Security Printing and Imaging

Law of Power 3: Conceal Your Intentions

StevenSimske — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:34:00 GMT

In a continuing interpretation of Robert Greene’s 1998 bestseller, “The 48 Laws of Power” (Penguin Books), I turn it sideways (using the laws to fight counterfeiting and other forms of fraud) and then turn it upside down (using the laws to create better businesses).

Today we address Law #3: Conceal Your Intentions. This is a law in two parts.

(1) Use decoyed objects of desire and red herrings to throw people off the scent. Greene suggests false sincerity, ambiguous signals and misleading objects of desire.

(2) Use smoke screens to conceal your actions. Always leave yourself contingency pathways.

Many of Greene’s anecdotes focus on warfare and negotiation, and specifically on the cunning of different strategists. Strategies, as can be seen, cannot be “universally recommended”—that is, they do depend on the individual. Kissinger’s prowess as a negotiator, for example, was fueled by his ostensible dullness. Greene portrays Kissinger as nearly lulling his adversaries to sleep and then just as the wave of ennui threatened to submerse them in torpor, he would make otherwise unreasonable demands and get buy-off.

Such a strategy, clearly, would not have worked for Napoleon. Instead, Napoleon’s path to success would have been to put more power in the hands of his competent students of the Laws of Power—Talleyrand and Fouché, for example. Napoleon, being Napoleon, was unable to work with such indirect, “cunning” personalities.

A key to concealing your intentions is to eschew the use of a pattern. This is not the same as foregoing a design. Without a design, you are quite liable to respond to any nuance, distraction, red herring, or ploy of your adversary. The design is essential, as it is nothing else but the pathway from the present to the future. Your design, however, should include decoyed objects of desire and smoke screens to prevent anyone else from determining your design. If your pattern is A, B, C, D, guess what? Your adversary can pick E, F, G, H, etc., to face you. And a smart adversary (you must assume your adversary is smart until proven otherwise) will pick the node in the sequence where she is relatively strongest in comparison to you.

What could be more fun? Combining creativity, design, thinking on your feet and secrecy—concealing your intentions gives you time to collect information on your adversary. And, when the reversal occurs, it should not be ambiguous. When you suddenly reveal your intentions, either because of a (well-earned) reputation for fraud or because it will no longer provide value to conceal your plans forward, do it in full.

Think of Hamlet. The play was indeed the thing to catch the conscience of the king, and Hamlet knew it. He concealed his intentions—was he brooding over Ophelia, going through existential angst, in deep anxiety over an inevitable confrontation with Fortinbras? Meticulously, Hamlet pieced together enough clues to formulate the last stage in his intelligence work. It was the play, with his uncle’s murder of his father echoed in the actions of the players, that would bring out the final, unequivocal reaction in Claudius. After that reaction, the rest of Hamlet’s “contingency plan”, always part of his design, would inexorably bring the bloody end to one of the world’s greatest works of literature. After the play, the rest was almost predestined.

Hidden intent. What am I looking at? What matters here?

SIDEWAYS:

Of the 48 Laws of Power, perhaps none is more central to security printing, anti-counterfeiting and brand protection than Law #3. Variable data printing (VDP) provides ease of printing decoys and smokescreens, while hiding the overall intention.

Since every printed region can be variable, the would-be counterfeiter can take one of three (at least) approaches. First, he may try to reverse-engineer every element of the print job. This is a time-consuming, mind-numbing approach, but the advantages are that the counterfeit samples will inevitably appear more real, and so get by more customers and more retailers and more inspectors undetected. Counterfeiters with substantial R&D budgets (and there are many) will occasionally attempt this approach. Other counterfeiters will do the minimum possible to get their products into the supply chain, and so the counterfeit products will be generally easy to distinguish. However, these counterfeiters may be more interested in replace-and-sell strategies, which are consistently seen for example with large systems (cars, servers, airplanes, appliances, etc.) where the parts are very expensive and the system behaves similarly with the counterfeit parts in place. Thirdly, other counterfeiters will simply move to the inside. It is much easier to spoof a product if you simply build the product. Insidious insiders, third-shifters (factory overruns), and false fronts (“fake” companies that work with all of your suppliers) are a significant threat.

