Image analysis – Applications
Reexamination Certificate
1998-11-03
2003-04-15
Johns, Andrew W. (Department: 2621)
Image analysis
Applications
C711S161000, C713S189000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06549638
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to computer systems, and more particularly relates to techniques for establishing persistent evidence of a computer's use for possibly illicit purposes (e.g. counterfeiting).
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Fifty years ago, counterfeiting was a rare art practiced by a small number of skilled engravers using esoteric equipment. Today, counterfeiting is a rampant problem practiced by thousands of criminals using ubiquitous computer equipment.
Statistics from the U.S. Secret Service illustrate the magnitude of the problem in the United States. In a recent report, the Secret Service stated:
The amount of counterfeit currency passed in the United States over the last three fiscal years has remained fairly consistent; however, 1998 has seen a significant increase, largely due to inkjet produced counterfeits. Inkjet produced counterfeit currency comprised only 0.5% of the total counterfeit currency passed in fiscal year 1995. In comparison, 19% of the total counterfeit currency passed in the United States during fiscal year 1997 was inkjet produced, and 43% of the counterfeit currency passed through August 1998 has been ink jet counterfeit currency.
This trend is attributed to rapid improvements in technology, and the ever-increasing availability and affordability of scanners, high-resolution inkjet and other output devices, and computer systems. Digital counterfeiting is likely to continue to increase as the capabilities of systems and devices continue to improve, and as these capabilities become more readily understood by the criminal element.
Accompanying the Secret Service report was a table identifying the number of domestic counterfeiting plants raided, by type. Again, the explosive growth of inkjet counterfeiting is evident:
FY98
Type of Counterfeiting Plant
FY95
FY96
FY97
(through July)
Offset Counterfeiting
60
29
23
10
Toner-Based Counterfeiting
59
62
87
47
Inkjet-Based Counterfeiting
29
101
321
477
The problem is not limited to the United States; statistics from other countries show the above-detailed trends are worldwide.
Various means have been deployed over the years to deter the counterfeiting of banknotes and similar financial instruments. One is to incorporate design features in banknotes that are difficult to replicate. Another is to equip color photocopiers with the capability to recognize banknotes. If such a photocopier is presented with a banknote for duplication, copying is disabled or impaired.
Yet another approach is for color photocopiers to imperceptibly write their serial number on all output sheets, e.g. using small, light yellow lettering. (Such an arrangement is shown, e.g., in European laid-open application EP 554,115 and in U.S. Pat. No. 5,557,742.) While unknown to most of the public, the majority of color photocopiers employ this, or similar means, to mark all output copies with covert tracing data.
The inclusion of covert tracing data in all printed output from color photocopiers (and some color printers) brings into play the balancing of law enforcement needs versus the widely recognized users'rights of privacy and freedom of expression. Unbounded use of such covert marking techniques can raise the spectre of an Orwellian “Big Brother.”
In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention, tracer data is selectively generated to assist law enforcement agencies in prosecuting counterfeiters. However, instead of rotely incorporating such data into all printed output, it is secretly stored in the counterfeiter's computer. If the computer is later searched or seized, the tracer data can be recovered and employed as evidence of the computer's use in counterfeiting.
REFERENCES:
patent: 4297729 (1981-10-01), Steynor et al.
patent: 4908873 (1990-03-01), Philibert et al.
patent: 5040059 (1991-08-01), Leberl
patent: 5351287 (1994-09-01), Bhattacharyya et al.
patent: 5377269 (1994-12-01), Heptig et al.
patent: 5416307 (1995-05-01), Danek et al.
patent: 5469222 (1995-11-01), Sprague
patent: 5483602 (1996-01-01), Stenzel et al.
patent: 5483658 (1996-01-01), Grube et al.
patent: 5557742 (1996-09-01), Smaha et al.
patent: 5568550 (1996-10-01), Ur
patent: 5602906 (1997-02-01), Phelps
patent: 5610688 (1997-03-01), Inamoto et al.
patent: 5613004 (1997-03-01), Cooperman et al.
patent: 5636292 (1997-06-01), Rhoads
patent: 5652802 (1997-07-01), Graves et al.
patent: 5678155 (1997-10-01), Miyaza
patent: 5687236 (1997-11-01), Moskowitz et al.
patent: 5710636 (1998-01-01), Curry
patent: 5727092 (1998-03-01), Sandford, II et al.
patent: 5745604 (1998-04-01), Rhoads
patent: 5761686 (1998-06-01), Bloomberg
patent: 5790693 (1998-08-01), Graves et al.
patent: 5790697 (1998-08-01), Munro et al.
patent: 5838814 (1998-11-01), Moore
patent: 5905810 (1999-05-01), Jones et al.
patent: 5974548 (1999-10-01), Adams
patent: 6073123 (2000-06-01), Staley
patent: 6182218 (2001-01-01), Saito
patent: 6185321 (2001-02-01), Fukushima et al.
patent: 0789480A2 (1997-08-01), None
patent: WO95/04665 (1995-02-01), None
patent: WO97/43736 (1997-11-01), None
Pfitzmann, “Trials of Traced Traitors,”Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Information Hiding, May/Jun. 1996, pp. 49-64.*
Wayner,Digital Copyright Protection, Academic Press, 1997, pp. 184-185.*
Anderson, et al., “The Steganographic File System,”Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Information Hiding, Apr. 1998, pp. 73-82.*
Gruhl et al., “Information Hiding to Foil the Casual Counterfeiter,”Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Information Hiding, Apr. 1998, pp. 1-15.*
Tirkel et al, “Electronic Water Mark,”DICTA-93, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, Dec. 1993, pp. 666-672.
Szepanski, “A Signal Theoretic Method for Creating Forgery-Proof Documents for Automatic Verification,”Proceedings 1979 Carnahan Conference on Crime Countermeasures, May 16, 1979, pp. 101-109.
Carr J. Scott
Davis Bruce L.
Perry Burt
Conwell William Y.
Digimarc Corporation
Digimarc Corporation
Johns Andrew W.
LandOfFree
Methods for evidencing illicit use of a computer system or... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Methods for evidencing illicit use of a computer system or..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Methods for evidencing illicit use of a computer system or... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3048884