Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Printer Graphics Software Technology

Xerox Exploits Printer Flaws To Make Pseudo-Holograms 187

Posted by timothy from the bug-to-feature-while-you-wait dept.
Red Wolf writes "A chance discovery by Xerox lets printers superimpose glossy images on regular printouts, creating the possibility for document authentication along the lines of holograms on credit cards. The new technology, called Glossmark, can use ordinary office printers to superimpose a glossy image on an ordinary printed document in a way that can't be photocopied or otherwise easily reproduced."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xerox Exploits Printer Flaws To Make Pseudo-Holograms More

Xerox Exploits Printer Flaws To Make Pseudo-Holograms

Comments Filter:

  • I know what to copy (Score:5, Funny)

    by ajuda ( 124386 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:31AM (#6595457)
    Who wants to let me borrow his credit cards?

  • Obligatory Joke... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <ieshan@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:31AM (#6595461) Homepage Journal
    It's not a bug, it's a feature!

    • But it's true... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NeoBeans ( 591740 )
      Any bug you can control is a feature! The big question in my mind would be... what would stop some enterprising individual from replicating this bug to forge the watermarks?

      • Re:But it's true... (Score:4, Informative)

        by schmink182 ( 540768 ) <schmink182 AT yahoo DOT com> on Saturday August 02, 2003 @12:34PM (#6595709) Homepage
        You might note that they noted this in the article: The company ultimately will have to decide--if it is intended to be a security-enhancing process aimed at authenticating documents, having the technology widely available to would-be document forgers would be a problem, Rolleston said.

        They apparently are considering using the exploit decoratively instead of for security, since it is always possible to forge something made by "common office printers."

        • Re:But it's true... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jhoffoss ( 73895 )
          If something is easily reproducible, it no longer becomes a security feature. The whole basis of anything in security is that it is not easily forgeable. If you could just run a simple program to generate someone's private PGP key from the public key, PGP is now useless. Granted, it may be difficult to manufacture a credit card and get a forged Visa logo on it, but it is possible if you are resourceful enough. On that note, lets not forget that even now, you could purchase the equipment to print holograms,

    • Re:Obligatory Joke #2 (Score:5, Funny)

      by tgrigsby ( 164308 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @12:17PM (#6595656) Homepage Journal
      Tickets to the Superbowl: $0
      Credit card to charge up $9000 in stereo equipment: $0
      Same credit card, Quad-CPU, 16 gigs RAM, 1 terrabyte machine with all the latest blings: $0

      A lawyer that can use the "it was a bug in the printer" defense to successfully get you off: Priceless.

      • Re:Obligatory Joke #2 (Score:5, Funny)

        by identity0 ( 77976 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @03:32PM (#6596313) Journal
        A lawyer that can use the "it was a bug in the printer" defense to successfully get you off: Priceless.

        Paying that lawyer with the same card: even more priceless.

  • Great security... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:34AM (#6595474)
    If it's easily available on a commercially available printer, how does it provide great security?

    • Re:Great security... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Sunday August 03, 2003 @05:36AM (#6599034) Homepage
      The idea is that you can't print it unless you know what to tell the printer to print. An ordinary scanner will pick up the image, but it won't pick up the gloss pattern. Therefore you don't have the gloss pattern to send to the printer.

      The problem with their "security" is that I don't think it would be that hard to use a non-standard scanning technique to pick a decent scan of the gloss. It would just take some creative scanning, some image processing, and trial and error to get it right. If there's any motivation to do it then it can be done without too much difficulty.

      To detal one plan, scan it in the usualy way to get the base image. Then use a camera to get digital photos of it from a variety of angles that maximize the gloss. Map the original scan onto the new gloss images and subtract the base image out of the gloss. Hand tweak the glossmap. Viola! Print!

      The method I described would probably have poor resolution in the glossmap, but (1) the glossmap is probably a low resolution process anyway and (2) you can get a high rez glossmap if you just put in more work.

