:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I think it’s so important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does *not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it’s not even close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s wavy, as if it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an "information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course, has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable – Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

..If anyone’s still interested, a patch for CS is now available to circument the issue on a.b.w.ibm-pc.0-day.

I can’t belive that!!

I dont know wether to be impressed or concerned!
I definatly hafto try this out and see what else photoshop will recognize

In article , Kingpin
wrote:

I can’t belive that!!

I dont know wether to be impressed or concerned!
I definatly hafto try this out and see what else photoshop will recognize

Hell, CS greets me with things like "You’re looking pretty scarey today. You need a haircut. Did you sleep in your clothes?" Nag, nag, nag.

In article
KenP wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:21:08 -0500, Brian
wrote:

I posted this in the Adobe Photoshop forum earlier, but I

think it’s so

important that everyone know this, and complain loudly:

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The

image does

*not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency

(it’s not even

close to actual-size, and it’s not a "flat" portrayal – it’s

wavy, as if

it’s fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.

However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides

an error

message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction

and an

"information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7,

of course,

has no such qualms).

What the hell is this? In my book this is completely

unacceptable –

Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy

enforcer

or anything else.

Adobe, you’ve got some explaining to do.

Brian

..If anyone’s still interested, a patch for CS is now

available to

circument the issue on a.b.w.ibm-pc.0-day.

It works.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified.