Beta
×

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!

Xerox Develops New Way to Print Invisible Ink

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the the-fax-says-I'm-the-boss-now dept.

Printer 87

scott3778 writes "Xerox said on Wednesday that its scientists have perfected a new method for printing hidden fluorescent wording using standard digital printing equipment. According to the company, the discovery paves the way for customers and businesses alike to add an additional layer of security to commonly printed materials such as checks, tickets, coupons, and other high-value documents. The hidden fluorescent words and letters show up only under ultraviolet light, said Reiner Eschbach, a research fellow in the Xerox Innovation Group, and the co-inventor of the patented process. What's more, the method for printing them doesn't require the use of special fluorescent inks."

cancel ×

87 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So what's new? (5, Informative)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330233)

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_10.php#00406 3 [eff.org]

Xerox (and the rest) have been hiding identifying marks in *our* printouts for ages now. It's a good job there's nothing to fear from our democratically elected governments who fight evil and oppression around the world.

Re:So what's new? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330585)

Soon ticket agents will be using ultraviolet lights? Sounds like the latest CSI spinoff to me.

Re:So what's new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19334923)

Are they going to be able to tell when I've gotten semen on my tickets?

Miraculous (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330235)

Step 1. Develop a simple document security measure that can be detected using UV light.
Step 2. Invent a way so that anybody can reproduce the same security measure using readily-available equipment, without special inks.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit!

Oh wait. I guess step 3 would be "start counterfeiting things."

even worse (4, Interesting)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331145)

From the article:

Xerox expects that over time, the technology will be used in personalized checks that will have the account holder's signature printed in a fluorescent stripe.

So they want to print my signature, right on the check, in a form that anyone with a UV light can read (even suggesting it is so the mrechant can verify "my" signature that way). How idiotic! First of all, the last thing that I want is my signature printed on the check so that any thief who gets hold of the checkbook can have a sample of what to practice signing my name like (it would be far better to use computer technology to show authorized bank tellers my segnature seperate from the check, easy enough to do with current computer technology). And worse, in an age where anyone can order checks with any account number on them (or even print them themselves), I hardly want the identity theives to be able to print their version of "my signature" on the checks they print so that they can convince someone accepting the check that it's valid because the signature matches.

Re:even worse (3, Interesting)

Kijori (897770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19334581)

And worse, in an age where anyone can order checks with any account number on them (or even print them themselves)
You've always been able to do this - you can take a piece of paper right now, write your bank information and payment instructions on it, sign and it can be used as a cheque. There was even a case in Britain of a payment order painted on the side of a cow being held to be a valid cheque. Now, I agree with the fact that printing someone's signature on the cheque is an awful idea, but being able to have cheques on any account number is nothing new.

Nice try... (2, Informative)

JMcWright (1038670) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337717)

...but you've been Snoped:
Cash Cow [snopes.com]

Re:Miraculous (0, Offtopic)

heatdeath (217147) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331253)

I'm glad to see that this was one of the first posts, because this is exactly what I thought when I saw the article description. :-)

Re:Miraculous (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19331447)

Actually, it works like this:

Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4: Profit!!!

subject (0, Redundant)

normuser (1079315) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330243)

begin message


end message

nothing for you to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19331397)

Move along

Oh crap.... (2, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330269)

Counterfeiting Canadian money just got a whole lot easier.

Re:Oh crap.... (2, Funny)

Cheezymadman (1083175) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330365)

It's still not worth the paper it's printed on.

Re:Oh crap.... (2, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330459)

You jest, but have you been paying attention to the exchange rates between U.S. and Canadian dollars [x-rates.com] lately?

Re:Oh crap.... (1)

Cheezymadman (1083175) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330647)

You mean aside from the fact that the US dollar is still stronger?

Re:Oh crap.... (1)

plalonde2 (527372) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331047)

Using the word "strong" in conjunction with the current state of the US dollar is evidence of deep denial.