      I suggest that Xerox drop any "security" pretense for this feature and just include it as a cool extra ability. Glossmaps are a million times easier to copy than a hologram. They are useless for security.

      -

  • Wait.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by kennylives ( 27274 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:36AM (#6595483) Journal
    Isn't running an already-printed page through a printer a violation of the DMCA or something?

    • Re:Wait.... (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by Trigun ( 685027 )
      It is now.

    • Re:Wait.... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, but I don't think you're forced to sue yourself under the DMCA. That would just be silly.

      You're being silly! Stop it! (sorry, was just playing the monty python mod for NWN)

  • Security? How? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:36AM (#6595485)
    way that can't be photocopied or otherwise easily reproduced

    Uh, except for on another Xerox printer?

    • Re:Security? How? (Score:2, Informative)

      by iantri ( 687643 )
      ?

      The document can still be reproduced, the point is -- the pseudo-hologram can not. If the document is missing the pseudo-hologram, you know that it has been duplicated.
      • why can't I, or someone else, reproduce the psuedo-hologram?

        even if it's a fairly intricate graphic reproducing on a computer something that would pass for the original is typically fairly easy

        to quote Xerox: Can be produced by existing Xerox printing solutions

        So anyone with the correct Xerox printer now has the ability to create a close copy of your document, complete with the pseudo-hologram

        • These changes are not picked up by typical scanners or easily captured with photography.

          It's a way to print a pattern or message out of a series of shiny/non-shiny patches on the paper. But if you look at it from top-down (the same way a scanner views a document) the changes are not visible.

          So, you could print "Look for the logo between these lines: ---| @@ |--- " and if the person reading it doesn't see it, they can hopefully suspect a forgery.

          This would be good for coupons, low-value stuff. You wo

    • The security would lie in the fact that it looks different from different angles. So if you scan it/photocopy it/whatever, you only get *one* angle on it, and thus there is no easy way to get a digitized version of the watermark to feed to that other Xerox printer.
  • how is this secure if everyone and their baby's daddy's momma can print up whatever they want. tickets to the superbowl - $0 credit card used to buy $9,000 Plasma TV - $0 fake id - $0 the fact that you made them up on a printer at work - priceless

    • Re:How is this secure..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rosyna ( 80334 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:40AM (#6595503) Homepage
      You couldn't copy the original image. You'd have to have to separate source images (the bg and the layover) to counterfeit successfully. It's just another wall, really.
      • You couldn't copy the original image. You'd have to have to separate source images

        Not difficult at all, due to the use of "glossy"... In fact, that makes it somewhat easier

        Scan it normally, then scan it under artificially bright illumination (probably need to modify a scanner, but they cost what, $30?). The glossy parts will saturate, which you can then use as a mask to separate the gloss from the regular print.

        Congrats, Xerox, you've come up with yet another insecure way of making us feel safer.
  • On Thursday, the company is unveiling a new technology it calls "Glossmark," which can use ordinary office printers to superimpose a glossy image on an ordinary printed document in a way that can't be photocopied or otherwise easily reproduced.

    It can't be reproduced or copied. Unless you own a Xerox printer I guess:

    Can be produced by existing Xerox printing solutions.

    I don't really see how this works. If there's a document I want to fake I just whip out Quark and reproduce the Glossmark on my Xerox

    • Re:It can be reproduced. Just not copied. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:44AM (#6595525)

      Can be produced by existing Xerox printing solutions.

      I don't really see how this works. If there's a document I want to fake I just whip out Quark and reproduce the Glossmark on my Xerox printer. Wha?


      "Can be produced" isn't the same as "can be reproduced." Sure, I guess you could print out your own copies -- if you had access to the original images. If I understand correctly, most of the point is that you can't just scan the image and retain the glossmark effect.

  • And then... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Misch ( 158807 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:41AM (#6595514) Homepage
    And then Xerox gives up the technology, somebody else picks it up and makes a bundle.