Conceal your intentions with counterfeiters by using variable VDP—changing your VDP design is not much more difficult than printing using VDP. Your design is to change; your pattern of change is your own.

Security printing principles are in direct alignment with concealing one’s intents. Decoys are printed marks used to get a counterfeiter to respond, even though they may not be (normally, ever) tracked or investigated. Use decoyed objects of desire and red herrings to throw people off the scent. Printed marks can also be used as “bait” to get counterfeiters to respond to them—generally, these are overt marks, so the lack of response by the counterfeiter usually means that they will not be able to counterfeit for long. Your response may be about the data embedded, or it may be the appearance itself. Use smoke screens to conceal your actions. These decoys and bait can serve as “contingency” deterrents which can be tracked or investigated in cases of need (recall, change in auditing requirements, new regulatory concerns, change in branding, etc.).

Intentions stripped bare. Nothing to conceal. No future.

UPSIDE DOWN:

Concealing your intentions is obviously to your advantage when dealing with an adversary. Many would therefore conclude that to benefit from the obvious advantages of Law #3, you will treat your business partners as adversaries, concealing your long-term strategy. I argue for a different approach.

Consider your interaction with worthwhile business collaborators and partners the way you might consider your interaction with worthwhile life collaborators and partners at a social gathering. Start with the premise that your story is boring unless the other can share in the story. Get the other person/partner to speak. Be genuinely interested. Every conversation, every partnership, is a learning opportunity. “Conceal” your intentions by engaging in theirs.

“Ah!” you say, “but there is no security through obscurity.” Meaning the would-be collaborator will also know Law #3 and will be applying it on you, as well. And right you are! That’s the beauty of the approach. If each of you applies the “Upside Down” Law #3, then inevitably the conversation will lead to common ground. It takes active engagement, but it does not preclude concealment of your true long-term plans. Both parties benefit from finding a common, profitable area of engagement, without having to say “I’m not ready to share that with you yet.”

Let’s illustrate with a simple example. UBB (Unbelievably Big Business) has long-term plans to take over all fossil fuel surveying, production and distribution. USS (Unbelievably Sustainable Systems) has long-term plans to provide 100% of the world’s energy needs, where possible, with 100% renewable fuels. In drawing into the conversation discussion of sustainability, UBB comes to understand how “grow and sell local” approaches will significantly streamline their own distribution chain. In drawing into the conversation discussion of the need for high-octane, fossil based fuels in many existing transportation networks, USS comes to understand “asset inertia” and also understands better the adoption roadmap for sustainable energy.

A healthy combination of concealment and the visible. Share enough to help your friends, conceal enough to derail your adversaries.

--Steve

Summer Camp--not just for kids

StevenSimske — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:12:00 GMT

OK, you've been looking forward all Spring to the Summer. Lazy days at the pool, beach, partially reflective tar covered roof, whatever. Then, about two weeks in, reality strikes. You're just as busy in June, July and August as you were when St. Patrick, taxes or the May pole demanded your attention. Don't you wish you could go back to a simple, halcyon time, when all you had to worry about was Summer Camp?

Not very easy in this economic climate, that's for sure. So, why don't you have your Camp, and learn, too? IMI has a solution for you--their Digital Printing Summer Camp 2009. Want to find out how digtal printing--with short runs, customized materials, just-in-time printing, sustainability-friendly materials and use cycles--will lead printing into the mobile, savvy, Gen-W ("whatever!") future? And kick your feet in a lake in Maine?

Give it a go (and read the attachment below--see just above "Add a Comment"--to find out more).

