Security Printing and Imaging : SVDP

Variable Data Printing and Improved Pharma Product Protection and Brand/Customer Interaction

StevenSimske — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:18:00 GMT

My previous post was a link to the excellent In-Pharma Technologist blog edited by Nick Taylor. Nick solicited a posting from me back in April, but I could not find it on In-Pharma, so given a 1/2 year grace period, I think its time to post here:

Variable Data Printing and Improved Pharma Product Protection and Brand/Customer Interaction

Pharma brands are concerned with the integrity of their product. All successful pharmaceuticals have one thing in common: they improve the quality of life of the customer. Counterfeit pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, are harmful to both the customer and to the manufacturer; that is, they can simultaneously destroy lives and jobs. Brands pay many times over for counterfeits: loss of original sale, loss of future sales due to erosion of consumer confidence, loss of market capitalization due to perceived non-efficacy of the product, and potential legal recourse as a consequence of the consumer receiving phony goods.

All pharmaceuticals share another important thing in common. Information about the product must accompany the product. From packaging to labels to inserts, this information is conveyed by printing. Therein lies the solution to the problem.

Printing is pre-adapted for its use in security. Useful already in product identification, the variability printing provides is a natural fit for security. Variable Data Printing, or VDP, is the technology enabling the varying of every aspect of a print job. This is advantageous for individually tagging an item—a process called mass serialization. Mass serialization is a means of ensuring that each label, package or document contains a different identifier that can be read (which means interrogated and the data encoded successfully interpreted).

However, VDP can be used for far more than mass serialization in protecting a product. With security VDP, or SVDP, the different printed regions—be they text, image or graphics—contain not just variable data, but usually uniquely variable data. Also, this variable data can be (but isn’t always) read by some type of inspection, authentication or forensic device. That is, every variably printed region contains not just data, but security information. Thus, every region is novel, or unique identified, and so capable of being interrogated for its information.

To prevent counterfeiting, brand owners need to provide a moving target for the would-be counterfeiters, staying one step ahead of them in the deployment of security features. However, this is a tedious game, and often expensive, as brand owners continually research and purchase new deterrents. SVDP offers, however, an innate moving target—the ability to change the very nature of the variability on the fly. With SVDP, a moving target of deterrents is obtained without having to change the technology.

Linking or hybridization is how the set of variable features relate to one other. Examples of deterrent relationships include replication, hashing, sequence fragmentation [sharing the mass serialization data between two or more variable regions], and other techniques for making the multiple variable regions “cooperate” with each other. One particularly powerful method is to use one deterrent—usually one already used for track and trace or point-of-sale—as the registry “look up” sequence from which the signed-in user may then obtain information on one or more other variable regions. The method of hybridization can be changed from one print job to the next, meaning that the would-be counterfeiter must replicate all of the variable features which are monitored to be able to pass the phony product as authentic. Which “extra” features are actually monitored can be varied from day to day, making compliance both simple and thorough.

Monitoring information-containing printed images is getting easier every day. The near-ubiquity of camera-enabled mobile devices, therefore, strengthens the value of SVDP. Already, bar code interpreting software is native or readily downloaded to most internet-enabled mobile devices. Piggybacking image authentication services for other printed patterns is straightforward to implement.

Different variably printed regions can be used for track and trace, authentication, forensics, recall and other contingencies, or just to decoy the would-be counterfeiters. The way in which deterrents relate can be tied to pragmatic product details. For example, if the shelf life of a product is six months, it makes sense to change the relationship between deterrents every six months, so that expired products also exhibit “expired” security strategies. In the meantime, if certain deterrents are being successfully attacked, then adding new variability to the printed material is another way of gathering information on who the counterfeiters might be—insidious insiders, for example, may quickly incorporate these new variable regions, even if they are not tracked by your authenticators, and so tip their hand to you.

Incorporation of SVDP into the printing is straightforward, as there are only three rules: (1) meet compliance standards first, (2) vary several additional regions, and (3) change the relationship between the variable regions (hybridization plan) frequently.

Counterfeiters know all about SVDP, and they’re reading this and other related articles. Recall that there is no security through obscurity—counterfeiters reading this will know what they’re up against, but will not easily be able to spoof SVDP, except one item at a time (which makes the cost of counterfeiting higher). Thus, SVDP offers a means of staying one step ahead of the counterfeiters without running yourself ragged.

Cheers,

Steve

Stocking Stuffers I: Evolution Whitepaper

StevenSimske — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:52:00 GMT

[Part one of whitepaper-length recap's from this year's blog]

An Evolving Allegory

As an allegory for security printing, I have borrowed the concept of pre-adaptation from evolutionary biology. In the next few blogs I will borrow much more extensively from the concepts and terms in evolutionary biology. Evolution and security, I will argue, have a lot in common. Both accept the fact that change is inevitable, not always predictable, and if used properly a systemic advantage.