    Let's see... Mouse, GUI, Ethernet, Palm Graffiti, WYSIWYG word processors, and more [everything2.com]

  • Color laserjets? (Score:5, Informative)

    by groove10 ( 266295 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:44AM (#6595528) Homepage
    From reading the article (yes I read actually read it), it would seem that only the "wax" type color laserjet printers have this ability. There was a Slashdot article [slashdot.org] a while back that dealt with color laser printers and alternatives to inkjets. The news.com.com article does specify the models or type of printers where this was discovered. Any other info on this?

    I'm sure some hackers will try to do some mods on their printers to control this as well. {cough}fake holograms{/cough}

    On another note, how cool a job do these "Xerox Scientists" have? I need to get a job where I can hardware hack like these guys.

    • Re:Color laserjets? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2003 @12:05PM (#6595618)
      On another note, how cool a job do these "Xerox Scientists" have?

      From the books I've read about Xerox, it sounds more frustrating than cool to work in their R&D. You invent all this neat shit, and the copierheads at Xerox dont "get" it, so Xerox doesn't market it.

      Your only hope is to go to work for the other company that will eventually pick up the technology and make a mint with it, or to leave and found your own company to make what you invented.

      And with all the "intellectual property" crap being thrown into employment contracts these days, the latter of those two options is probably right out the door. If Bob Metcalfe was working at Xerox these days, he damn sure wouldn't be allowed to leave and start 3Com to sell ethernet hardware that he whipped up on Xerox's dime.
      • "And with all the "intellectual property" crap being thrown into employment contracts these days, the latter of those two options is probably right out the door. If Bob Metcalfe was working at Xerox these days, he damn sure wouldn't be allowed to leave and start 3Com to sell ethernet hardware that he whipped up on Xerox's dime. "

        Which laws have changed to prohibit this. If you`re talking about civil law (contracts) most companies have included pretty restrictive rules for years.

    • Re:Color laserjets? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by panurge ( 573432 )
      Could I just point out that "laserjet" and "color laserjet" are trade marks of Hewlett Packard, not Xerox, and that the wax printer process from Tektronix is completely different? The "jet" bit is used generically across HPs imaging products.
      (No, I don't work for HP, but I do work for a document output consultancy)

  • Great. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by James A. A. Joyce ( 681634 )
    I don't want to sound like a killjoy, but what do you think will be the odds that Xerox lets the average person get their hands on this technology? More likely that they'll take out about half a dozen patents on every known way of implementing it and then enforce ridiculously high licensing fees on any product or organisation which tries to use it.
  • Once the technique is widely spread, it's utility for authenticity will plummet as anyone including document forgers will be able to reproduce it.it's only useful as long as it stays a rare curiosity. By becoming popular it would make itself useless.
  • If you can see the 2 different images why can't I just do this myself ??? All i need is a photoshop'd copy of the original 2 pics (or something very similar) and a xerox .. oh ya, and time tons of time...

  • So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by i8a4re ( 594587 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:46AM (#6595541)
    Companies are going to adopt this technology because they can create an "uncopyable" product (probably tickets, coupons, and other vouchers), and they already have the technology in their office.

    In the mean time, some counterfeiter who has the same technology in their office or home will simply copy the main image and recreate the superimposed image in a graphics program. Then he will be able to print "authentic" tickets or whatever whenever he wants.

    The number one blockade in stopping conterfeiters is the machine that produces the items they want to counterfeit, not the complexity of the artwork or image. Sure, the complex image and holograph help, but that is mainly because consumer level and most business level products can't produce images that complex. Give me a few months and I could make a damn good couterfeit $20 bill if I only had the paper and the press that makes them. It wouldn't be perfect, but the average cashier wouldn't notice.

    • Give me a few months and I could make a damn good couterfeit $20 bill if I only had the paper and the press that makes them.

      Which is exactly why both the company that produces the paper and the company that produces the printing press are under contractual obligation not to sell either to anyone but the US government.