Is this a pitch for IMI? Absolutely. I've attended an IMI event in the past. It's a good thing. You will get a big head!

Here are the courses being offered at IMI’s Digital Printing Summer Camp 2009 on July 27-31, 2009 at the Sugarloaf Mountain Hotel, Carrabassett Valley, Maine. See www.imiconf.com for complete details:

Ink Jet Academy: Theory of Ink Jet Technology – July 27-28, 2009

Digital Printing Markets – July 27-28, 2009

Ink Jet Ink Manufacturing – July 29-30, 2009

Surface Tension, Wetting & Capillarity – July 29-30, 2009

Color & Color Management – July 30-31, 2009

Managing Product Development for Value – July 30-31, 2009

Either way, here's wishing you a happy Summer 2009!

Steve

Un faux pas...ou bon mot?

StevenSimske — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:54:00 GMT

Today was the second day, and the indepth workshop on how to move trace research and development forward in Canada, at Trace R&D 2009 (http://www.umanitoba.ca/afs/trace/home.html). It was an honor to be part of this rather intense, interesting and intellectually invigorating interchange of ideas. Particular thanks to John Graham of IBM for moderating the discussion for the eclectic and energetic group I was part of.

I won't go into the details of the traceability plan forward, as the organizers will be assimilating feedback before a plan of action is put in place. Two funny things happened during the session, however. The first stems from the fact that the conference, as is required in Canada, had English to French translators at work, translating the English presentations into French real-time for the francophiles wearing headsets. A small but important contingent of Quebecois were at a table near ours, and they were split between headset wearers and those bearing the English in raw form. My table happened to be right in front of the translators, who were behind not-quite-soundproof glass, actively converting English into its more mellifluous and more Romantic cousin.

The speaker was describing differences between North America and Europe, and mentioned that in Europe "moving forward is often derailed by fringe groups". The translator behind me, however, heard the word "fringe" as "French" and translated it as such. The headset-wearers quickly exchanged words with their colleagues not wearing headsets and began laughing together. The rest of the room didn't get their joke, but I was strategically positioned to join in their mirth. I guess there is a similar relationship between the Quebecois and French as there is between anglophonic North Americans and the British. Of course, the most interesting part is the translator. Why did she hear "fringe" as "French"? It couldn't be a Freudian slip--he was Austrian. Was it, even, a faux pas? If you ask me, it was a bon mot.

Translate this!

In addition, we noticed that the list of trite expressions for describing traceability from the raw product (food, animal) to the human consumable (food, drink) was short and popular. The list includes:

1. From gate to plate (and its variant "from farm gate to dinner plate")

2. From paddock to plate

3. From farm to fork

4. From dirt to dinner (not the most palatable trite expression)

5. From farm to fryer

Ugh. Nothing against the companies involved in the creation of these expressions, just that they were repeated so many times this week, that some sort of rebellion against the cliché was inevitable. I began wondering what other expressions were due to pop up as this current, er, crop, wore thin. Perhaps the following?

1. From bull to bowl

2. From steer to steak

3. From bull to belly

4. From cattle to cutlerly

5. From stable to table

6. From calving to carving

7. From branding to breakfast

8. From farmstock to facestuffing

9. From round-up to ground-up

10. From feedlot to foodfight

11. From farm to feeding frenzy

12. From cowtown to chowdown

and perhaps the most unsavory (and suitably number 13):

13. From sty to stomach

Do I expect any traceability providers to take these kindly offered clichés nouvelles as their own? Hardly. Je ne suis pas né hier. They would look silly, and I do not advise it. But it would break up the monotony, er, ennui...

Alors, à bientôt,

Steve

Trace R&D 2009

StevenSimske — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:44:00 GMT

I'm in windy Winnipeg today and tomorrow for the "research & development conference & strategic workshop for agriculture and food traceability," as so noted at: http://www.umanitoba.ca/afs/trace/home.html. What does food traceability have to do with security printing and imaging, you may ask?