Re:Oh crap.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19337865)

He didn't use "strong". He used "stronger".

Re:Oh crap.... (3, Funny)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 7 years ago | (#19337271)

You misspelt "US Peso"

Re:Oh crap.... (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#19338227)

Strong is not the word I would use.

See, the graph at http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/CNY/graph120.html [x-rates.com] points out a clear trend of devaluation of the American Dollar compared to a whole lot of other currencies in the world in the last 120 days. I don't care enough to dig out long-term trends for your education, but having a currency unit A that is worth two units of currency B is not exactly good if four months ago a unit of A was worth 10 units of B. It either shows A is being actively devalued by the government (in order to boost exports or curb imports) or is being discredited by severe doubts on the long term viability of their economy, at least compared to other, more vigorous, ones.

Re:Oh crap.... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19342913)

You jest, but have you been paying attention to the exchange rates between U.S. and Canadian dollars [x-rates.com] lately?

It's got to be a bummer for Canada - I'm on a border state where people vacation to Canada and cross to buy stuff. I have friends who have even bought homes from Canada, and local businesses have deals with Montreal business partners to take advantage of exchange rates.

Their prices just went up 25% in the last few months.

Re:Oh crap.... (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330633)

Yeah, sure, but why bother?

Potential (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19330277)

Maybe this time they will realize the potential and not let some fags with a fruity mascot steal it and make millions

Prove it! (1)

mcbutterbuns (1005301) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330289)

If it's invisible, how do you really know its been printed?

Re:Prove it! (1)

Joaz Banbeck (1105839) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330329)

Because nobody on /. reads it.

Re:Prove it! (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330437)

You ask the Goth chick at the coffee counter to whip out her portable UV light to view it.

How long until it's used to track users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19330301)

How long until this is used instead of yellow ink [eff.org] to track printouts back to the printer they came from?

Re:How long until it's used to track users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19330487)

It's patented... sooo... about 20 years from date of issuance of patent, unless unser Fuehrer Bush mandates it.

Damned portable blacklights! (5, Insightful)

adam.dorsey (957024) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330307)

FTA:
Xerox expects that over time, the technology will be used in personalized checks that will have the account holder's signature printed in a fluorescent stripe.

"A merchant could easily compare the fluorescent signature with the actual one to validate the check," said Eschbach.


Yeah, so someone gets one of these [google.com] , what then?

That's even worse, cause normally someone doesn't have the signature of the account holder if they were to steal/find a check. This will actually give them that, and make the check appear that much more authentic when used ("What do you mean, check fraud? That's your signature, isn't it?").

Re:Damned portable blacklights! (1)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330813)

This could also cause problems for people like me who learned to type before learning to write, and thus have writing that is horrible and inconsistant, including my signature. If they rely on this too heavily then my checks could be declined because none of my signatures look anything alike (well, with the exception of my grafiti tag, but I dont think using that for my signature on official documents would be a great idea, as it's a stylized "WD" made to look like a demon).

Re:Damned portable blacklights! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19340389)

You dont even need one of those, they have UV keychains! I have some of them actually.

For instance, just from a google search http://www.houstonpi.com/uv.html [houstonpi.com]

Far freakin' out (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330323)

Ok, if they are really printing UV with a standard CMYK color laser printer then they deserve a patent. That's real innovation at work and not some lame ass '...on the Internet' patent.

Re:Far freakin' out (1)

nemoyspruce (1007869) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330403)

He and the group realized that most paper manufacturers already inject fluorescent brightening agents in paper to enchance its "whiteness," so they worked to create certain combinations of toner that would allow the paper's fluorescence to shine through when exposed to ultraviolet light,
i dont understand what they are doing that is new. they rely on the paper for fluorescence. So the printer is normal CMYK, but the paper has to have fluorescent agents in it for it to work... so what exactly is the new tech here?