To set the agenda, I had the pleasure to re-read many of my Stephen J. Gould and Richard Fortey books. Two gentlemen who really knew/know how to write science essays. And, their great essays and chapters have the set the agenda for the five evolution-inspired blogs:

1. Pre-adaptation

2. Co-evolution

3. Mimicry (including Batesian mimicry) and convergent evolution

4. Survival of the fittest, modification, teleology, progress and complexity

5. Punctuated equilibrium

Pre-Adaptation

Pre-adaptation, also known as exaptation or “co-option”, is an instance in which a pre-existing anatomical structure eventually finds utility for a different purpose. A classic example is the pre-adaptation of sweat glands for use as lactating glands in mammals. Milk flow derived from earlier perspiration flow. Perspiration had utility, of course, in heat regulation (and possibly in the attraction of mates—deodorant was rare in the Triassic), and over time the survival advantage offered by the nursing of offspring selected for more and more productive sweat-as-mammary glands.

The other classic example is the pre-adaptation of feathers for wings. Feathers were originally selected for based on their utility in thermal regulation. Over time, presumably a cooling one, longer and more full feathers were selected for, and eventually some small feathered animal (such as the archaeopteryx, the fabled half-dino/half-bird) started seeing the structure and utility of its feathers no longer being selected solely for thermoregulation, but rather for the survival advantage of gliding and eventually flight.

We come to printing and security. How is printing pre-adapted to security? Printing is usually selected for, by the brand owner (detergent company, ticket salesperson, marketer, etc.), for its purpose in helping the customer identify the brand, obtain product information, or purchase the item (think about that bar code scanned at the cash register). In other words, printing has a large set of valuable roles already. Some brand owners select products based on the vividness of the printing, image quality, or layout of the printing. Others are simply looking for the printing of a trusted brand. Regardless, the printing already provides value.

Printing can also be used for security. With the use of security variable data printing, or SVDP, every package, label, ticket or other printed item can contain a unique set of embedded information—bits added to the variable region. So, for example, a 2D data matrix bar code may hold dozens of bits of information; a watermarked image may hold another few dozens of bits; and a variable line of text may contain a few dozen more. This type of “printing variability” illustrates how printing is pre-adapted to overt and covert security. So, VDP, originally selected for due to its powerful means of customizing printing, is pre-adapted to multiple roles of security.

Another aspect of printing is loosely pre-adapted to use in security. This exaptation is the parasitics that form when printing occurs. Parasitics are variations caused by the process of depositing ink on a substrate. For inkjet ink on office paper, as an example, the fibers in the paper will differentially wick the ink in the direction of the fibers. This “random” pattern of ink on the paper can be used as a difficult (if not impossible) to reproduce forensic mark.

Thus, printing can be used to provide all three types of security features—overt, covert and forensic. Not sure if it will be as useful in thermal regulation, but many a printed item, if folded properly (see http://paperairplanes.net/), is indeed pre-adapted to flight!

Co-evolution

Co-evolution is the process by which two species simultaneous exert selective pressure on each other, termed “reciprocal evolutionary adaptations”. Flowers and bees are a good example of mutualism, wherein the shared selective pressure results in a tangible advantage for both species (the flowers get improved pollen dispersion, the bees get the raw ingredients for honey).

Co-evolution can be less synergistic—predators and prey co-evolve, too. When natural selection leads to a cheetah adding on a few more kilometers/hour, the antelope, with a different architecture, can’t keep pace, and so if it is to survive, selection may lead it in a different direction. Thus, the ability to stop and/or change direction on a dime.

Co-evolution also includes the interaction between a host and a parasite. Think of a virus which kills its host every time. In order for it to find another host to support its progeny, there is selective pressure for it to let its host survive. Over time, then, it is selected to become less virulent to its host, and a more stable host-parasite relationship ensues. Such a long-term relationship is analogous to that between the oak and the mistletoe, or that between Dilbert and the Pointy-Haired Boss (http://www.shatteredmoonlight.net/phb/). It is important for the host (oak, Dilbert) to survive so that the parasite (mistletoe, Pointy-Haired Boss) doesn’t perish looking for another victim.

The examples above focus on paired co-evolution. However, in some sense, all species are co-evolving, and so co-evolution can be extended to sets of three, four or more species, interacting and significantly affecting each other. When three or more species are considered together, the situation is termed "diffuse co-evolution".

Co-evolutionary terms can be applied to arenas outside of evolutionary biology. For example, the size of car seats (to accommodate the size of people’s hind quarters) has co-evolved with the size of drink cup holders in the same cars.

This means we can apply co-evolutionary concepts to brand protection. Properly architected, a brand protection ecosystem illustrates mutualism, or the synergistic co-evolution described above. Some of the main principles of mutualism are: 1. Mutual benefit to each species involved.2. All species are free to adapt, independently forming secondary (diffuse) interactions as necessary.3. Collaborative (multiple species often providing complementary and/or redundant capabilities).