Security printing and imaging is the strategic application of explicitly printed information being used for product safety, messaging, interaction or other workflows (supply chain visibility, authentication, etc.). It is where the cloud, mobile and security come together; where the digital and physical meet and share a pint. So, what better application than food and agricultural traceability?

Say for the sake of my cadre of Irish colleagues and friends that we are indeed sharing a pint of Guinness. There's a lot in a Guinness, even if we only consider the hops, barley malt, yeast and water. From where did each of those ingredients come? What if a farm somewhere in Ireland had a high level of dioxins--it's happened recently...see my earlier post:

http://www.communities.hp.com/online/blogs/securityprinting/archive/2008/12/08/irish-pork-recall-another-track-and-trace-debacle.aspx

We want to know, when it becomes necessary, what the provenance of every ingredient in everything we consume is, right? No, I don't want it printed right on the package--there's too much information there already, and if I felt like reading something, I'd grab a Malcolm Gladwell before a Guinness, n'est'ce pas? But I do want the package to point to information, somewhere in the cloud (to use a suddenly trite expression), when I need to know.

That's traceability (in at least a simplified way). So, traceability is brand protection, it is security, and it is anti-counterfeiting.

The only time I want to disappear without a trace is when I'm...

...somewhere like this.

Cheers,

Steve

Law of Power 2—Never Put Too Much Trust in Friends; Learn To Use Your Enemies

StevenSimske — Sun, 31 May 2009 05:34:00 GMT

In 48 posts on this site, Robert Greene’s modern-day Machiavellian masterpiece on the principles of power, “The 48 Laws of Power” (1998, Penguin Books), is being turned sideways (using the laws to fight counterfeiting and other forms of fraud) and then upside down (using the laws to create better businesses).

Today’s blog focuses on Law #2: Never Put Too Much Trust in Friends, Learn To Use Your Enemies. The impetus behind this law is that friends, knowing you well, perhaps ascending to power along with you, are prone to jealousy and privy to your weaknesses. When they turn on you, they generally know more about you than your enemies.

Beware your friends!

SIDEWAYS: The “enemy” for an authentic producer is an agent of fraud. From counterfeiting to coupon fraud, there are a plethora of ways in which all the planning, research, development, marketing and branding costs associated with putting a valuable product together can be squandered by an agent of fraud.

On the other hand, as your countermeasures—security deterrents, investigations, evidence gathering, etc.—become more effective in staunching the plans of your enemies, you drive would-be counterfeiters to theft or toward “insidious insider” activity. In the latter case, it is truly your friends who betray you. Someone working for your company, your brand, your product, sells out to the counterfeiters. When the turn on you, they generally know more about you than your enemies.

In this case, learning how to use your enemies is using the counterfeiters themselves to help you reduce their impact. Security printing, using the power of variable data printing (VDP), enables this. Use multiple printing techniques, including color, special designs, unique halftoning approaches, and other specialty printing, to force the counterfeiter to reveal something about himself when he tries to mimic your legitimate printing. Security printing features such as color bar codes, guilloches, etc., enable point-of-sale, authentication and mobile commerce, simultaneously. With VDP, however, any number of printed regions can be made variable. To use your enemy, the counterfeiter, effectively, use additional security printing features as decoys (make the counterfeiter think you’re inspecting them) or as bait (to make the counterfeiter reveal himself in replicating them).

Robert Greene notes that the reversal of this Law is almost always concomitant with the loss of the friendship. It is best not to mix work with friendship. For this reason, this rule is, in my opinion, strongly amenable to being turned upside down, as described next.