      "Contractual obligation," you say? I pity the poor fool who tries to go behind the federal government's back when it comes to the money it prints. And you thought IRS audits were bad...

    • not uncopyable, unforgeable.

    • Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2003 @12:39PM (#6595720)
      I could make a damn good couterfeit $20 bill if I only had the paper and the press that makes them.

      And your aunt could be your uncle, if she only had balls and a dick.

      You might get the paper by bleaching one-dollar bills, but you damn sure ain't getting the press. The Intaglio process used on U.S. currency applies the ink to the paper at great pressure, and in sufficient quantity to achieve an embossed effect. U.S. currency has a distinctive feel because of this, and were you to slip an inkjet or color laser-printed bleached-single $20 bill into a stack of $20s you used to pay for something, the cashier would notice it didn't feel right before he/she noticed it didn't look right.

      Intaglio presses are huge, somewhat rare, and cost in the millions of dollars, so you ain't gonna but putting one in your basement anytime soon. If you had the financial capability to do so, you wouldn't need to counterfeit money.

      Having said that, the Secret Service does have counterfeit bills produced by Intaglio presses, and believe that they are being produced by the government of some country hostile to the U.S.-- because that's the kind of moxie it takes to get your hands on an Intaglio press.
      • That's nice and all, but it's also exactly the point of the post you're replying to.

      • Having said that, the Secret Service does have counterfeit bills produced by Intaglio presses, and believe that they are being produced by the government of some country hostile to the U.S.-- because that's the kind of moxie it takes to get your hands on an Intaglio press.

        Actually I think there's a decent amount of evidence that the perfect counterfeits are coming from Russia. (And thus probbably produced by the Russian mafia.) IIRC the percentage of perfect countefeits is higher in Russia than anywher

        • IANAME (I Am Not A Macro-Economist), but the state sponsored economic attack sounds pretty dicey to me, since to have any real affect on raising inflation you'd have to produce so many counterfeit bills it'd become obvious what the source of the bills was.

          And some times, you may not care that it is obvious.

          There's decent evidence that the US has done exactly this in recent conflicts, at least in Iraq I and Bosnia. Google around for it if you're interested.

          • There's decent evidence that the US has done exactly this in recent conflicts, at least in Iraq I and Bosnia. Google around for it if you're interested.

            Because if it's on the internet, it must be true!!
          • I can believe this is possible, but only because it's a large power trying to affect a much smaller power. Assuming this is true I'm sure Iraq or Bosnia knew about what was happening, but didn't have any way of stopping it. You're right though, you don't need stealth when the person you're attacking can't respond effectively to an attack.

            It would also be considerably harder to perform a currency attack on the US simply because it's the largest single economy in the world. ($10 trillion GDP in 2001, vs

      • That's what he *said*. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Otto ( 17870 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @03:55PM (#6596397) Homepage Journal
        You might get the paper by bleaching one-dollar bills, but you damn sure ain't getting the press.

        Yes, but then if you re-read the post you're replying to, that's exactly what he said. It's not the artwork that's stopping him from making a good counterfeit, it's the lack of ability to obtain the machinery to do it.

        Making something "authentic" is relatively easy when the machinery is in every store. The Xerox machine can't make anything not easily counterfeited because everybody could get one cheaply and affordably, and then simply print out their own Glossmark crap.
    • Give me a few months and I could make a damn good couterfeit $20 bill if I only had the paper and the press that makes them.

      Yes, and I could build a nuclear bomb if I only had some nuclear... and a bomb.
    • If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.

      I think that is the funniest sig I have ever seen :)

  • details? how? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scrotch ( 605605 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:49AM (#6595555)
    I'd like to see some details about how they do this. Our office just got a Xerox color laser printer and would probably use this for some non-security stuff.

    When they say "current printers," it sounds like ours would just need a driver upgrade or something. I don't know how that's possible, but I don't know much about hardware and drivers. I'm also curious whether they'll charge for this new "feature" or just include it as an upgrade. Or whether it will only be available on newer high end printers despite working on current technology.