Re:Far freakin' out (4, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330549)

well...FTFA:
"He and the group realized that most paper manufacturers already inject fluorescent brightening agents in paper to enchance its "whiteness," so they worked to create certain combinations of toner that would allow the paper's fluorescence to shine through when exposed to ultraviolet light, Eschbach said.

Subsequently, Xerox developed a font that uses that inherent contrast to essentially "write" hidden fluorescent letters and numbers."


So they developed either a new toner formula or leveraged existing applications of toner in combination with a font to exploit the existing properties of paper to create a new printing process.

That is indeed innovation. Just because the solution seems obvious now that it's all be spelled out, it was a stroke of genius to make the connection and take it to practical application. This is the sort of thing patents are made for.

Re:Far freakin' out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19336941)

Bullshit.
One suspects they have added titanium dioxide or the like into toner - yawn, nothing new here folks.
One has porno mags that were printed with glow in dark features, and titanium dioxide that were printed in the 70's - as well a T-shirt Transfers. The same shit is now in toothpaste and whiter than white laundry soap powder. I am sure banknotes had it before then. The spores of a mushroom was the first invisible in in WW2, or milk products, and Mr Epson could surely put it in some inkjet, lest not fuss whether we call it ink, dye, pigment, glue based, gel (as in gel based biro's) or toner.

Now getting 'inventive' and saying it not ink, but 'toner' is pure BS, and many people call their toner cartridges 'ink' when they run out.

New Font. Nah, more than likely just an outline around the letters. Anyone who has photoshopped their university degree will have seen this - more old hat/prior art.

The reason this has not been commercialized before, is Titanium dioxide is expensive, so like Chinese paint, they try calcium. MICR ink/toner is damm dear, and that only using cheap iron.

Maybe not as far as it sounds (4, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330425)

According to the article, what they're doing is exploiting the fact that most paper has been washed with fluorescent agents to enhance its whiteness, and so will tend to fluoresce somewhat anyway. (It's the same way they make "color safe bleach": It's not bleach. It's fluorescent dye.)

What they may be doing is using the matte properties of printer toner to dull the fluorescent sheen of most of the paper by applying a difficult-to-detect stochastic pattern over the ostensibly white areas of the printout. The areas that are still completely white will seem to fluoresce compared to the areas that have been colored "eggshell white" by the printer. But that's just a guess.

Re:Maybe not as far as it sounds (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331177)

Optical brighteners are the fluorescent dye. Color safe bleach is usually just H2O2 (look at a Chlorox 2 label!)

Re:Maybe not as far as it sounds (2, Informative)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331987)

(It's the same way they make "color safe bleach": It's not bleach. It's fluorescent dye.)

Not quite. There is no chlorine in "color safe bleach," but there are still oxidizers, such as sodium percarbonate, and those are the primary agents of stain removal. The flourescent dyes you're referring to are optical brighteners [wikipedia.org] , but those are present in pretty much any laundry detergent made since the 1940s, although I don't think they're present in color safe bleach.

Re:Maybe not as far as it sounds (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 7 years ago | (#19332329)

So all I need is my own source of paper? Sounds like a real "secure" way of proving nothing!

Re:Far freakin' out (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331113)

Just wait until they announce their x-ray specs.

TFA makes some funny claims about security (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330357)

Particularly:

Xerox expects that over time, the technology will be used in personalized checks that will have the account holder's signature printed in a fluorescent stripe.

"A merchant could easily compare the fluorescent signature with the actual one to validate the check," said Eschbach.



Of course, a thief with a flourescent lamp could easily determine what your signature should look like, and so how does that provide any kind of security? I suppose it provides the same degree of security as the signature on a credit card receipt (which also provides no real security), but that kind of "security", clearly, doesn't require "invisible" ink in the first place.