UPSIDE DOWN: Turning this rule upside down to create better business, use former enemies as new friends in the reality of the 21^st century global, distributed, fully supply-chain dependent world of business. The former enemies—your branded competitors—face the same common enemy. Counterfeiters, smugglers, third shifters (for factory overruns), and manufacturers of inferior (perhaps dangerous!) products. Your former competitors can unite with you to produce products that are safer, better-built, more environmentally friendly, more energy-efficient, more sustainable, and a host of other ameliorations. Rather than (rat)race your traditional competitors to the bottom (which is the history of the 21^st Century to date), KEEP THE BOTTOM DOWN. Counterfeiters now comprise the single largest competitor for legitimate brands in many product areas. Use your “enemies”, your former brand competitors, to fight this threat to us all.

Cheers,

Steve

FDA seeking 19% budget increase for supply chain security

StevenSimske — Sun, 31 May 2009 04:11:00 GMT

Apparently, this post was lost in the transition to the new blogging application (which took place May 15-22). The FDA earlier this month announced plans to increase field testing and other inspection of imported food and pharma goods in response to the recent salmonella and drug scares.

The FDA budget document states:

“In the complex and rapidly changing environment driven by globalisation, FDA cannot rely on traditional approaches – inspection and sampling at the US border – to protect Americans and ensure the safety of medical products. FDA will use traditional and innovative mechanisms that include FDA inspections and field exams, integrated federal-state oversight, and greater access to inspection data and results acquired from trusted foreign regulatory authorities.”

The plans include a more than 100% increase in the number of field tests of imported drugs, and a boost in the inspections of high-risk foreign and domestic facilities by nearly 20%.

See the overview article at:

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Industry-Drivers/FDA-requests-19-funding-boost-to-secure-supply-chain/?c=JiBz%2FX6W896enue4TQ%2BDEw%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

Cheers, Steve

HP Gets Tough on Ink Counterfeiters

StevenSimske — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:19:00 GMT

Counterfeiting is like the proverbial bad apple in the barrel. One rotten item ruins the lot. Take this case, for example:

"Customers were irate about defective HP ink cartridges purchased from her firm. Several big corporate customers told her they spent days cleaning up leaky ink. The buyer for one local municipality was so furious about damage to the city's printers that he canceled his contract. She began to worry: Perhaps the $40,000 in ink cartridges her company had purchased at a 10% discount from an Internet supplier were fakes."

Frequent readers of this blog see it coming. Any discount "too good to be true" isn't. And, HP's ink detectives quickly assessed this.

REAL or FAKE?

The full article is on BusinessWeek.com at http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_23/b4134044747987.htm.

My friend and colleague Peter Hunt is featured. Peter is a top-notch investigator and works with a world-wide team to counter counterfeiting. He could, if he chose, deliver a nasty crosscheck, too. Like me, Peter is a hockey guy. However, Peter's violence will have to remain on the fabled northern (1 degree latitude north of the Equator, that is) ice sheets of Singapore, since he and team are focused on putting the evidence together to point the authorities at the biggest counterfeiters.

How big a problem is counterfeiting?

According to the article, "Combating counterfeit ink has become a major priority for HP CEO Mark V. Hurd. Analysts estimate the Palo Alto (Calif.)-based company's imaging and printing group lost more than $1 billion in revenue to illegal counterfeits last year. And the company is concerned that shoddy products will do even more damage to its reputation. 'Counterfeit cartridges hurt HP's business,' says Hurd. 'More importantly, they hurt our customers, who are not getting what they think they are paying for.'"

$1 billion in revenue, and perhaps another $1 billion in lost brand value, and another $1 billion in future revenue due to loss of customer confidence, etc. Counterfeiting is the rotten apple, and the barrel is the brand reputation. Thanks to Peter and team for helping protect this barrel (and the way he skates, perhaps jumping over the barrel, too).

Cheers, Steve

Law of Power 1—Never Outshine the Master

StevenSimske — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:35:00 GMT

Robert Greene’s eclectic masterpiece on the ethics—or lack thereof—of success, “The 48 Laws of Power”, serves as the stimulus for a set of 48 blogs to come on how to use these laws in fighting fraud (turning his rules sideways) and then using them to create better businesses (turning his laws upside down).

