Security Printing and Imaging : anti-counterfeiting

EFPIA Announcment, HP Hosting Services

StevenSimske — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:31:00 GMT

Remember the 24 August announcement on the HP/GS1 food recall service? If not, please enjoy as if new the following article:

http://www.communities.hp.com/online/blogs/securityprinting/archive/2009/08/25/big-news-hp-develops-cloud-service-with-gs1-canada-to-enhance-product-recall-process.aspx

This announcement introduced the HP Cloud Computing Platform for Manufacturing, as described here:

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2009/090824xb.html

More on the overall solution, including the roles of partners Siemens, SAP and HP, is provided at:

http://www.controlglobal.com/industrynews/2009/278.html#

"In the EFPIA pilot project, Siemens IT Solutions and Services is the general contractor in cooperation with Hewlett Packard (HP) and SAP. The IT service provider is responsible for the project management and integration of the information interfaces between the pharmacies and the manufacturers. Siemens IT Solutions and Services is also responsible for operating and maintaining the IT infrastructure, including the technology and information systems, data integration, system security and system development. SAP Belgium will be in charge of the SAP object event repository (SAP OER) and the implementation services. Hewlett Packard (HP) will provide hosting services and SAP solutions testing."

The hosting services are through the HP Cloud Computing Platform for Manufacturing, as described earlier. Feel free to contact me for details.

Cheers,

Steve

In Blacksburg on November 12th? Gimme a Holler!

StevenSimske — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:40:00 GMT

Growing up, I lived in Eastern Kentucky "for a spell". Rural Rowan (pronounced like "round" without the "d') County, in fact, where the valley I lived in was called "Quail Hollow". As in, a snake bit me and I had to "holler". I lived right next to a "crick" (creek). I only lived there a little over a year, but the accent can come back on demand.

Another beautiful Appalachian spot to give me a holler is Blacksburg, Virginia (http://www.blacksburg.va.us/) if you're on the road in November. A nice little city where the student population is on a par with the town's population. OK, I guess you can get that in Manhattan, Kansas, too, but you might have to drive farther. And you won't have those Appalachians.

So, if you are in the neighborhood, please drop by to catch my talk at Virginia Tech's ICTAS, or Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (http://www.ictas.vt.edu/index.shtml). Here's the brief:

ICTAS Seminar Series – Fall 2009

Date: November 12, 2009

Time: 3:00-4:30pm

Place: 310 ICTAS

Speaker: Steven Simske, Hewlett-Packard Labs

Title: “Consumer Safety in a Rapidly Changing World: Security, Identity and Anti-Counterfeiting”

Bio & Abstract: http://www.ictas.vt.edu/pdf/seminarseries_simske.pdf

Cheers,

Steve

Are you willing to take a placebo 1/5 of the time?

StevenSimske — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:46:00 GMT

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 10-30% of the medicines in the developing world are counterfeits. I assume this means addressable counterfeiting--counterfeiting to which the buyer is oblivious.

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Materials-Formulation/USP-targets-counterfeits-in-Cambodia/?c=ZS6DWN3IZ%2FJ7P5ONPLFYaw%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

Different, caring organizations around the world (see previous blog postings on NAFDAC, for example) are addressing local problems. In the case of the article linked above, the USP and USAID are messaging counterfeiting as a crime "against humanity, against you". A fair assessment. Cambodia and other developing countries will also reasonably address anti-counterfeiting since it is also a huge economic hit for their countries, even if their country is a "net counterfeiter" (i.e. their country makes more money exporting counterfeit goods than they lose on sales of counterfeit goods within their country--this may be true, for example, of China).

Why? Because counterfeiters by definition target monetized transactions. And people with money to pay for what they feel are legitimate pharmaceutics are more likely to be tied into the legitimate economy of the country, and thus adding to the GDP (and thus actually developing these developing countries).

Countering counterfeiting, then, protects those who are bringing progress to the developing world. Want to prevent terrorism? Then stop counterfeiting! What better way to nurture a democracy than to support legitimate purchasing. The alternative is loss of faith in the processes of the "free" market. There are, of course, legitimate reasons to lose this faith (look at the current financial crisis caused in large part by the creed of greed in the US financial sector and other locations--obviously some limitations/safeguards are needed), but counterfeit pharmaceuticals should not be one of them.

Cheers,

Steve

Thanks to my friend and colleague, Martina Trucco, for the link

Conference Time Part IV: New Findings in Security Printing and Imaging

StevenSimske — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:07:00 GMT

If there is no rest for the wicked, then I have been very evil these past two weeks indeed. But, I hope some of the findings are wickedly cool. This post is for the paper on new findings in security printing and imaging, and my co-authors are that talented trio of Guy Adams, Jason Aronoff and Margaret Sturgill. Though a bit of a grab bag, this paper focuses on three primary tracks of research:

(1) Does error correcting code always make sense for barcodes? We found out that for 2D and 3D barcodes, the answer is, not usually.

