Adobe, others slip anticounterfeiting code into apps

TalkBack 1 of 46:

Next »

• Thread View
• Flat View

ADOBE saving us from ourselves... - TEST it YOURSELF

Before I go further, after a short discussion with the Secret Service (they are charged withjurisdiction for counterfeiting investigations in the US) Public Affairs office in Washington, DC (yes, that is an obvious oxymoron), I believe that I am safe in providing the following information.

To quote from the US Secret Service website at :


"The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided:

1. the illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;

2. the illustration is one-sided; and

3. all negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use."

For those in other nations you may find links to your applicable regulations at Which is also where the PhotoShop CS error takes you automatically to.

NOW, f you want to test this out yourself.

I have posted copies of a US Government currency exemplar published SPECIMEN version of the new 2004 series $20 note, aJPEG image of the PhotoShop CS error message, and a JPEG of the related Paintshop Pro 8 error message (yup, JASC tossed it in PaintShop Pro 8) for TECHNOLOGY and media information purposes ONLY..

ALL and ANY INDIVIDUALS who download this image are responsible for their own actions and agree that they shall use this image ONLY for Adobe Photoshop technology demonstration purposes intended AND that they will destroy the file after it is used to demonstrate said technology. Downloading the file is at your own risk, and I accept no responsibility for your actions, use, or possession of said file or its contents.

The file is at:



Now, I'll comment further here..

I'm not particularly upset JUST that the feature is there, both the US Government and Adobe have good reasons for it.. BUT, what DOES bother me is the way we all had to find out about it.. Adobe should have been upfront with users and informed them about the new feature either in the press literature, advertising, on-site info or the help file. To stick something like this in a program and to not pre-announce or even notify anyone of the fact that it IS there just gives people the creeps, hurts ADOBE, and gives rise to wild conspiracy theory allegations.. It's as dumb a move as "New Coke" was..

Beyond that, I can only say that when I did bring up the issue of how PhotoShop CS was dealing with the image, no-one at the US Secret Service seemed surprised..




Allow me to quote from a recent post on ADOBEForums.com (needless to
say, Adobe is remaining silent on this):


"Original post to Adobe's Photoshop forum (adobeforums.com):

We received a TIFF image from a customer, of a $20 bill. The image does

*not* violate any laws regarding reproduction of currency (it's not even

close to actual-size, and it's not a "flat" portrayal - it's wavy, as if

it's fluttering in the wind. Nor is it real-color.


However, Photoshop CS refuses to open the image, and provides an error

message regarding the (il)legality of currency reproduction and an

"information" button that takes you to the web. (Photoshop 7, of course,

has no such qualms).


What the hell is this? In my book this is completely unacceptable -

Photoshop is an image editor, not a censor, government policy enforcer

or anything else.


Adobe, you've got some explaining to do."


The actual thread may be found At ADOBEForums.com, login there and go to
the PhotoShop / Windows forum and open the thread entitled "No Wonder
Photoshop CS Seems Slow - It's Analiyzing Images For Content!"


Welcome to the BRAVE NEW WORLD!

I'm not particularly upset that the feature is there, though it give me the creeps, both the US Government and Adobe have legitimate interests at stake here.. BUT, what DOES bother me is the way we all had to find out about it.. Adobe should have been upfront with users and informed them about the new feature either in the press literature, advertising, on-site info or the help file. To stick something like this in a program and to not pre-announce or even notify anyone of the fact that it IS there just gives people the creeps, hurts ADOBE, and gives rise to wild conspiracy theory allegations.. Add that to the new activation procedure for their software, as well as it's update feature, (both of which AFAIK do actively communicate with ADOBE) and the conspiracy theorists are going to be in full swing within no time (actually, some of them already are if you read the threads elsewhere).

All this kind of stuff hurts ADOBE MUCH more than upfront disclosure might have. It's as dumb a move as "New Coke" was..

Moreover, ADOBE is NOT the US Government, and shouldn't be in the business of enforcing US Law. That's the role of law enforcement authorities and government, not private industry.

Another issue is that it prevents opening the images for uses that ARE legal under the law.. Because under the law, you can LEGALLY be using such imagery. One example was posted by the IT Manager for a Large Financial
Services/Banking Firm.. They just spent a ton of money to upgrade
their application stable to Adobe Creative Suite. Not only the cost of
the software, but the installation and support costs. Now they find
the software is useless for much of what they do. So they have to
re-install Photoshop 7 and an IT manager wasted a lot of corporate
money for a useless product (BTW: Under the terms of the EULA,
consumers can only get a new copy of the software, not a refund).
Methinks his corporate bosses aren't likely to give him a raise and
promotion for this.. In another instance, a news organization cooperating WITH the SECRET SERVICE discovered this problem in the course of trying to prepare a news article on counterfeiting. So, the very feature that was meant to protect valid interests actually harmed those interests (much as the combination of the 1270 cartridge chip and the orange shift hurt EPSON).

Anyway, the fact that ADOBE included this without notifying anyone is very troubling.. What's next, versions of PhotoShop that won't open an image where it thinks nipples exists, unless the "owner" of the program is over 18 years old? This is like much of the gun control law in the US, it's window dressing that doesn't stop anyone who is hell bent on breaking the law, it just generally tends to inconvenience honest users and create a false sense of security instead of deterring the real crooks..


As I've said already ADOBE and the Governments involved have valid interests at stake.. But, government and business are not free to use whatever method they want to enforce those interests. In fact, under US Law, when it implicates free speech or free expression issues, they must use the least restrictive alternative available, and even that has to be proven justifiable. The issue isn't simply that ADOBE incorporated this in the software, it's that they did so without disclosing it as part and parcel of the changes.. They don't have any reference to it in the HELP files either.. Or on their tech support site.. Beyond that their tech support people are supposedly telling people "feel free to complain when you have a letter from the Gov't saying you CAN legally scan currency." In other cases tech support has reportedly begun to simply hang up on callers.. I remember another company who took a lot of heat for using the deny, then refuse to answer questions approach, until they caught a lot of heat in the press and finally decided to deal with the issues.. It was EPSON when the 1270 inks were found to be flawed.. It supposedly cost them millions of $.. Personally, I think ADOBE may take a similar hit for this.. I've already received answers and queries to comments I forwarded to major IT Industry Trade Publications and mainstream press outlets - the press you see now at SlashDot and the AdobeForums is JUST the beginning - especially in an era when many feel the gov't is intruding on civil liberties more and more each day, this is news.


ADOBE could EASILY have avoided the negative press that is already ensuing, and more that is likely to come, simply by informing consumers and/or potential consumers of this addition/change. Shame on them for behaving like a pack of morons.

Posted by: povimage   Posted on: 01/09/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now