Today addresses Law #1: Never outshine the master. This is an excellent starting point, since the fine balance between attentiveness and obsequiousness and is the difference between a trusted aide and dusted aide. Greene’s chapter on Law#1 focuses on how biding one’s time and waiting for a truly inferior master to shoot himself in the foot is a better strategy than exposing the master as a fool.

SIDEWAYS: When it comes to defeating counterfeiters, not outshining the master means not spending more than the counterfeiter on the deterrents used to protect the product. Good advice here is not placing expensive, eye-catching deterrents on the product that a criminal can credibly spoof for less cost. Remember, counterfeiters are creative, counterfeiters typically invest in R&D, and counterfeiters like a challenge. Some examples are using holograms—counterfeiters can credibly spoof these using anything from aluminum foil to cheap lenticular prints. If you try to outspend counterfeiters, then you typically will. They will find ways to simulate your expensive deterrents for less, taking advantage of the indolence, insouciance or innocence of your retailers.

Robert Greene notes that the reversal of this Law is when the “master” is on his or her way down. Then, he advises, one must destroy the master completely. This is because the “master” is no longer master, and to prevent an angered master from coming back to power (with a grudge against you), annihilation is suggested. This makes sense in the realm of counterfeiting. Let the counterfeiters’ R&D skills shine, tease out their talents with inexpensive overt features. Achieve this with variable data printing (VDP) rather than expensive deterrents, where and when possible. When the counterfeiter tips his hand (by the counterfeiter R&D team’s “signature” in attempting to replicate your low-cost deterrence), destroy him completely.

UPSIDE DOWN: Knowing of this law can be used positively to create a collaborative business environment. Here, the law is “never outshine your partner”. Hold one card in reserve, and offer one card free for public viewing (like the dealer in Blackjack, for example). Never play until you have two strategies, each of which is fully thought out beforehand and which tie together after both are deployed. The strategy you give away for free leads to the one you hold in reserve. Bring in any useful, long-term partner (and any truly useful partner should be considered a potential long-term partner) by giving them something for free, or by letting them shine in the early phase. Do not outshine the partner means to share the publicity, the credit and the early glory. Strategy 2 might even make them look better—that is no small price to pay for longevity of your plans—but should also ensure your goals. The only place to outshine a partner is in the differential balance sheet between what you have with them over what you would have had without them.

Work together. It’s more profitable. It’s less stress, too.

Cheers, Steve

The First IEEE International Conference on Biometrics, Identity and Security (BIdS)

StevenSimske — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:23:00 GMT

Biometrics, forensics, security, identity and privacy experts, indeed this is your lucky month. The Program Chairs for the First IEEE International Conference on Biometrics, Identity and Security (BIdS) have extended the deadline for submission till June 13, allowing you an extra couple of weeks if the IEEE WIFS extension won't give you enough time. See http://ieee-biometrics.org/bids2009/ for details.

I am flattered to be part of the Program Committee. Note that BIdS has a distinct focus on identity, meaning the identification of an individual. I will be focusing on the interplay between security, privacy and access control for my submission. Any readers out there interested in submitting, but having questions on the conference, please feel free to contact me via this blog.

The topic list is:

Biometrics: (Algorithms, sensors, systems)

Forensic Identification:

Identity Management: (Theory, Tools, Systems)

Security Related to identity

Privacy and socio-legal aspects

Identity System Evaluation

This is the first year, and so there are some special rules for papers, which hopefully provide some exciting opportunities for recent research in this area. Here's the boiled down description (see the website for more):

Papers can be either the “best of” recent work, or highly selective original work. For original works, authors should submit papers on original, unpublished work in the field, or a new unpublished “review paper” providing a critical analysis of topics of interest. For “recent works”, the authors will describe where the work was (already) published, and provide the paper as reviewed, the original reviews and the revised final paper. The paper must have first been published in the past 2 years. The program committee will select the best of these recent papers to provide for the authors to present the work at a broad venue with an interdisciplinary audience.

