×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Photoshop Fails At Counterfeit Prevention

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the but-the-secret-porn-filter-works-great dept.

Software 712

JediDan writes "Wired reports that the 'Anti-counterfeiting provisions in the latest version of Adobe Systems' flagship product have proven little more than a speed bump, but company representatives insist that including them was the right thing to do.' Kevin Connor, Adobe's director of product management for professional digital imaging said, 'As a market leader and a good corporate citizen, this just seems like the right thing to do.' Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

712 comments

What were they thinking? (1)

Mondoz (672060) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974426)

They thought it couldn't be bypassed?

Re:What were they thinking? (5, Insightful)

mutewinter (688449) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974464)

Hmm sounds just like software companies that are conned into spending boatloads of money on elaberate copy-protection schemes which are broken in days instead of hours.

Re:What were they thinking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974513)

Hmm sounds like someone needs to look up the meaning of the word "counterfeiting".

Re:What were they thinking? (1)

macMaestro (741440) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974529)

'The ease with which people seemed to be eluding the anti-counterfeiting software left some wondering why Adobe had included it in the first place.' Just copy and paste the picture from another application to circumvent the software? Did adobe even really try?

Re:What were they thinking? (1, Interesting)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974620)

Adobe didn't write the detection code. They got a 'black box' to insert into their product..

I'm not sure how much info on this code they got but negelecting to run clipboard content through the black box before pasting seems like a large oversight. Then again, one of their concerns performance and having this code run every time there is a paste operation would probably be a significant processing overhead.

Re:What were they thinking? (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974591)

It's not their responsibility to fight terrorism, so any attempt to prevent it whatsoever is a good faith effort on their part. Adobe should in no way be faulted for this.

Huh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974433)

Yeah, they shouldn't research useless features like this.... I mean come on!

Considered they might have been pushed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974434)

Have you considered they might have been pushed?

Re:Considered they might have been pushed? (2, Funny)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974459)

Have you considered they might have been pushed?

I thought that was Humpty Dumpty....

Re:Considered they might have been pushed? (5, Informative)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974518)

The poster just didn't RTFA

"The anti-counterfeit software in Photoshop CS was developed by the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group, an organization established by the governors of the G-10 central banks to promote the use of anti-counterfeit devices in the computer industry....The inner workings of the counterfeit deterrence system are so secret that not even Adobe is privy to them. The Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group provides the software as a black box without revealing its precise inner workings, Connor said."

Re:Considered they might have been pushed? (5, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974598)

The Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group provides the software as a black box without revealing its precise inner workings

How comfortable would you be using a "counterfeit deterrence system" that you had no idea how it works. Makes you wonder if it also has the capability to "phone home" when someone tries to make anything remotely resembling a banknote, or whether there are back doors.

YRO? (-1, Flamebait)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974437)

So, now Counterfeiting is one of Our Rights Online?

Re:YRO? (4, Interesting)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974469)

Silly. There are thousands of possible reasons why someone might want to work with graphical images of banknotes other than counterfeiting. Blocking all those legal uses to prevent one illegal use is a violation of our rights.

Re:YRO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974504)

Sure. It ranks right up there with such great rights as:

-Copyright violation
-Free porn
-Enlarging your manhood
-Cheap Viagra
-Claiming ownership over Linux

Isn't it amazing?

Re:YRO? (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974577)

Do you honestly think this thing will stop counterfitting? What I *do* expect sometime soon is a web page full of images that have nothing to do with counterfitting but which can't be edited with photoshop because of false positives.

Never assume that a device, law, or drug does exactly what it's supposed to do, and nothing else.

Big brother is coming to software. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974440)

Not like this sort of junk is expected from the U.S. and the U.S.-wannabe E.U.

Dupe? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974443)

Wasn't even a week ago [slashdot.org] .

Re:Dupe? (2, Informative)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974491)

No. The previous article was about Photoshop containing anti-counterfeiting measures. This article is about it being circumvented.

Mismanaged resources (5, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974448)

Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable.