In brand protection, the complementary use of RFID and security printing can create a co-evolutionary situation. RFID should be used for shipping and tracking big items, and in other situations in which “line of sight” reading is not possible or tractable. Security printing should be used for smaller items, where “line of sight” reading is possible, and where RFID costs preclude their use. RFID and security printing, therefore, can complement each other for supply chain visibility, product tracking, security and authentication. They are mutually beneficial—RFID helping in workflows for which interrogating printed information is too costly, and security printing helping in workflows for which the item cost of RFID is too costly.

RFID and security printing are also free to adapt. For example, if RFID is someday efficiently and inexpensively printed, security printing may subsume the RFID process and the two will more closely combine. On the other hand, if next-generation printing technologies subsume more and more manufacturing processes—power, sensors, displays among them—a strong partnership between printing and manufacturing (as well as RFID) may create a new type of “diffuse co-evolution”. It will be exciting to see what the market selects for as technology moves inevitably forward.

Mimicry (including Batesian mimicry) and convergent evolution

Change isn’t always for the better. You can, for example, be short-changed. You can change from bad to worse. You can change your Outlook (Microsoft or otherwise). Or you can change a diaper (well, this is better, presumably, for the wearer of the diaper). Even in evolution, change is not for the “better”. Change simply is a consequence of genetic variability implicit in meiosis, mutation and mistakes innate to the reproductive processes.

Our interpretation of genetic change, therefore, depends on the perspective from which we view the change. As I discuss convergent evolution and mimicry in this posting, then, please keep in mind that usually one partner in the convergence/mimicry benefits more than the other.

Convergent evolution and mimicry are two of the most powerful concepts in evolution, as they directly relate to the change wrought by evolution. Since security printing and imaging, and the related supply chain and brand protection issues it addresses, must evolve as technology evolves, I consider these concepts as Part Three of the “evolution analogy” series.

Convergent evolution is the term for analogous structures that arise in genetically unrelated species as a consequence of their environment selecting a similar role for both species. This is different from a homologous structure, which arises in genetically related species. Examples of convergent evolution include:

1. Koalas and humans have independently evolved fingerprints

2. Bats and birds have independently evolved flight

3. Bats and toothed whales have independently evolved sonar-like capabilities

4. Opossums and humans have independently evolved opposable thumbs (pandas, too, although their thumbs are actually extensions of their wrist bones)

Examples of homologous structures are even more plentiful, including:

1. Robins and sparrows can both fly

2. Chimpanzees and humans both can walk

3. Giraffes and seals each have 7 vertebrae in their necks

4. Garter snakes and pythons each can slither

In security printing and imaging, these terms can refer to printed deterrents (homologous structures) and printed vs. non-printed deterrents (analogous structures, or convergent evolution). Security printing is the use of digital variable data printing (VDP) to add information to printed material. Bar codes contain bits of data suitable for disambiguating one item for sale from another item for sale. 1D and 2D bar codes contain different densities of data (number of bits per given area), but may contain the same (point-of-sale, track and trace, etc.) data. Thus, they are homologous (related and having similar utility).

Homology extends to any printed information that can be read and translated; that is, decoded from an image. So, printed features such as color tiles, guilloches, copy-detection patterns, watermarks, and their kin, are homologous—each is a species of the genus “security deterrent”.

Convergent evolution of security printing and RFID, however, is perhaps of more interest. Will all RFID tags be printed with electromagnetic ink (metallic or organically based, for example) someday, and RFID printing simply be incorporated as part of the printing-as-manufacturing process? Or will RFID manufacture move toward nominal cost along another route, and so reduce the importance of printed features in security? If the latter, then the current convergence of utility of RFID and security printing may become an irrelevant distinction—that is, RFID will effectively become “extinct” and become simply a part of printing, or conversely security printing will effectively become “extinct” as RFID assumes the roles of unique identifier, copy-prevention and tamper-evidence.

It seems more likely, though, that we will continue to reasonably view RFID and security printing as two separate species. Two species that are, in some respects, are undergoing convergent evolution. RFID is being extended to include tamper-evident information, using features such as what I term “RFID apoptosis” (programmed suicide possible with “KILL” and related RFID features) and signed additional bit strings. RFID is also, increasingly, being used for additional informational purposes, such as RFID-enable hardware in everything from car tires to refrigerators. Security printing, meanwhile, banking on the innate and broad adaptability afforded by digital VDP (variable data printing), has long been able to provide functionality like that of RFID. Bar codes provide EPCglobal or other mass serialized unique identifiers. VDP lends itself to an inference model based on either pre-printed serialization or inline serialization with real-time inspection. All security printing is missing is non-line of sight reading, although the development of conductive and other metallic inks indicates this hurdle will also soon be overcome.

Interestingly, RFID and security printing continue to “radiate” in terms of their phenotypic utilities, even while converging with respect to each other. This is easier to understand when one considers that they are converging to the same logical set of utilities: track and trace, authentication, point-of-sale, inventory management and forensics.