    • Re:details? how? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @12:42PM (#6595732)
      I'll take a stab at a guess how it works...and if this isn't how it works, I wonder if it would.

      -You print the document as normal.

      -On the repeat print, the "watermark" image color pattern matches the document you already printed. In essence, you double-up on the toner placed down in particular locations to make the Glossmark image. Viewed straight on, the extra-heavy toner pattern is indistinguishable from the rest of the printing as the color is the same, but the glossy surface is seen when viewed at an angle.

      It's just a guess, but it seems to make sense.
      • It works based on how hot the ink gets. The extra hot ink melts into the paper producing a diferent texture than if it just sits on top of teh paper.

        Perhaps they make the laser more intense or move it more slowly or do a second laser pass without ink.

        -

  • Article text for slow connections: (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    t's a little much to expect a hologram to come out of your office printer, but scientists at Xerox think they have the next best thing.

    On Thursday, the company is unveiling a new technology it calls "Glossmark," which can use ordinary office printers to superimpose a glossy image on an ordinary printed document in a way that can't be photocopied or otherwise easily reproduced.

    Taking advantage of eccentricities in laser printing processes, once viewed as flaws, the Xerox scientists think they've found a wa

  • Unless... (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Kr3m3Puff ( 413047 ) *
    photocopied or otherwise easily reproduced. ...unless of course you have a Glossmark printer.

  • basically looks like watermarking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:51AM (#6595562)
    I've noticed it too on photo paper. The way inkjets [i think that's what they're using] layer the ink can create a raised effect on certian printers ...though I mostly use HPs. The idea would be that someone couldn't just grab a document out of a file folder on your desk and color copy it--there's no change to the color..it's not really reproducable..it's too subtle. Heck, you could even put a serial number in a black box and number every copy you print! Then even with access to the hardware you couldn't just reprint something.

    It doesn't look really useful for preventing professional counterfieting, but for "casual" things [retail reciepts, HR files, inter-company corrospandance, etc.] It could come in handy for quick verification.

  • Silly question... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:51AM (#6595563) Homepage
    Now this might be a stupid question but using this would it be possible to have say two pages imposed on one so you could "read" a book by twisting the page...

    Just a thought

    Rus
    • Yeah, I guess that would be possible.
      It would be a major strain on your eyes though, considering it's sort of a hologram and all....
      You know what I mean?

    • Re:Silly question... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dAzED1 ( 33635 )
      its not really a hologram. Its a watermark-type thing. If it were a hologram - sure.

      Holograms have a bit more depth than 2 layers, however.

      was this a serious question? I can never tell these days if someone is just acting, or being...

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig.hogger@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Saturday August 02, 2003 @11:52AM (#6595565) Journal
    I suppose the next step would be ATMs that print money???
  • The new technology, called Glossmark, can use ordinary office printers to superimpose a glossy image on an ordinary printed document in a way that can't be photocopied or otherwise easily reproduced."

    1) place document on surface
    2) mount digital SLR camera on tripod
    3) tilt surface or camera until image appears
    4) Xerox OCR
    5) reprint using Xerox Glossmark
    6) ..
    7) profit!

  • This can't be legal (Score:5, Funny)

    by TimCrider ( 215456 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @12:03PM (#6595609)
    How can this be legal under the DMCA? I mean they are obviously circumventing their own protection scheme. Has anyone notified SCO, the MPAA, the RIAA, or better yet the FBI?!?!

  • Its not a hologram people. (Score:3, Informative)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @12:04PM (#6595614) Homepage Journal
    Its just multilayer printing, its has NOTHING to do with a hologram.

    Its interesting, though pretty much common sense, if you have run a sheet thru a printer 15 times.. ( and pray it doesn't jam.. the structure of paper is changed when it passes thru a fuser.. every time after that you risk paper jams. )

  • Xerox Exploits Printer Flaws... (Score:5, Funny)

    by doi ( 584455 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @12:07PM (#6595626)
    But of course, you don't hear anything about the OTHER laser printer companies exploiting THEIR printer flaws, even though we all KNOW they're doing it.