Thanks, and hope to see you at WIFS and/or BIdS!

Steve

IEEE WIFS 2009 Submission Deadline Extended to May 31

StevenSimske — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:14:00 GMT

Thanks to the Program Chairs of IEEE WIFS 2009, the First IEEE International Workshop of Information Forensics and Security, you have an extra 9 days to submit your research on:

* Biometrics

* Computer Security

* Cryptography for Multimedia Content

* Data Hiding

* Digital Rights Management (DRM)

* Forensic Analysis (a personal favorite--where I am submitting to this new workshop)

* Network Security

* Non-technical Aspects of Security

*(Video) Surveillance

* Secure Applications

See more at the call for papers: http://www.wifs09.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=42

"We received several requests yesterday to extend the submission deadline. Therefore, we have decided to leave the submission website open until the end of the month, i.e. Sunday 31st May 2009, midnight GMT. Authors who have already submitted their manuscript may want to exploit this extra time to further enhance their article."

Cheers,

Steve

Canadian Pharma Bar Coding Project

StevenSimske — Mon, 11 May 2009 03:20:00 GMT

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) Canada, in agreement with the Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI), have "endorsed the adoption of the GS1 global standard for automated identification (e.g. bar coding) of pharmaceutical products in Canada".

According to the ISMP Canada Safety Bulletin, Volume 9, Number 4 (May 8, 2009),

"The use of bar coding (the most widely recognized machine-readable identifier) in a point-of-care scanning system, combined with a computerized database, allows healthcare professionals to verify that the right drug, in the right dose and by the right route of administration, is being given to the right patient at the right time."

See http://www.ismp-canada.org/download/safetyBulletins/ISMPCSB2009-4-PharmaceuticalBarCodingMovingForwardinCanada.pdf, please, for the full article.

Why barcoding? Same as before--it ties a physical mark to a physical object, with low fuss and as part of the normal printing process. Moreover, hybridizing (tying the bar code to another security/process control mechanism) with RFID is readily accomplished. But, starting with the bar code means that the recommendation can be adopted with little (or no) assumptions about the "asset inertia" in the pharma workflow.

Cheers,

Steve

First Year

StevenSimske — Tue, 05 May 2009 03:25:00 GMT

A year ago, I entered the first post on this blog, entitled "first day". At that point, I made it clear that my writing (as is true of all non-Twitter writing) had a purpose, had an intent to influence. I have spent the past year--sometimes with whimsy, sometimes with almost incalculable dryness--driving home the advantages that variable data printing provide to the brand owner.

In this, the second year of the "Security Printing and Imaging" blog, I will go a step further. This year, I will weave biometrics, SP++ (security printing++, or printing hybridized with other security mechanisms), and some business theory into the blog. To kick it off, I will provide a blog on each of the 48 chapters in the powerful--pun intended--business manifesto, "The 48 Laws of Power", by Robert Greene. Written in 1998, and based on the oeuvre of Sun-tzu, Machiavelli, Caesar, von Clausewitz and others, this book was written to summarize the principles used by those craving power. In my blogs, I will turn these principles on their side, and use them to provide the means to let your business strategy "seize power" over the strong, if unethical, competitors who are well-versed with the 48 laws. I'll also turn the laws completely over to show how they can be used ethically to the advantage of your brand and its partners.

Thanks to all my readers--those who have provided comments on the blog and separately from the blog--for the first year. I'm looking forward to another great year of interaction.

Cheers,

Steve

HP seizes 818,000 fake cartridges in Middle East, Q1 2009

StevenSimske — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:16:00 GMT

"HP has confiscated 818,000 counterfeit printer cartridges from outlets in the Middle East in the first quarter of 2009":

http://www.business24-7.ae/articles/2009/4/pages/15042009/04162009_4c79bcc2b0724e96a490ba5e574a3c5a.aspx

This constitutes roughly $20 million in counterfeit cartridges. Multiply it by 4 quarters and you get $80 million in seized cartridges, just for this region, for the year. Obviously, HP is a huge target for counterfeiters.