Re:TFA makes some funny claims about security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19335657)

Well, the idea behind a CC sig is that it's "something you can do." The card then is "something you have" and in some cases your picture is printed on the card (like with Bank of America) and then you also have a "something you are." Two of these on their own is considered to be somewhat secure. Three of them is considered adequate. If you were to add "something you know" like a PIN then with all four you'd have a pretty secure system.

Of course, banks are a few years behind in their security measures. I'm sure it costs more and takes a little more time to print a photo on the card. And training merchants to check the card, match the picture, match the sig, and ask for a PIN would take some time. And after all of that, they run the risk that people would jump ship and go to a less secure bank because all of that security is a hassle ;)

Re:TFA makes some funny claims about security (1)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 7 years ago | (#19335907)

Quite simple, we'll take the DMCA approach - we'll make it a criminal offense to own or sell a UV lamp. That's adding value!

Obligatory pic (4, Funny)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330383)

Here's a pic of it in action:

Re:Obligatory pic (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330569)

That's cool. I just shone a UV light on that pic, and saw all sorts of blobs of fluorescing areas.

      Hm, then again, this *is* my brother's monitor, and he usually uses it to surf questionable sites late at night...

Re:Obligatory pic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19331121)

The picture is upside down.

Re:Obligatory pic (1)

normuser (1079315) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331203)

I never thought I would see the day when a goatse pick gets modded +5

Re:Obligatory pic (1)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336857)

Here's a pic of it in action:


Hey, cool! I ran a UV light over my computer and I don't see any words but lots of dots
and smudges over the monitor, keyboard and mouse.

What kind of ink does that? I thought UV would only show fluids such as blood and...uhhh.

ForgetISaidAnythingGotta go! Bye!

Have any idea how expensive invisible ink will be? (2, Funny)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330469)

Hell, ink jet ink is already more expensive per gram than pure heroin, Just imagine how much of a premium the invisible ink refill is going to cost you!

"Yeah, I'm afraid your Lemon Juice Cartridge was out, so I replaced that. The total bill will be just under $6,000."

Re:Have any idea how expensive invisible ink will (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330667)

As long as they accept my invisible credit card, I'm fine.

Re:Have any idea how expensive invisible ink will (1)

jimmux (1096839) | more than 7 years ago | (#19332937)

To make things worse, how will you know when it really runs out?

Re:Have any idea how expensive invisible ink will (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19334943)

Well, my company just spent close to 200 bucks for an inkjet cartridge (yes, one) for our new postage meter. Not quite the same, but pretty freakin expensive...

Re:Have any idea how expensive invisible ink will (1)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336341)

So you work for the government?

CMYKL (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19330587)

Printing invisible ink is pretty nifty, but what they don't tell you is that their standard toner will need to switch from CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow, black) to CMYKL (cyan, magenta, yellow, black, lemon juice).

Re:CMYKL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19334791)

The K in CMYK is not short for blacK, but for Key. I think that it originate from the term "key plate". A key plate is used to print fine details of a single colour (usually black to improve quality of letters).

Tech Issues (5, Funny)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330593)

How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?

Simple (5, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330817)

Stuff starts showing up on your printouts!

Re:Tech Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19330819)

How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?


A. don't worry, the printer will tell you, repeatedly, ad nauseum, for three weeks before you really are out of ink, that you are dangerously low on ink and terrorists may be able to infiltrate your organization if you do not immediately replace the cartridge.


B. you see what you're printing?


Really, folks, I already have the patent on this invisible ink stuff. My printer has been
printing it instead of Yellow for the last three years.

Re:Tech Issues (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330825)

When your printer demands you spend $25 on a UV ink cartridge so you can print a black text letter.

Re:Tech Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19330923)

So thats why my printer always wants new color cartridges to print b/w documents, half the color cartridge is invisible ink!

Re:Tech Issues (1)

Lithdren (605362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330849)

Why, with the invisible error message, of course!