Maybe they should just skip the product and go directly to printing the money.

Re:Mismanaged resources (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974590)

You cant do that on Photoshop :D

Unless you work around via ImageReady :D

Really, theyre devs are smart :D Just not on things like blocking and anti copying :D

their products would be more affordable. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974450)

You can buy photoshop? I got mine from ShareReactor. I thought it was free?

My grandmother is a $20 bill? (5, Funny)

The I Shing (700142) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974451)

"From Adobe's standpoint, all we're concerned about really is that it doesn't have a performance impact on customers, that it's stable and doesn't cause crashes and that it's not going to produce false positives -- that it's going to tell someone that a picture of someone's grandmother is a $20 bill," Connor said.

That's good, because there's nothing like having a top-of-the-line imaging program tell you that your grandmother looks like Andrew Jackson. Yikes!

Re:My grandmother is a $20 bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974520)

My grandmother looks just like Andrew Jackson, you insensitive clod!!!!!!!!!

Re:My grandmother is a $20 bill? (5, Funny)

been42 (160065) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974588)

That's good, because there's nothing like having a top-of-the-line imaging program tell you that your grandmother looks like Andrew Jackson. Yikes!

Somewhere, Bea Arthur's grandson sheds a silent tear as he tries to scan family pictures.

Re:My grandmother is a $20 bill? (1, Offtopic)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974643)

Congratulations. You're the first person who's made me laugh out loud while reading Slashdot in a long time. Quite an accomplishment.

Photoshop's real purpose (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974455)

Let's all forget about counterfeiting, and concentrate on Photoshop's real purpose: pasting celebrities' heads on nude bodies.

CYA? (1)

fiendo (217830) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974457)

It's all about deterrence not effectiveness. Adobe just needs to show they made a good faith effort to stem this sort of illegal activity so they can't get nailed when someone dupes a ben franklin.

Re:CYA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974561)

making copies of ben franklin is not illegal.

never has been...you can make millions of dollars in copies.

but the second you spend one, that is when you broke the law.

so making dupes of ben is not an illegal activity

Re:CYA? (1)

dalamarian (741404) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974571)

Well, make one show of good faith, then stop so that the costs aren't passed onto the law-abiding customers. Anybody who seriously wants to counterfeit will just bypass the silly "feature"

Re:CYA? (2, Interesting)

-Grover (105474) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974614)

This is short and to the point, but exactly right.

Adobe doesn't need to integrate 100% effective technology to prevent the duplication of currency. What they were trying to do was put in a nice little token positive to throw around if they ever got caught in a legal battle with Uncle Sam, if he ever said Adobe made it too easy to copy the currency effectively.

It's amazing what sort of stakeholder gain you get from adding in just a nice little tidbit feature like this. It looks good to Joe user, and since obviously it's being covered in the news, you get free advertisement for how "friendly and responsible" the software is. Marketing and Social genius, if you ask me.

Wow, must be some advanced scanning features (1)

pummer (637413) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974460)

Digital artist Kiera Wooley circumvented the restrictions simply by cutting and pasting a bank-note image from another graphics utility into Photoshop.

how else would you open an image of currency?

Re:Wow, must be some advanced scanning features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974543)

File->Open ?

Or don't you use computers?

Re:Wow, must be some advanced scanning features (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974601)

1. Scan image into scanning program. 2. Copy image into PS. 3. ??? 4. Profit!

Re:Wow, must be some advanced scanning features (1)

Lizard_King (149713) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974585)

Perhaps Kiera is taking advantage of the difference between opening a graphic in Photoshop and starting from a new graphic and pasting content in. If this is the case, the currency recognition algorithm only seems to be running when opening docs, or scanning new items directly into photoshop and NOT when pasting items from memory.

not like we haven't seen this before (5, Insightful)

fugu (99277) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974461)

great, another protection mechanism that's easily sidestepped by the real crooks but manages to irritate legitimate users

Re:not like we haven't seen this before (2, Informative)

jonfromspace (179394) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974621)

Why would 99% of legitimate users ever need to scan a bill? I mean really... This seems to be much ado about nothing...