We come to Batesian mimicry, which is different from convergent evolution. Batesian mimicry can be simply described by example: The “classic” Batesian evolution is when uncommon, tasty animals resemble abundant, foul-smelling/noxious animals. Think of the yummy little bug that looks so much like a nasty tasting bug. Monarch butterflies and wasps have plenty of Batesian mimics out there.

Batesian mimicry also has an analogy for security printing and imaging. Security VDP affords the brand owner the ability to print a surfeit of security features, some overt and some covert. Some of these are tracked (inspected, authenticated, used for track and trace), and some are not. Those that are not, as I’ve noted in past blogs, can be used as “decoys” to get counterfeiters to try to mimic. They can also be used solely for forensic analysis of the counterfeiters, in which case they are not just decoys, but also bait. So, these excess deterrents are Batesian mimics of the tracked deterrents, and your would-be counterfeiter, in an effort to capture all the legitimate deterrents, will also swallow a number of Batesian mimics. The key is that at least one of the security VDP deterrents does in fact leave a bad taste in the counterfeiter’s mouth!

Survival of the fittest, modification, teleology, progress and complexity

Survival of the fittest

One of evolution’s tautologies is survival of the fittest. Whatever is best fit to survive, survives. Whatever survives is, by extension, fittest to survive. A lot like que será, será—whatever will be, will be. Sure, we get it—it’s a definition! However, this is a tautology only when taken from an a posteriori perspective (like the intellectually bankrupt concept of “social Darwinism”). From a different perspective—the a priori perspective—survival of the fittest is a contingency based on the future fitness of a species in a changing environment. And, while you’re living in the here and now, you don’t have 100% clarity of the future. What makes you most fit for survival is not fully known.

You may need contingency traits, which are extra traits that will allow you to respond better to the changing environment. Species that will survive and thrive when the world changes are species that have, serendipitously, differentiating attributes. This means that different future environments will have different future survivors and different definitions of fitness. Fitness is, indeed, arbitrary. Ask any marathoner meaning to bench press 300 pounds, or any bench-pressing behemoth pondering a long run—“fitness” depends on the context.

Since change is inevitable, and since you cannot predict with 100% accuracy what the future environment will look like, it may make sense to have multiple contingency traits to maximize survivability. This is a little tricky for a biological species, but much easier for a security printing job. Contingency deterrents can be added readily by a security variable data printing (SVDP) engine—these are deterrents not currently tracked, traced or authenticated. Contingency deterrents can be used to decoy or bait counterfeiters; in cases of recall; or as “back ups” for currently used deterrents. One contingency is that a counterfeiter “breaks” (reverse engineers) a currently used deterrent. The contingency deterrent allows you to roll over to the already-in-place, previously-unused deterrent—to move from counterfeiting to “counterfitness”.

Modification

Modifications are the driving force behind evolutionary changes. Mutations are the genetic basis for these modifications. Mutations are considered “random” in evolutionary terms—there are no Lamarckian mechanisms for translating life experience into gene alteration. These stochastic changes in genotype lead to (relatively) unpredictable changes in phenotype, and so provide the basis for different levels of “fitness” in a changing environment.

In security printing, modifications are built in to the surfeit of variable data features—so-called “contingency” deterrents described above. These allow a security printing protected product to modify in its strategy—how it deploys deterrents for QA, inspection, tracking, authentication, forensics, decoying and baiting.

Teleology

Teleology is “the study of design or purpose in natural phenomena”. In security printing and imaging, evolution and intelligent design are not internecine concepts. An intelligent design for your security printing anticipates contingencies—the need to stop using a deterrent once counterfeiters have successfully “broken” it, for example. This is termed the innate moving target offered by security printing. In security printing, an intelligent design is indeed one that will evolve as the environment in which it works—an environment that includes reputable and disreputable people alike—evolves.

Progress

Chris Hedges argues in his recent book that one mistake made by extremists of any political, philosophical or ethical flavor is that of assuming we are on the road to progress. However, history teaches us that the process of progress and regression is cyclical. The price of freedom—and progress—is constant vigilance. And once vigilance relaxes, regression seizes the opportunity.

An evolutionary approach to security printing makes no such assumption. An “innate moving target” assumes and endless competition with the counterfeiters. Some times you stay ahead of them for while in this arms race—like the ancient Hittites with their chariot—and sometimes they figure it out quickly. Especially quickly if they bribe one of your own people!

Complexity

The most complex species are generally those most specified for their environment. Horse, humans and hippos are good examples. Will these species evolve into something else? Perhaps. But history warns that bacteria will be around long after hippos, humans and horses are simple part of history. Stephen J. Gould contrasted the frequency of occurrence vs. complexity long-tail phenomenon in one of his works (Three Rivers Press, 1996, Stephen J. Gould, “Full House”, pp. 170-171, the “power of the modal bacter”). Some highly complex species will always evolve, but the majority—and those that survive—will be the simplest.