Re:Tech Issues (1)

JohnStote (846551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330859)

With careful measurement

Re:Tech Issues (2, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#19330913)

You would never run out of invisible ink.

Re:Tech Issues (1)

baeksu (715271) | more than 7 years ago | (#19332875)

That's good, cause I don't think they sell refill kits for these yet.

Hey wait, I've got a killer business idea...

Re:Tech Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19331065)

Boss: This is suppose to be invisible, why it's visible?
Emp: I ran out of invisible ink.

Re:Tech Issues (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331513)

That one is easy .... You're always out!

Re:Tech Issues (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#19332063)

I just ask my invisible friend.

Re:Tech Issues (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 7 years ago | (#19332635)

How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?

Duh... When you no longer get invisible printing. Check you printouts for invisible printing.

Re:Tech Issues (3, Funny)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#19334139)

Silly question, but I've got a serious anecdote. Yes, this really happened.

Back when I was in school (this is circa 1996, we were using HP LaserJet 4L's), a few chaps discovered that they could run the same sheet of paper through a printer more than once.

They came up with the brilliant idea of printing a picture over the whole page, then running the same sheet of paper through the printer, only this time print out some white text on a white background over it. They expected a result of white text overlaid on the dark picture "because it'll appear like that with the white ink, won't it?".

Ask the government (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 7 years ago | (#19336847)

They've been buying those invisible planes for quite a while now...

"Yes Sir, General Smith. The totally stealthed invisible plane is right over there."
"No Sir, of course you can't see it. It's invisible."
"Well, we think that we can produce them for about $2 billion each, Sir."
"500. No problem. We'll have them ready in three weeks."

Security through obscurity (1)

vik (17857) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331229)

Like other attempts at security by obscurity, it'll be widely used to "combat terrorism" and then be broken. Us good citizens then have to deal with the crap when it all goes awry. Usual story.

Vik :v)

Nice and all, but it seems to depend on the paper (4, Interesting)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331359)

I know its not being a proper member of Slashdot if you RTFA, but the idea of a method of printing invisible markings without ink was quite something. Only when reading TFA did I come across this little gem:

He and the group realized that most paper manufacturers already inject fluorescent brightening agents in paper to enchance its "whiteness," so they worked to create certain combinations of toner that would allow the paper's fluorescence to shine through when exposed to ultraviolet light, Eschbach said.

Very very clever, but it relies on the presence of fluorescent brightening agents in the paper (these are those "ultra bright/white" paper brands that they charge a premium for). This means that those of you of a tin-foilish predisposition can make use of paper which does not contain these agents in order to prevent your printer making any invisible markings using this technique. Unfortunately this makes counterfeiting not that much easier, as the process that banknotes use to add invisible markings are different to this.

It also means that most company paper will not work (I don't know about other people, but where I worked, the paper was usually the cheapest economy stuff you could find, primarily because they used so much of it).

I can assume that either the premium paper companies are in for a surge in sales from this or all the other brands of paper will start adding these agents and it will become standard. We shall see.

P.S I think the article meant "enhance", not "enchance".

Re:Nice and all, but it seems to depend on the pap (2, Interesting)

solitas (916005) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331905)

As I read it, they're working with the difference in contrast between the ink and the paper background. You throw a UV light on a paper that's fluorescing blue with shiny yellow dots on it that are primarily reflecting the same color (and adding a little bit of their own fluorescence) and the two components have approximately the same luminosity, and they'll look pretty much invisible - the eye can only do just so much detecting colors in this situation. And the overwhelming blue from the paper will effectively hide the dots.

BUT, if you have a long-pass filter in front of your camera (use a filter with a cutoff somewhere between the blue of the paper and the yellow of the dots - you can buy pretty sharp filters from Edmund - and a greyscale camera) then those dots will show up decently against the apparent 'darkness' of the paper.

(I do a bit of UV photography at work using tracer powders and indicators on plastic, metal, paper, and skin, and filters with monochrome cameras work great.)

