Detecting Currency in Photoshop | Hacker News Reader

Detecting Currency in Photoshop

cl.cam.ac.uk

48 pointshootx22 comments

When this feature was first added to photoshop it caused a noticable delay when opening files or pasting content from outside photoshop. It was possible to disable the check by removing a DLL from photoshop and get the speed back to normal.

Somehow I don't think this feature has done much to discourage serious counterfitters, it's just annoyed legitimate users, especially as there are pefectly legal ways in which an image of a banknote can be used.

I don't think that it's meant to discourage serious counterfeiters. It's meant as a barrier to casual counterfeiters. Now that tools are powerful as Photoshop are at the fingertips of the masses, this seems like it is meant as a way to prevent people that otherwise wouldn't know the first thing about counterfeiting from just firing up Photoshop and trying to make fake money. (I'm not commenting on it's efficacy though)

This magical currency detection is in a single DLL? Why hasn't it already been reverse engineered?

> When this feature was first added to photoshop

Do you know what release that was ? Perhaps this cranky old copy of PS-5 I use is free of that enhancement.

It was added in the first "CS" version.. Photoshop 5 is, unencumbered.

When you buy Photoshop, does it say on the box or in the specs that it will choose which images it will allow you to process and refuse ones it deems unsuitable?

Just wondering.

No. But you can return it to Adobe for a full refund. The Secret Service will even hand deliver the check.

...because how could counterfeiters possibly do their job when deprived of the ability to add lens-flare

The best solution is to just make the currency very difficult to counterfeit, eg. see Australian money which is plastic, textured and has a transparent section; alas, this software still detects Australian notes.

Is this really a prevalent feature these days? I must be completely out of the loop.

That must be the most useless "feature" I've ever heard of. What possible reason is there for doing this?!

I would guess some politicians asked for way to stop people counterfeiting money with image manipulation tools or scanners. This solution satisfied them and made them feel good.

I understand why this might make an uneducated politician happy. What I don't understand is the incentive for Adobe to do it. Was there ever a danger of restrictions on image editing software?

Just a guess: maybe they have a contract to supply software to one or more governments, and either a term is that they have to do it, or they don't want to upset the government and lose the contract.

> What possible reason is there for doing this?!

You might try reading the first sentence of the article.

Has it been edited? In the version at the time of writing this comment, it says that they 'will not process the images', but it doesn't say why not.

Maybe it works as a cost-effective way to eliminate occasional counterfitter-wannabes.

Reminds me of: http://lesswrong.com/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/

As we add increasing amounts of software and microchips into the world around us, are we setting ourselves up for a future in which 1-in-a-million false positives / negatives end up happening in various systems several times a day?

Sorry, this microwave cannot heat this product, the explosive-density-detector has triggered the security block

(Now that I think about it, this mirrors my real world computing experience right now - endlessly pestered by false matches and ineffective checks. File downloads blocked by mime type, by browser, by file extension, file opening blocked by extension, program install blocked by UAC, program running blocked by inaccessible internet, file copy blocked by "unspecified security flaw"...)

I wonder how currency designers deal with this? In the US, at least, they use Photoshop for this.

Coming soon to the GIMP.

And Krita.

And... ?

Wow, somebody was not amused. No clue why...

Both are GPLd programs, most likely with copyright ownership spread across large numbers of contributors in many countries. The GPL says you can't distribute the program unless you include the complete source code. To legally distribute a version of a GPLd image manipulation program with a closed-source currency detection module in it, you would need to get every person who holds copyright in that program to agree - probably an impossible task given many probably feel strongly against this kind of restriction. Alternatively, it might be possible to get a law passed to exempt distributors from that terms of the license - but that would only apply in one country, and it would also need to override the 'freedom or death' term of the GPL.

Even if there was a Free / Open Source currency detection engine, I doubt it would be included in the projects unless it became a legal requirement.

Which was actually my point. I don't see anyone willingly adding a feature to actually restrict functionality the way a currency detection engine would/does. At least, in an open source project, I think there would be enough resistance from contributors to keep such components from becoming standard features. This I consider a good thing about the GIMP, Krita, and any/every other FOSS graphics package out there.

That said, it does present a pretty little puzzle for the FOSS community. Given governments' recent roles in expanding the reach of FOSS software, I don't think we can ignore the question of what happens when and where the interests of the state conflict with those of the FOSS community. Here, specifically, we have a case where a government may desire a "feature" anathema to the community, but likely can't force the community to accept such a requirement. What they might be able to do is outlaw any version of the package which does not incorporate the restriction. How effectively can could they enforce it? Not much, perhaps, right now, but we'd be fooling ourselves to think they never could. It's all but certain they're going to keep trying, even if it proves utterly impossible.

Thank you for responding, A1kmm. This is what I was really hoping to see: some actual discussion of the point. In any case, I apologize for offending whoever downmodded me. I'll try not to be quite so snarky in future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com