In security printing and imaging, for example, it is easy to add complexity to your deterrents. A simple example is the use of serif vs. sans-serif fonts. Another simple example is the adding of steganographic information to all of your images. But simpler is usually better. Use multiple security printing deterrents together, and simply change the way the data in one relates to the data in the others. Your deterrents will “live longer” and all of your changes will be made in software, and not in the selection of deterrents themselves.

You’ll live longer, too. Species under less stress survive longer. I suggest security VDP as a survival tool for the fittest of printing professionals!

Punctuated equilibrium

The final section of the security printing/evolution allegory is punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary biology hypothesis largely attributable to Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972. The theory states that species normally undergo relatively modest phenotypic change. However, when phenotypic (outward appearance) evolution occurs, it involves rare and relatively rapid change in the genetics of the species. Thus, the genetic similarity for the population is “punctuated”—changing rapidly for a relatively brief period, then changing slowly over a much longer time period.

Punctuated equilibrium does not oppose gradualism, the relatively secure theory of evolution that proposes an incremental change during evolution, with no great discontinuities between generations. Gould noted that punctuated equilibrium is supported by the fossil record, in which species are stable, phenotypically, for long periods of time; then, their descendent species appears in a relatively small time period.

If punctuated equilibrium exists, then what drives this seeming accelerated change? Why does the evolutionary rate seemingly increase? My perspective is that the rate does not necessarily change at all. Instead, the effective rate changes only because the environment itself is changing. So, the normal rate of mutation results in changes that lead to enhanced survival rate precisely because the environment can change faster than the based rate of change. As an example, a comet hits, and all the old advantages for survival—say, size, strength and speed—are less relevant. What survives now may survive because it was actually less fit in the old environment. Thus, the apparent rate of change increases only because the fringe members of the species that do survive become the norm of the “new” species that survive later.

Punctuated equilibrium has been applied to other fields. For example, in 1993, Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones noted that policy change can be described by punctuated equilibrium, inasmuch as policy changes slowly while one regime, party or system is in power, and then tends to change greatly when there is a transition in leadership.

We can apply this to printing, as well. Evolution was slow until the Johannes Gutenberg punctuation of 1440 helped change the slow and laborious process of scribes to the relative speed and efficacy of typed printing. Digital printing, certainly for security and customizability, is providing another “punctuated equilibrium” currently. However, the environment in which printing exists is changing quickly, too. The Internet and other fully-electronic workflows (RFID, for example) mean that many aspects of “traditional printing”—that is, printing 20 years ago—are no longer relevant. Printing that survives will seemingly change faster than the actual printing technology is changing, precisely because the “leaps” will likely survive better than the incremental changes. For example, look at the “–ology” series (http://www.ologyworld.com/), in which printing is merged with “manufacturing”—the inclusion of feathers, flaps and felt, for example—to successfully differentiate the “in-hand” from the “on-line”.

In security printing and imaging, punctuated equilibrium can be used to advantage. With a plurality of printed security deterrents, the brand owner can readily switch between the current deployment of deterrents—which are used for tracking, authentication, forensics, decoying and baiting, any combination thereof; or simply unused for the moment—to a new set and change the security strategy. The outward change in the set of deterrents is minimal or none. Then, when no new deployment strategy is possible—due to compromise of the deterrents or “inside job”—a new set of deterrents is deployed. The new set can be used in multiple future deployments. Thus, the outward rate of change in the security deterrents used exhibits punctuated equilibrium—steady state for a relatively long period, followed by a “massive change”—even though the rate of change for deployment (tracking, authentication, etc.) remains the same.

No matter how you look at it, security is the art of evolving, adapting and changing to survive the environment. Variable data printing makes evolution easier. Change is built-in.

Happy 2009!

-Steve

An Evolving Analogy, Part V: Punctuated Equilibrium

StevenSimske — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:44:00 GMT

No matter how you look at it, security is the art of evolving, adapting and changing to survive the environment. Variable data printing makes evolution easier. Change is built-in.

-Steve

[Thanks to Bisbee Finks for helpful comment on the "cladogram", incorporated into the post above--I'm going to pass on the suggested Stalin analogy, though it was definitely creative! Cheers, Steve]

An Evolving Analogy, Part 4: Survival of the fittest, modification, teleology, progress and complexity

StevenSimske — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:45:00 GMT

Survival of the fittest

Modification

Teleology

Progress

Complexity

The most complex species are generally those most specified for their environment. Horse, humans and hippos are good examples. Will these species evolve into something else? Perhaps. But history warns that bacteria will be around long after these hippos, humans and horses are simply part of history. Stephen J. Gould contrasted the frequency of occurrence vs. complexity long-tail phenomenon in one of his works (Three Rivers Press, 1996, Stephen J. Gould, “Full House”, pp. 170-171, the “power of the modal bacter”). Some highly complex species will always evolve, but the majority—and those that survive—will be the simplest.