M.

Economics (3, Informative)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974463)

Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable

Please, stop making comments on what they should price their software until you take some rudimentary economics courses.

Re:Economics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974540)

or, spend thousands of man-months developing your own photoshop clone.

Re:Economics (3, Insightful)

Mr. McGibby (41471) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974581)

How about, instead of insulting people and their intelligence, you give us a easy to understand explanation of why this person is wrong since you imply that you know so much about economics.

contrary position-Economics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974606)

Apparently "useless features" or "less affordable" isn't enough to get people to switch to the GIMP, as every GIMP article on Slashdot proves.

Re:Economics (1)

Zathrus (232140) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974612)

Agreed. I just checked... Photoshop CS (the subject of the article) is available for $650. That's a freaking drop in the bucket for anyone that actually needs those kind of photo editing capabilities.

Most of the people whining about the price are people who wouldn't use Photoshop's power anyway, and could easily use a much less expensive package. And, heck, there's always The Gimp -- which offers most of Photoshop's power for absolutely no cost. And yes, it runs on Windows too.

R&D time and money? (5, Informative)

ZiZ (564727) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974466)

The article says the counterfeit detection scheme was provided to them as a black-box piece of code. They didn't even develop it, and don't actually have any idea what it does or how it works! (Didn't a previous article include a fairly detailed explanation? Something about circles in the blue channel or something? Their solution? Request approved images directly from the government.

Re:R&D time and money? (1)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974563)

Decompile and analyse it. And then write a crack. Or a replacement in case it is a simple DLL file. (I guess it is.)
Shouldn't be that hard, should it? :)

They alreday tried this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974468)

And that theme song in which the words could be changed to "Muppet Babies, we show our weens to you"...

Simply sad..I pine for a simpler day.

Your Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH and DENNIS.

>_

GIMP plugin? (4, Funny)

trb (8509) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974473)

This just in, the GIMP is providing an optional anti-counterfeiting plugin, for people who want it. Seems fair.

Re:GIMP plugin? (1)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974557)

This just in, the GIMP is providing an optional anti-counterfeiting plugin, for people who want it. Seems fair.

Hah ha! If you would like to stop yourself from counterfeiting, download this module and install it for use in Gimp. If you are a counterfeiter, please download and install the module. Then do not attempt to bypass it's security in any way.

Re:GIMP plugin? (1, Offtopic)

Bagels (676159) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974574)

It's fairly pointless unless it can be made password-protected (so that other users can't disable it). Does anyone know whether that's the case?

Re:GIMP plugin? (3, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974587)

Can GIMP plugins be closed-source and still be compatible with the GPL on the GIMP?

Re:GIMP plugin? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974595)

I think this was a joke, and it's actually pretty funny. Feel free to steal mod points from this post, making it -5, and mod parent up.

Re:GIMP plugin? (1)

cb8100 (682693) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974609)

Oh, yeah, optional. THAT's going to work.

YRO (Score: 99, best question ever)
Anonymous coward writes:Dear slashdot, I'm trying to counterfeit $20 U.S. notes with GIMP. Why isn't it working?

Cowboy Neal writes: Remove the optional anti-counterfeit plugin!

Re:GIMP plugin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974617)

GIMP does NOT work with drawing tablets

Go figure.

They cause GTK to go bonkers. And they wonder why GIMP is shit and photoshop is the winner?

How tarded can they get, a drawing program that doesnt support tablets because of its toolkit , fuckin funy.

totally sweet! (5, Funny)

fjordboy (169716) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974476)

That's awesome...let me fire up my dot matrix printer and I'll be in the money in no time! Woo!

The trick is (2, Insightful)

chadw17 (308037) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974478)

somewhat clever, but nothing too impressive. Import needed currency image from another program, even earlier versions of Photoshop, then use, save, print as usual, no more image checking is done.