    Yet another sad commentary on the rampant cover-ups of the true nature of the pseudo-hologram industry.

  • "Glossmarks can consist of binary or multi-level images, graphics, text or bar codes, and can be detected by the human eye, cameras, scattering meters and laser scanners but cannot be detected by conventional scanners, copiers, colorimeters or densitometers."
    • I'll believe that one when I see it ... and when my scanner doesn't.

  • Speaking Of Documents (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 )
    A killer app that just happens to also be GPL'd that you can use to create PDF files on-the-fly with in Windows is called PDFCreator [sourceforge.net]. Basically it is a PostScript to PDF convertor. Installed it just appears as a new printer. When you print to PDFCreator it prompts you where to save the resulting file. The file created also has selectable text.

  • not layered prints (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2003 @12:39PM (#6595721)
    From what I gathered reading the article... this *technology* is about controlling the glossyness of certain areas on a printed page. I don't think it involves running printed pages back through the printer... instead words/images would be differentiated by their gloss relative to the flat ink surrounding them. Looking straight at a matt photograph one would see nothing unusuall but looking at an angle one could make out shiny text, the degree of gloss is controlled, hence the "invisible to the eye" option.

    just my 2c,
    -ry

  • No wonder. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Greener ( 139534 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @01:02PM (#6595789)
    Xerox, which is struggling to fend off increasing competition from rivals such as Ikon and Canon

    No wonder Xerox is struggling. While other companies are busy developing new products Xerox techs are destracted by shiny objects.

    "Oooh, shiny!!!"

  • My guess how it works (Score:3, Informative)

    by Viadd ( 173388 ) on Saturday August 02, 2003 @01:51PM (#6595914)
    First, this is nothing like a hologram. (Reporter: This is shiny, holograms are shiny, this must be a hologram.)

    When you print continuous tone images with specific ink colors, you have to lay down tiny dots that cover, e.g. 30% of the paper with cyan, 20% magenta, 10% yellow, 15% black. The inks are then fixed in some way: heating, rolling, burnishing or whatever--details vary based on printing technology.

    If you put down the ink so that the cyan and yellow dots are: separated by a small gap; or touching each other; or piled up on top of each other; you will get different print characteristics.

    It may be e.g., that when wax-based ink drops are piled on top of each other, the burnishing gives it a glossy texture, while the same amounts of inks distributed in separate dots gives a matte finish. (This is just an example based on absolutly no specific knowledge.)

    Postscript and other printer control languages are sufficiently expressive that the software can control where the ink dots go. This lets the glossiness be controlled.

    This posting is probably a DMCA violation.
  • . . . can use ordinary office printers to superimpose a glossy image on an ordinary printed document in a way that can't be photocopied or otherwise easily reproduced."

    Unless you have an ordinary office printer.
  • I think most are missing the point of this article (maybe they should read it).

    The point is not that this enables forging.
    What it does is provide a much cheaper means for everyday users to produce gloss-watermarked documents that are much harder to forge casually.

    Yes the same technology can be used to produce gloss-watermarks for forging, but would require a much harder set of steps (the gloss-watermarks claim to be unscannable). The one down side, gullible people might accept gloss-watermarked doc

  • I've had this idea rolling around in my head...though this technology is not strictly speaking a holograpm (but is some type of OVD--optical variable device.)

    I would market with one little company, a special type of thin transparent paper that could go through a regular ink jet (and with a special ink jet cartridge) that could create high quality holograms. Sold obstensibly for "document security" their may purpose would be for faking the holograms on driver's licenses.

    Then I would have another company se

  • Finally... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 )
    Finally I can replace this candle wax and stamp sealer from the 1500's!
  • So... they exploit their own printers... and suddenly make a new product out of it?

    Isn't that called marketing?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Close