You’ll live longer, too. Species under less stress survive longer. I suggest security VDP as a survival tool for the fittest of printing professionals!

-Steve

Pharmaceutical Commerce Webinar, November 18

StevenSimske — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:58:00 GMT

In two weeks, I have the opportunity to participate in Pharmaceutical Commerce's webinar on "How Digital Printing Changes the Game for Packaging, Labeling, and Brand Protection". The link to register for the webinar is:

http://events.newanglemedia.com/pc/digital_printing/

A brief description of the webinar is:

"This webinar will help you create a more agile supply chain network, and reduce capital outlay around serialization projects. You'll learn how to turn your printing process into a business and supply chain solution!"

"We've assembled an expert panel from HP and Nosco who will discuss ways to improve supply chain flexibility and efficiency through use of digital printing technologies. These industry experts will explore solutions for change management, reduced obsolescence and enhanced customer service across the biopharma supply chain."

"Pharmaceutical Commerce Editor Nick Basta will moderate the panel discussion featuring Joe Tenhagen of Nosco, Matt Gindele of HP Indigo Label & Packaging, and Steve Simske of HP Labs."

"Register today to get a glimpse of how current and future technologies are improving supply chain flexibility and efficiency."

Cheers,

Steve

An Evolving Analogy: Part 3, Convergent Evolution and Mimicry

StevenSimske — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:10:00 GMT

1. Koalas and humans have independently evolved fingerprints

2. Bats and birds have independently evolved flight

3. Bats and toothed whales have independently evolved sonar-like capabilities

4. Opossums and humans have independently evolved opposable thumbs (pandas, too, although their thumbs are actually extensions of their wrist bones)

Examples of homologous structures are even more plentiful, including:

1. Robins and sparrows can both fly

2. Chimpanzees and humans both can walk

3. Giraffes and seals each have 7 vertebrae in their necks

4. Garter snakes and pythons each can slither

Convergent evolution of security printing and RFID, however, is perhaps of more interest. Will all RFID tags be printed with electromagnetic ink (metallic or organically based, for example) someday, and RFID printing simply be incorporated as part of the printing-as-manufacturing process? Or will RFID manufacture move toward nominal cost along another route, and so reduce the importance of printed features in security? If the former, then the current convergence of utility of RFID and security printing may become an irrelevant distinction—that is, RFID will effectively become “extinct” and become simply a part of printing. Or, conversely, security printing will effectively become “extinct” as RFID assumes the roles of unique identifier, copy-prevention and tamper-evidence.

-Steve

An Evolving Analogy, Part 2: Co-Evolution

StevenSimske — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 04:59:00 GMT

1. Mutual benefit to each species involved.

2. All species are free to adapt, independently forming secondary (diffuse) interactions as necessary.

3. Collaborative (multiple species often providing complementary and/or redundant capabilities--this may even be applied to humans and dogs).

-Steve

An Evolving Analogy

StevenSimske — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:38:00 GMT

In previous public presentations and in this blog, I have borrowed the concept of pre-adaptation from evolutionary biology to describe the role of printing in security. In the next few blogs I will borrow much more extensively from the concepts and terms in evolutionary biology. Evolution and security, I will argue, have a lot in common. Both accept the fact that change is inevitable, not always predictable, and if used properly a systemic advantage.

1. Pre-adaptation

2. Co-evolution

3. Mimicry (including Batesian mimicry) and convergent evolution

4. Survival of the fittest, modification, teleology, progress and complexity

5. Punctuated equilibrium

Pre-Adaptation

Today’s blog explores pre-adaptation more indepthly. Pre-adaptation, also known as exaptation or “co-option”, is an instance in which a pre-existing anatomical structure eventually finds utility for a different purpose. A classic example is the pre-adaptation of sweat glands for use as lactating glands in mammals. Milk flow derived from earlier perspiration flow. Perspiration had utility, of course, in heat regulation (and possibly in the attraction of mates—deodorant was rare in the Triassic), and over time the survival advantage offered by the nursing of offspring selected for more and more productive sweat-as-mammary glands.

Cheers,

Steve

Are You Making It Too Easy for Counterfeiters? Then, Let Me SLAP You!

StevenSimske — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:22:00 GMT

Acronyms and anagrams are excellent means to simplify a message and to provide easy recall of this message (thus, the word “mnemonic” [Greek origin]—assisting or intended to assist the memory). For example, in 3^rd Grade, I figured out that my last name was an anagram for “KISS ME”. And I conveyed this knowledge to all of my female classmates. Which, not coincidentally, leads us to discussing the mnemonic SLAP.

SLAP, in the case of producing an effective ecosystem for brand protection and anti-counterfeiting, is an acronym for Scalable, Logical, Analytical, and Progressive.