Rather than blast Adobe for including this, a better idea in my opinion is to be somewhat grateful that there's no constant checking in place to waste CPU cycles, or slow down graphic developers everytime an image is saved or loaded.

Useless R&D increases cost (4, Insightful)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974481)

Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable.

No kidding. And that only starts the downward spiral. Once your software is over a couple hundred dollars a lot of people who would like to pay for it can't afford it. Those people either use it without paying for it, or don't use it at all. Either way, they aren't paying, which leads to a further increase in cost to the remainder who are buying. And on and on...

I almost choke when I see the prices on some of the software bundles, especially Adobe.

Re:Useless R&D increases cost (4, Insightful)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974583)

Nonsense. Photoshop is a tool for professionals. Professionals can afford it. If you're not a professional you don't need it and it's not being marketed to you anyway. Get Paintshop or become a graphic artist.

Re:Useless R&D increases cost (1)

kafka93 (243640) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974629)

And again we have the bizarre assertion that people pirating software leads to increased software prices. How can this possibly be true? If high software prices mean that the revenue loss to the company from people electing not to buy the company is lower than the revenue gain to the company from the increased costs, the company should *lower* the price of the software. This is true irrespective of whether people are pirating the software.

The anti-piracy crusaders really need to stop pushing their bogus economics - software isn't expensive because people pirate it: it's expensive because software companies like making money.

[OT] What kind of scanner can do this? (1)

DeathPenguin (449875) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974482)

It seems that it would take one hell of a scanner to produce a passable currency note with the really, really tiny writing. Shouldn't that be enough of a deterrent for a while longer? I don't doubt that some people have that sort of equipment, but it's not like you can go to Best Buy, pick up a scanner on sale, and start counterfeiting money.

"Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money (1, Troll)

log0n (18224) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974483)

Adobe is required by US law to include anti-counterfeiting measures into their software.

Re:"Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and mo (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974515)

http://www.moneyfactory.com/document.cfm/18/103

(Bureau of Engraving and Printing)

Re:"Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974631)

Not elsewhere on the world. so keep that to US markets and let us alone.

US != world.

Anyway the US economy is in the crapper so hah :D

and you wonder why.

Re:"Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and mo (2, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974642)

Does that mean software like the GIMP is illegal?

Good faith effort? (3, Insightful)

dustmote (572761) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974484)

I'm sure they weren't really trying to make it impossible to counterfeit, because it would make so many other image processing tasks more difficult, or at least increase the program's overhead. All they have to do is make a cursory effort to sort of say that they tried. Then again, I'm not too clear on the reasons for doing that either, maybe good PR? Still, it seems like it should be pretty readily apparent that this is an impossible task. They probably stopped all the fourteen year old kids counterfeiting perfect 20s, though.

umm (2, Insightful)

Coderstop (701079) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974494)

"Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable"

They didn't spend any R&D time on the anti-counterfeiting aspect of Photoshop CS.

From the article - "The anti-counterfeit software in Photoshop CS was developed by the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group"

Also, their products are priced fairly for the power they have. Photoshop in particular is an invaluable tool, and it's easily possible to get back the money you've invested in it by using it to design many different types of media.

What R&D money? (5, Insightful)

Sklivvz (167003) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974495)

From the article: The inner workings of the counterfeit deterrence system are so secret that not even Adobe is privy to them. The Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group provides the software as a black box without revealing its precise inner workings, Connor said.

So Adobe just plugged in an OCX in their program or something similarly easy. It's not this "feature" that bloats the price tag, I'm afraid.

Also, why all this secrecy on the "inner workings" of the software, when it's so easily circumvented (e.g. copy and paste from another app)? Why should scanning money be illegal? It's ridiculous - it's like banning knives because they could be dangerous. It's not the technology, it's the use you make of it. I don't understand why politicians fail to understand this simple concept: technology is not evil or good, it does not pose new moral problems. It's always the same problems, just with a different twist in the details.

Re:What R&D money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974658)

It's more like building a knife that refuses to cut human skin.

