Inexpensive scanners can 'fingerprint' paper

[Strategist01 0]

This was something that I saw today, and found it interesting:

Originally posted by Network world:

Think two blank sheets of paper are the same? Look closer.

Researchers at Princeton University and University College London say they can identify unique information, essentially like a fingerprint, from any sheet of paper using any reasonably good scanner. The technique could be used to crack down on counterfeiting or even keep track of confidential documents. The researchers' paper on the finding is set to be presented at an IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) security conference in Oakland, California, next May. 

"We've found a way to identify documents even when there was nothing additional printed on them," said Alex Halderman, now an assistant professor at the University of Michigan, who was part of the Princeton team. "This is like an invisible serial number printed on every piece of paper ever made."

Two blank pieces of paper may look identical, but if you hold them to a light, you can see that in fact they're unique mash ups of fibers. The researchers say that they can measure this unique texture using a standard 1200 DPI (dots per inch) scanner and some custom software they've written.

By turning the page by 90 degrees and scanning it again and again, the researchers can pluck out subtle distinctions in the paper's texture and create a unique digital map of its surface. "You scan it four times and then the software is able -- from these four scans -- to figure out what the surface texture of the document looks like," said William Clarkson, a Princeton graduate student. "Then it can extract essentially a fingerprint of the document."

This isn't the first time these researchers have found interesting data in unlikely places. Four of the paper's six co-authors, including Clarkson and Halderman, helped develop what's known as the cold-boot attack, which showed how to get information out of a computer's memory, even after it has been turned off. This technique could be used to skirt some hard-drive encryption systems.

With a well-preserved sheet of paper, the researchers say that their fingerprints are pretty close to 100 percent accurate. If the paper is soaked or marked up, things become trickier, but with error-correction software it's still easy to make a definitive ID, Clarkson said. "You have to significantly modify the document to make it become unidentifiable."

The researchers believe their technique could be used to identify counterfeit money, tickets and even packaging containers. A drug company like Pfizer, for example, could take fingerprints of their labels when they are shipped, and this data could be verified later by a government or company representative in order to spot fakes. Using public key encryption, companies could even create "self-authenticating" packages that could be checked by special scanners.

Art dealers could use the technique to fingerprint original works of art, they say.

More troubling, however, the technique could be used to track anonymous surveys or to monitor voting done on paper ballots. Ballot tracking wouldn't be easy. Someone would have to scan the ballots before Election Day and then have a way of tracking the order in which these ballots were given out.

Vote tracking is "the possibility that is most troubling to us," said Halderman, who has done extensive research into the security of computerized voting systems. This work shows some new problems with paper ballots too. "There are limitations and need for precautions that we might not have been aware of before," he said. quote>

What do you think? Is it really possible? Should the vote tracking be allowed? I say no to the vote tracking, as voting is an anonymous process, besides, I think it would be too expensive to be feasible.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Interesting, but except for sensitive documents pretty much usless.

As for the vote tracking, i dont see the point to tell which one is which,  you have to have the ballot to scan,so you can just read the vote, who cares who voted for who?

[Jezus53 18]

Why would they meet in Oakland? That place is horrible.

Anyways, I think this is pretty cool. The advantages of spotting counterfeit money and fake tickets, or spotting fake shipping documents or even fake immigration papers would be fantastic! I'm especially excited that we can possibly keep track of citizenship papers and make sure we can weed out the fake ones. I'm not against immigration, but I want everyone to do it the legal way.

As for the voting concern, I'm not to worried. They can already track me since I vote absentee. Plus, if they wanted to track us, they can program the electronic voting machines to see how we vote. That's one of the reasons I will never use one.

Overall, I think this is a good thing and can really help improve security.

[hamsterTK 93]

I actually heard about this when watching a mystery documentary where they caught this murderer by looking at the bag the body was found in, comparing it to quality control data tracked by the plant that made it and what lot it was shipped out in to what store, who bought it, etc... turns out it was their prime suspect who happened to have purchased them....

Basically, the extruder machine that makes thousands of plastic bags per hour images the stream of sheet plastic coming out and can identify each lot made by matching up streaks and scratches in the plastic caused by nicks in the nozzle part of the machine. This is so if if a technician finds a ganky bag they know which lots are bad before they are shipped. This same information(lot number, product number) is of course carried by the retailers' inventory and POS systems in case a recall is ordered, and I guess the cops were able to match the guy's debit card and stuff.