Scalable means that the solution you propose can be used on multiple production runs, multiple products (SKUs), and for a reasonable amount of time. Don’t try to “divide and conquer”—that is, don’t use a completely different approach on different products. It will confuse your customers, your retailers, and your inspectors. Not only will it make it more difficult for you to get good authentication feedback, but you actually may increase the perception that your products are being counterfeited. Product “A” has deterrents 1, 2 and 3 on it, but Product “B” has deterrents 4, 5 and 6 on it—hmmm, one of these is probably fake. Or, worse yet, the would-be authenticator simply tunes out—too complicated, not worth it, too hard to figure out how to authenticate the product. Keep the message simple, and use an innate moving target for deterrence rather than actually changing the target. Security Variable Data Printing (SVDP) is such an innate moving target. One can change the information embedded in the security print, but never change the way a user interacts with it. And, because SVDP affords so many different means of embedding trackable and authenticable data, it is innately scalable, as well.

Logical means, well, think! Don’t make it easy on the counterfeiters. Here are some illogical approaches: (1) Spend a lot on your deterrent (counterfeiters love these “high margin” deterrents, because they’ll always knock them off more cheaply, and it decreases your margins while increasing theirs); (2) Use a deterrent/approach for only a short while and then stop using it (now your would-be authenticators don’t know what to expect—was it the old deterrent or the new deterrent, and which is legitimate). Much more logical: any time you roll out a new deterrent, which is unavoidable for some products—educate your authenticators; (3) Confuse different utilities in a familiar approach. Using variable data inside a hologram is one such example—most users think holograms are “variable” already, and aren’t likely to even notice the fact that one hologram is different from another; (4) Confuse machine vs. human readability. If you use a deterrent intended for machine reading, then embed data in a way that machines can read better than humans. And vice versa. Humans, for example, are very good at noticing alignment differences and relative color differences. Mach bands and other optical illusions are entirely invisible to machines. Machines are much better at noticing absolute color differences and of course steganographics such as watermarks. Meaning metamerisms are mainly meant for machines (alliterative, no?).

Analytical means your approach to the ecosystem should be geared at generating quantitative data. What is the compliance rate (i.e. what percentage of would-be authenticators actually try to authenticate)? What is the counterfeit rate? Read failure rate? If you can’t disambiguate these latter two—counterfeit vs. read rate, that is—you do not have an analytical solution. SVDP again underpins such an analysis: a counterfeit sample will generally have a different combination of print quality, print forensics and payload (data to be read) than a legitimate but unreadable—e.g. damaged, read with poor lighting, etc.—sample. Because of the multiple modalities—color, saturation, intensity, steganographics, halftoning, etc.—involved in printing, SVDP provides many on-ramps for analytics.

Progressive, finally, means that your approach allows progressively more complicated analysis to proceed smoothly. From an imaging standpoint, this means we move from image quality assessment (image “grading”) to image inspection to image authentication to, finally, image forensics. At each stage, a more in-depth analysis—and thus more difficult to reproduce—of the printed material is obtained. Making the first stage, image grading, relatively fast and painless, is an excellent way to generate “leads” from your customers. HP and many other brands address this by using “high-end” overt deterrents on their packaging. Customers are familiar with the motif—color-shift, thermochromic, etc.—and so notice when these have been unsuccessfully knocked off. Inspection ties layout and partial authentication to quality. Authentication ties the print job to the database of legitimate products. Forensics ties the data to the very material printed on, as discussed in my previous blog.

We can now add “SLAP” to the list of SVDP-related mnemonics, which also includes ACID (May 19)—All Content Is Dynamic—and PRACTICE (May 12)—Plan, Research, Activate, Collect, Train, Investigate, Convict, Evolve. Hopefully, this helps you recall a logical approach to brand protection. If not, well then, TTFN!

-Steve

A Consideration of Processes

StevenSimske — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:53:00 GMT

Recent blogs have focused on how deterrent technologies can be used to support the ecosystem required to provide strong brand protection and anti-counterfeiting. That ecosystem involves the PRACTICE mnemonic:

P is for Plan, R is for Research, A is for Activate, C is for Collecting data, T is for Training, I is for Investigate, C is for Convict, E is for Evolve.

This form of PRACTICE outlines an end-to-end process for initiating and supporting an anti-fraud program. Each of these—from Plan to Evolve—involves by itself multiple processes as well. Today’s blog focuses on two quite different types of processes, each focused on the “Investigate” portion of PRACTICE.

The “Investigate” portion includes the continual accumulation of data on the counterfeiting of your product. One means to do this uses security variable data printing, or SVDP. This is the use of multiple variable deterrents to draw out the “style” of the counterfeiter. That is, SVDP regions can be used as “bait” or “decoy” deterrents—not to force the counterfeiters to “replicate” the data in the printed region, but instead to force the counterfeiter, through trying to replicate the appearance of the printed region, to identify himself. This is because complex printed regions cannot be scanned and re-printed without modification. How a counterfeiter will try to reproduce such a complicated region—the choice of color, intensity, spatial frequency, contrast and other transforms the counterfeiter uses—provide a signature for the counterfeiter’s style. This process is an example of an a priori process, in which the data to be collected is designed and deployed.