Invisible ink, for invisible brains (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331549)

All this bullcrap about making paper documents more secure is patently stupid. It printed data on a piece of paper. Almost every computer owner has access to a printer. No matter what physical measures are taken to secure something, the only guaranteed result is that the outlaws will develop ever-better techniques to defeat those measures. If there is any real value in counterfeiting whatever uses this invisible ink, then the criminals bent on exploiting these documents will invest the funds necessary to recreate the "magic ink", or do it the easy way and just bribe someone at Xerox. They can forge that heat-sensitive ink we have on our money orders (Canada), I think it's safe to bet they can inject friggin lemon juice into an inkjet cartridge.

A far better solution would be to eliminate the security risk attached to the actual piece of paper, the same way web developers (the good ones at least) don't store sensitive data in cookies. Just put a friggin reference number on the piece of paper, a pointer to some global database of whatever it is you're peddling. Treat the document like a one-time-pad.

Counterfeit Tickets (1)

double07 (889350) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331623)

There was a big fuss about UV visible marks on tickets during the recent UEFA Champions League final. Real tickets had a UV visible mark on them so they could be identified as original tickets. If this technology gets into the hands of the public how could you tell between a real or counterfeit ticket?

i saw one of these 2 years ago (1)

house5150 (899523) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331707)

I saw this technology 2 years ago mated to their docutech print engine, it really make me laugh because it was basically 200,000 inkjet add on to a 300,000 laser printer.... and they mentioned they were having a hard time marketing it and the prototype they had in pasadena disassmbled... i could not understand why....

Flush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19331865)

Yet another Xerox invention that will never make it to market or get snatched by someone else?

They've come a long way (0, Flamebait)

Docboy-J23 (1095983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19331915)

Xerox Business Plan 1.0:

1) GUI
2) GI Joe
3)
4) Profit!

HomCo (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19332221)

contrIButed code [goat.cx]

cool (1)

hyperstation (185147) | more than 7 years ago | (#19332675)

now i can print more secure airline boarding passes!

security? (1)

dltopdx (1109497) | more than 7 years ago | (#19332865)

How secure will this printing method be once these printers show up at Kinko's?

Re: Xerox Develops New Way to Print Invisible Ink (1)

murdie (197627) | more than 7 years ago | (#19334223)

I'd like all workgroup printers to print the user name, the document name, the printer name, the date and time of printing and the page number (and the total number of pages if this can be precalculated) on (say along the top) of each page output. That way, we could identify who printed the piles of uncollected printout that appear next to our printers. Our users consider printing this visibly an intrusion, and header sheets get separated from the rest of the document (stapling them to the rest of the document is considered a nuisance even when the document is thin enough to permit this to be done).

I, for one, would love that feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19335989)

And would buy an UV light promptly. Hidden meta data on printouts is simply a golden idea!

Security Through Obscurity (1)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 7 years ago | (#19335381)

Isn't "hiding" text on a document using invisible inks, just security through obscurity? Once the document forgers realise it's there, they'll simply start printing this additional layer itself. It's about as effective as hiding your extranet web server by changing it's port from port 80 to something else.

To do list for today (1)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 7 years ago | (#19335445)

(1) Remove color cartridge [eff.org] from printer

(2) Purchase sheaf of non-fluorescent paper -- probably any enviro paper will do

(3) Stop and release that I rarely print anything, and even more rarely print something that matters

(4) Return to watching Americans get beat at the French Open

If This Had Been HP (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19338945)

If this had been HP, it would have been a new printer at virtually free, and fluorescent ink cartridges at $69.99/ea.

On a more serious note, since your printers these days secretly rat-you-out by printing subtle identifying information that will let the feds track you down just by inspecting a page you've printed, is this an even more subtle way to implement that "feature"?

What Happen? (1)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#19340401)

83 comments and no "Move along now, nothing to see here" post?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?