Funny how some of the best encryption and biggest piles of unique "data" can produced by ordinary junk and things in nature when you look at them up close.

Why would they meet in Oakland? That place is horrible. quote>

Not really. Remember Oakland is next to Berkeley and part of the Bay Area. A lot of what was ghetto is gentrified now.

Will Wright live(d) in the upscale Oakland Hills, at least before his burned down in the 1991 Oakland Hills wildfire, which became one the scenarios in SC2K

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Why would they meet in Oakland? That place is horrible. quote>

Not really. Remember Oakland is next to Berkeley and part of the Bay Area. A lot of what was ghetto is gentrified now.

Will Wright live(d) in the upscale Oakland Hills, at least before his burned down in the 1991 Oakland Hills wildfire, which became one the scenarios in SC2K

quote>

Everytime I drive through Oakland I make sure I get out of there quick. The place is horrible. I live in San Jose so I go through there every now and then only if I have too, like if I need to get to Berkeley and 680 is blocked up. But even then, I'd rather suffer through the traffic.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Interesting concept. The ballot tracking doesn't need and should not be done, because, do you really want the government to be able to find out who you voted for? That defeats the purpose of having a secret ballot. Other than that, the technique can be used to spot counterfeits of all kinds.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

who cares who voted for who?quote>

Someone with power who wants to rig an election.

Back in the day, voting was often done by grabbing one of two sheets of paper (color coded) and putting it into a box. The point was so that even if you were illiterate (which used to be much more common), you could vote by knowing "use the blue paper for candidate x, use the red paper for candidate y".

The problem with this was that  since voting wasn't anonymous, factory owners and other big businessmen were enabled to strongarm things. They'd tell their employees to all vote for a certain candidate, then station a "spy" at the polling place to watch and see if they could spot any employees voting for someone else, and if they did, to make note of who. That person would then show up at work the next day and be informed that his services were no longer required.

So, private ballots to preserve voter anonymity were implemented to put an end to those shenanigans.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

who cares who voted for who?quote>

Someone with power who wants to rig an election.

Back in the day, voting was often done by grabbing one of two sheets of paper (color coded) and putting it into a box. The point was so that even if you were illiterate (which used to be much more common), you could vote by knowing "use the blue paper for candidate x, use the red paper for candidate y".

The problem with this was that  since voting wasn't anonymous, factory owners and other big businessmen were enabled to strongarm things. They'd tell their employees to all vote for a certain candidate, then station a "spy" at the polling place to watch and see if they could spot any employees voting for someone else, and if they did, to make note of who. That person would then show up at work the next day and be informed that his services were no longer required.

So, private ballots to preserve voter anonymity were implemented to put an end to those shenanigans.quote>

That reminds me of this bit from a book on the 19th century I'm reading:

"...landlords in local and national politics expected support at the polls. Where necessary, it was enforced by bribery or coercion... One German landlord distributed completed ballot papers to his peasants in sealed envelopes. A curious voter started to open his to see how he was voting, and received a smack on the head from the outraged bailiff: 'It's a secret ballot, you swine!'"

[Jezus53 18]

I love how ST knows their history! I don't think it would ever be used in that way since it would be complicated to do so. The only group I could think of doing that would be the Union. No offence to union workers, but you always hear of them endorsing certain politicians and telling their workers how to vote. I'm not saying they're the only ones, just the ones that always stick out.

[Strategist01 0]

Well, first of all, firing someone that didn't vote the way you wanted them to vote is wrong, but it was the 19th century then, with exploitation of workers to maximise profits, and poor health, etc...

But it would just be highly inefficient to scan votes...I mean, feel sorry for the poor sod who has to count the votes, (a) and (b) then have to scan each voting paper four times, then move on to the next one...keep in mind that placing the paper right, opening the lid, closing the lid, takes maybe 10 seconds in total, then repositioning it 3 more times, bring it up to 40 seconds per paper, not counting the scanning times, which would proabably bring the times up to 1 minute per vote...I don't even know how many votes a counter would have, but it would extend the counting process by a few weeks. What a waste of time.

Originally posted by: JanYpe

That reminds me of this bit from a book on the 19th century I'm reading:

"...landlords in local and national politics expected support at the polls. Where necessary, it was enforced by bribery or coercion... One German landlord distributed completed ballot papers to his peasants in sealed envelopes. A curious voter started to open his to see how he was voting, and received a smack on the head from the outraged bailiff: 'It's a secret ballot, you swine!'" quote>

Good one!