Another means to continually accumulate data on the counterfeiting of your product is to perform a posteriori analysis of the product, and compare the analysis results to those expected of legitimate product. As a non-printing example, John Jasper, head of Molecular Isotope Technologies (MIT), writes, “Process patents are mechanisms by which to protect and extend the patent-protected lives of pharmaceutical products. They are typically supported by the analysis of reaction impurities, trace metals, etc. Natural stable isotopes present a novel source of information recording evidence of the process manufacturing history – particularly, the synthetic pathway – used to produce pharmaceutical and other chemical materials…[Our] work in the area of product authentication showed that every batch of pharmaceutical materials had a highly-specific ‘isotopic fingerprint,’ allowing individual batches of materials to be tracked and counterfeit batches to be identified.” In other words, MIT’s process for analyzing the reagents in a pharmaceutical are precise enough to disambiguate between the authentic and the counterfeit processes involved in production.

Image forensics, not surprisingly, can also be used in an a posteriori manner. The process is, on the surface, similar to the a priori approach: printed regions are analyzed for their characteristics, and different regions classified and clustered to help identify the number and size of the counterfeiters in your supply chain. The difference is that, using such an approach, a suitably difficult-to-reproduce printed area must be identified without the benefit of SVDP. So, a word of advice: if you want to identify counterfeiters, don’t make it easy on them—use SVDP or at minimum a few regions of difficult-to-reproduce printing (natural images, designs such as guilloches, etc.). Otherwise, you’re simply making their job easier, and that’s one process that makes no sense.

-Steve

Categorical Imperative

StevenSimske — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 05:04:00 GMT

Immanuel Kant addressed human morality and its position in nature and the universe with his categorical imperative. The formula of Universal Law states that one must act in such a manner that you can at the same time will it should become a universal law (keep in mind, this last sentence is paraphrased--either Kant was the world's worst writer *ever* or a decent translation into English is still waiting). The formula of the Law of Nature is similarly dense: act in such a way that your action can become through your will a universal law of nature. Since Will Durant (who ought to know) and others consider Kant one of the 5 most important philosophers of history, and these are his crown jewels, it is worth considering the impact of these thoughts.

Essentially, legitimate behavior is behavior that, if extended to everyone else, would be tenable. So, if you are using more than 1 6.7 billionth of the planet's petrol, eating more than 1 6.7 billionth of the planet's calories, destroying more than 1 6.7 billionth of the planet's human-sustaining resources, you are breaking this law. From the other direction, if everyone did what you are considering doing, and it would be destructive, you are being immoral. Homicide? If everyone did this, everyone would be dead. OK, you might not be punished for this, since no one would be left to punish you, but clearly it is unsustainable. Grand theft auto (the felony, not the video game)? Only those who can hotwire cars would be able to drive. Not sustainable. Eating a hot dog? Sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about the ingredients in a hot dog, as you may know from past blogs. But clearly, not sustainable.

The point is, the categorical imperative can be used both proactively (what good can happen if everyone does something?) and reactively (what harm comes if noone does something?). Let's apply it to security printing.

If everything printed is variable, and therefore contains (potentially trackable, readable, interrogable) information, or variable data, is it tenable? Absolutely. Variable data can be added to printed areas without destroying the branding message, the product identification message or the graphic artist's intent (look and feel) of the printed material. This proactive deployment of variable security printing simultaneously enables track and trace, authentication, inspection, quality assurance, image forensics, auditing, decoying and "baiting" of counterfeiters and--due to surfeit variable regions--contingencies such as product recall.

What about reactive consideration of the universal deployment of security printing? If no one uses security variable data printing (SVDP), then opportunities to make counterfeiting more difficult are squandered. Opportunities to protect brands are squandered. Opportunities to increase consumer interaction, interest and interrogation of your product are squandered. And, most egregiously, opportunities to provide multiple layers of security--with no extra cost, no extra carbon footprint, and little extra effort--are eschewed. This can only be due to indolence or neglect. Guess which of these will be assumed should a consumer die because they got a counterfeit of your product? If you are having trouble guessing, think about which will cost your company more in punitive damages.

If noone uses SVDP, then universally product fraud is given a free pass. This is categorical neglect--and it is imperative that any means of increasing consumer safety, so long as negligible cost is incurred, be deployed. Previous blogs have highlighted how SVDP actually saves money while increasing security. I certainly think this is easier to understand than, say, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason ("Now it does indeed seem natural that, as soon as we have left the ground of experience, we should, through careful enquiries, assure ourselves as to the foundations of any building that we propose to erect, not making use of any knowledge that we possess without first determining whence it has come, and not trusting to principles without knowing their origin."--huh?).

-Steve