"HP is also auditing 50 per cent of its channel partners checking on counterfeit products. The counterfeit cartridges come from China and are also made in the Middle East. Ernest Azzam, Business Manager, laser and enterprise solutions at HP Middle East IPG, said: 'Counterfeit is happening not only at a cartridge level but also repacking of printer boxes. The reason it is so rampant in this region is the growth and sales have increased tremendously.'"

In other words, there is good news. New sales opportunities, new markets, and new competitors. The bad news is that, increasingly, the new competitors are counterfeiters.

Cheers,

Steve

Never Pass Over an Opportunity to Deploy Barcodes

StevenSimske — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 04:23:00 GMT

Barcodes, a key element in security printing, are nearly ubiquitous, serving not just for point of sale and inventory management, but increasingly for customer/product interaction. As described in previous blogs, this is due in part to the tremendous recent growth in mobile camera availability.

Barcodes, therefore, can be used for interrogating products. This need not be a security application. Take a picture of the barcode, and then connect to a website (for product information) or a printer (for a coupon or a lottery-like interaction). Or, more idiosyncratically, use the barcode to ensure a kosher passover.

"Barcodes the latest weapon in the fight to keep Passover kosher"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075928.html

First, a digression...in this part of the world, it may be that even making sure your food is appropriate for the occasion requires a "weapon" and a "fight". Try this game to see how a sentence you write might come across: substitute each noun with a synonym. Applying this to the article, the title can become "Barcodes the latest atomic bomb in the altercation to keep Passover kosher".

Back to our story. An anonymous donor offered to foot the bill for printing barcodes that indicate a product is kosher (i.e. is not "chametz", or containing leavened foods). There does not seem to be any authentication mechanism for the barcode; rather, the mere printing of it signifies a kosher product. A step in the right direction for food protection, but more is needed. Apparently, however, the program--this year at any rate--has passed over the opportunity to offer true product security.

Cheers,

Steve

(Thanks to Marie Vans for the link)

Partnership for Safe Medicines

StevenSimske — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:58:00 GMT

Security printing, RFID and related mechanisms to address counterfeiting and others supply chain fraud depend on the stick (investigation, evidence, prosecution) and the carrot (reward for compliance). The carrot is readily addressed through variable data printing.

The stick must be wielded carefully. This is the goal of the Partnership for Safe Medicines:

http://www.safemedicines.org/

And, they even provide a helpful acronym, "LEADER" for pharmacists (http://www.safemedicines.org/leaders-guide-for-pharmacists.html):

"The World Health Organization estimates that as much as 10 percent of medicines sold worldwide are counterfeit...It is important for all pharmacists to be aware of the dangers of counterfeit drugs, as well as be able to recognize and help prevent counterfeit drugs from reaching patients...Here are six steps for becoming a L.E.A.D.E.R. in the fight to protect patient safety.

Learn about contraband and counterfeit drugs.

Educate customers.

Avoid unsafe medicines and vendors

Decline suspicious offers. (Partnership for Safe Medicine claims of 365 pharmacies on-line, only 2 are legitimate).

Evaluate your medicines.

Report counterfeit drugs and suspicious vendors."

Good advice. This kind of education goes a long way. Successful anti-counterfeiting ecosystems are designed with a good estimate of the compliance rate. Education like that provided by PSM may not increase compliance, but it makes those pre-disposed for compliance more effective. Remember that 2x2 is equal to 4 just as 2+2 is. If the same number of users are compliant, but are on average twice as effective, the brand and the patient both win.

Cheers,

Steve

(Pipo Caban, gracias para la informacion acerca de PSM)