Big Brother
I’ve always thought that conspiracy theorists, for the most part, were full of it. I’ve read 1984 and have seen (and enjoyed) Conspiracy Theory (with Mel Gibson), but it’s always something you find hard to believe.
Interestingly, it was has recently been discovered that many color laser printers (from manufacturers like Canon and Xerox) actually print nearly invisible codes onto each printout. They consist of a series of dots that can only be seen with special lighting and a magnifying glass.
Here’s an excerpt from an article:
Xerox previously admitted that it provided these tracking dots to the government, but indicated that only the Secret Service had the ability to read the code. The Secret Service maintains that it only uses the information for criminal counterfeit investigations. However, there are no laws to prevent the government from abusing this information.
The Slasdot Article
The EFF Press release
October 18 2005 10:43 am | 11010011
October 19th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
I wonder if anything like this would be admissible in court? I would think you could change the clock/time on one of these printers to give a fraudulent date and therefore false information. I see some loopholes, but this is very interesting. I’m going to read more about this and see if I have any way of seeing this on the printers that we deliver to our customers.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
Well, what kind of information does it hold? Sounds like hearsay (since it’s an out-of-court statement) to me, but it might fall under an exception - maybe as a business record? Of course, as Bryan said, if it can be fiddled with, then it’s not reliable, and if it’s not reliable, it wouldn’t be admissible since there’s no opportunity for cross examination to determine its authenticity.
October 20th, 2005 at 9:55 am
I definitely think it would be admissible. I imagine this scenario: someone types up a bomb threat of some sort (maybe a ransom note). Somehow the criminal is found out. The cops bust in, confiscate everything including computer and printer and the evidence is immediately taken into police custody. Before it is unplugged, a computer crime expert prints a test printout and this is taken as evidence.
The test printout is then examined to see if the time, date and serial are in accordance with the evidence from the bomb threat note received. If they are then there is a clear evidence that the person arrested is the supposed bomber.
Any evidence can be tampered with, it’s the degree with which it may not be credible that matters. If standard procedures are taken, why would it be less admissible than any other piece of evidence?
October 20th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
What you’re talking about is a little different - that’s why I was asking what kind of information is contained. I assume you’re trying to prove that Bob made the bomb threat. If the test printout is stuff like date and time, and passes evidentiary requirements regarding relevancy and prejudice, then it’s admissible.
But if it goes to prove the truth of what it’s asserting then that might be hearsay and inadmissible unless it falls under an exception that lets it in. For instance, if a witness testified that Ned told him that Bob was going to bomb the building, that’s probably not admissible since what you’re trying to prove is that Bob did it. I can’t think of a good example that fits here - maybe if the printout was a copy of the threat and said “Bombs away! Signed, Bob.” But again, there are lots of exceptions that could let something like that in.
October 21st, 2005 at 3:38 am
Who is this “Bob” and what does he have against us?! Aaaaaaaaaah!