Sure, this might prevent accidents and murders, though cutting skin is not illegal (surgeons do it every day).

"useless" ? (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974497)

Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable.

and :
from the but-the-secret-porn-filter-works-great dept.

So, what do you mean ?
A little bodily activity is more useful than preventing contrefacon ?

Paint Shop Pro (-1, Troll)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974499)

Is, and for about 5 years now has been, my preferd alternative - it lacks all the stupid bullshit Adobe can't help but cram into a product.

Re:Paint Shop Pro (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974555)

HURF BLURF MY NAME IS VLAD, and I like stuffing cocks in my fat face!

It's a feature (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974505)

The fact that Adobe's products aren't affordable is yet another anti-counterfeiting feature. Users who can afford Photoshop have more money (and thus less need to counterfeit) than the general population.

The next version promises to be even less affordable, to the degree that no matter how rich you are, you'll have to counterfeit money just to buy it--thus ensuring that you don't use it to make the counterfeits!

What's more fun... (0, Troll)

Mr. Darl McBride (704524) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974506)

What's more fun is that there will be false positives. Add curtained memory and Palladium crap to this, and instead of an error, Photoshop 9 will be talking to your local police about this over a secure channel that you're not allowed to tamper with.

The feds will come a knockin' because something in Photoshop had a wide aspect ratio and lots of green detail. And just you see if they believe that you tried making an auction image for your Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles beach towel.

from the 'nice try' dept. (3, Interesting)

djupedal (584558) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974511)

Tens years ago, while working for a tech firm in Tokyo, I was around when new color copiers were delivered that supposedly had the ability to detect currency.

Took about a minute to foil them...

Re:from the 'nice try' dept. (1)

slezakdj (652972) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974627)

HP has taken steps to get counterfeit detection in their printers as well. A professor of mine went to see a demo of the printer and glorified what it could do. Though the people who want to counterfeit money will do so anyways. More information about the HP counterfeit technology can be found in the article HP Helps U.S. Clamp Down on Counterfeiting [hp.com] .

Cheers!

Photography boards (5, Insightful)

mtrupe (156137) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974512)


I am an amatuer photographer. Its really funny how just about EVERYONE I know who is into photography has a copy of photoshop. Hmmm... They can't afford a new $500 flash, but they can afford $500 for Photoshop.

Its obvious to me the Photoshop is way, way overpriced. Now, Adobe is free to charge whatever they want for it, but the average Joe is not willing to dump $500 on software.

True, counterfeiting software is not a "right", but its bound to happen when companies overcharge. Why do you think people are so quick to download music and copy CDs?

Re:Photography boards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974589)

You can warez a copy of Photoshop. You can't warez a flash. Duh.

Re:Photography boards (1)

mtrupe (156137) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974630)

My point exaclty... Everyone who is into digital photography has a copy of photoshop. I seriously doubt that all these people paid for it. It seems to me Adobe would be wise to charge for like $40 for Photoshop and vastly broaden the base of paying customers.

The solution to this problem (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974523)

Is secure and anonymous digital cash, not stupid gimicky features or restrictions on technology. The Chaum patents expire in 2005, so we only have a year or two to wait for someone to make a good implementation of them.

Stupid patents. Do more to stifle innovation than they do to help.

Caused more of a problem (1)

Performer Guy (69820) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974530)

I doubt there's ever been as much scanning & loading of bank notes into Photoshop and as much awareness that this was possible. All thanks to Adobe's nannying attempt to stop it. One wonders how this happened. I mean did the Secret Service ask them or did they do this all on their own, it seems very strange that they'd instigate this feature by themselves unless they were trying to head off legislation.

Oh well, looks like we have another counterproductive attempt to control what people do with technology.

Price (4, Insightful)

RealityMogul (663835) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974531)

Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable

First off, every company spends time/money for R&D on features or products that never even reach the consumer, let alone generate a profit. Any company that hasn't done so would take over the entire planet in a short amount of time.

Secondly, Photoshop has been expensive for the last decade. Do you really think they sat down 10 years ago and budgetted 50 million dollars to add an anti-counterfeitting feature? You charge what the market can bear. And the market has been able to bear a $700 price tag (or whatever they're charging). As proof of this, I submit the fact that Adobe is still in business.

It's fine to whine about MS charging $XXX for products that aren't anywhere near the best tool for any job, but Photoshop is an incredible tool and worth every penny.

t3h C14 pwnz j00 (1)

pummer (637413) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974533)

The inner workings of the counterfeit deterrence system are so secret that not even Adobe is privy to them. The Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group provides the software as a black box without revealing its precise inner workings, Connor said.

Wow, I'm sure Adobe has NO idea what's going into its own products, they just copy and paste government code in like THAT without even looking at it.

Sounds good to me (2, Funny)

mekkab (133181) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974534)

When the counterfeit deterrence system detects an attempt to access a currency image, it aborts the operation, displays a warning message and directs the user to a website with information on international counterfeiting laws.


That sure beats a Goatse redirect.

I wanted to buy Photoshop, but the price! (1, Interesting)

SEGV (1677) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974537)

I was just a few days ago pricing Photoshop CS. I need to buy it for my new business.

It's over $800 Cdn!

No frickin way am I paying that much. $300 would be more reasonable.

I'm just going to get Paint Shop Pro instead. What is Adobe thinking? I want to buy Photoshop, but I'm not stupid.

Re:I wanted to buy Photoshop, but the price! (2, Funny)

lyonsden (543685) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974644)

I want to buy Photoshop, but I'm not stupid.

Then obviously you are not in their target market.

Take it out.... (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974546)

Adobe had to know going in that this would be easily circumvented by genuine crooks while frustrating legitimate users with legitimate reasons to include currency in their editorial, creative and commercial graphics. It was a stupid measure and should be removed ASAP.

Flagship product? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7974565)

Adobe's flagship product is Acrobat [planetpdf.com] . They make much more money off Acrobat than Photoshop.

R&D time and money? (2, Funny)

endeitzslash (570374) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974570)

"Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable."

I'm sure they are just printing their own money anyway.

americentric criminals (2, Insightful)

theMerovingian (722983) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974573)


Does it only detect features on American currency? I would much prefer to bootleg money from a country that wouldn't hunt me down with a "Secret Service", if I were a criminal.

WHY... Please tell me WHY! (1)

WD (96061) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974580)

Other Photoshop CS users said they had successfully imported bank-note images by ... scanning an image in pieces and reassembling it in Photoshop.

I don't even want to think about the reasoning here...

use something else (1)

oohp (657224) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974610)

Well counterfeiters will use something other than Photoshop or will use Photoshop 8. As there aren't enough raster graphics programs out there. This isn't going to stop crooks so I guess it's a useless measure. Making money counterfeit proof is the answer. They wasted precious programmer hours to do it and the final costs are also supported by the people who actually buy Photoshop. So I suppose this is how Adobe is cutting down costs. They failed to make any new innovations and this is what they do to justify a new version. A friend who's a graphics artist told me Photoshop CS is exactly the same as Photoshop 7, save the version number increment.

black box (1)

wrax (570032) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974613)

The inner workings of the counterfeit deterrence system are so secret that not even Adobe is privy to them. The Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group provides the software as a black box without revealing its precise inner workings, Connor said.

Just what we need, more suspicious code included in already closed source software. Wonder if it calls home when the "black box" is tripped.

Kneejerk reactions (1)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974633)

First iteration of software feature doesn't fix problem 100%. Therefore, we must abandon all attempts at the feature.

Does that mean the Linux kernel will be removing virtual memory and the ext2 filesystem?

'Feature' already trespassed! (4, Informative)

rastakid (648791) | more than 10 years ago | (#7974640)

This 'feature' is already trespassed! Take a look in this forum [dutchphotozone.com] (Dutch, sorry). It says there that when you scan multiple bills you won't get an error, and even when you crop them one-by-one, you're still not stopped in your job. Screenshots available.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...