(2) Can classification of authentic and counterfeit samples actually improve with increased compression? Interestingly, the answer appears to be yes in many cases, especially when color is involved (I've reviewed a paper recently that showed the same controversial results--increased accuracy with compression--for forest classification).

(3) Does color help forensic image analysis? Again, the answer is yes.

Give it a read, it's short!

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2009/HPL-2009-328.html

Cheers,

Steve

Rude Food? A Bright Future is Ghana Make a Difference

StevenSimske — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:56:00 GMT

If recent salmonella, e Coli, melamine and other food scares have you second-guessing your food chain, imagine what it may be like in some rural areas, where connectivity and information technology knowledge may be more limited.

A recent announcement states that "Researchers have presented a low cost track and trace and authentication system, which they believe could be implemented immediately, to combat counterfeiting in the developing world".

The full article is posted at:

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Processing-QC/Phone-based-anti-counterfeiting-proposed-for-developing-world/

I chatted with Ghana's Bright Simons, an Ashoka Fellow (http://www.ashoka.org/bsimons) and the Coordinator of the mPedigree network (www.mpedigree.net), about this article, since it alludes to mPedigree. Bright noted that there are some misrepresentations in the article, but overall the mPedigree approach is to associate a tamper-evident seal with a unique ID (e.g. mass serialized identifier), which is a strategy that leads to copy-based attacks by would-be counterfeiters. A cloud-based network supporting the unique IDs (i.e. providing track and trace and provenance) will help to defend the system from copy attacks. Overall, the approach is elegant--low-cost to implement, free for the consumer, and potentially ubiquitous through its mobile on-ramp.

The appropriately-named Bright was also recently named to the Tech Awards Laureates 2009, "as one of 15 global innovators recognized each year for applying technology to benefit humanity and spark global change. The Tech Awards, a signature program of The Tech Museum, and presented by Applied Materials, Inc., selected mPedigree Network from among hundreds of nominations representing 66 countries."

"The Tech Awards: Technology Benefiting Humanity (www.techawards.org) is one of the premier annual humanitarian awards programs in the world, recognizing technical solutions that benefit humanity and address the most critical issues facing our planet and its people. The awards program honors 15 scientists and innovators annually alongside the recipient of the Global Humanitarian Award. This year’s Laureates include Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States of America (Global Humanitarian Award)."

Protecting our food and our supply chains is more than just high-priority. It's award-winning.

Cheers,

Steve

NAFDAC branching out to India

StevenSimske — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:16:00 GMT

Nigeria is working with Interpol and planning to set up 3 offices in India to fight counterfeiting, and specifically allegedly China-produced fakes labelled “Made in India”.

The full article is posted at:

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Industry-Drivers/NAFDAC-ups-anti-counterfeiting-actions/?c=JiBz%2FX6W896MgKpnW7DU1A%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

and notes: "The battle against counterfeits in Nigeria has been fought by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), which is now taking further steps to tackle the problem. NAFDAC’s latest actions are in response to a seizure of counterfeit drugs that are believed to be of Chinese origin but were labelled 'Made in India'. The seized shipment consisted of counterfeit generic anti-malarial drugs."

I spoke to IMANI's Bright Simons (http://www.imanighana.com/bright.html) when he was in the States a couple of weeks ago. This is in direct alignment with his vision for mPedigree. Counterfeit organizations span countries, continents and hemispheres. Agencies effective at reducing the impact of these worldwide counterfeiting organizations must have worldwide span as well. Think GS1. Think ISO. If the scope of your anti-counterfeiting strategy is too small, the same will be true of its effectiveness.

Cheers,

Steve

5th Global Forum on Pharmaceutical AntiCounterfeiting

StevenSimske — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:32:00 GMT

Reconnaissance International's 5th Global Forum on Pharmaceutical Anti-Counterfeiting is being held in Miami 24-26 February 2010. Details on the event, including submitting a paper and information on the sponsors, is available at:

http://www.regonline.co.uk/builder/site/default.aspx?EventID=751954

One theme of this conference is in "addressing the role of the patient in fighting counterfeit medicines and related products".

Interestingly, the conference overlaps with Graphics of the Americas (February 25-27, 2010, in nearby SoBe district of Miami Beach), which also features an excellent Brand Protection Conference. See:

http://www.graphicsoftheamericas.com/media/news.html

for details. If one of these conferences isn't enough to get you down to Miami near the end of winter, why not the pair?

Cheers,

Steve

Law of Power 4—Always Say Less Than Necessary

StevenSimske — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:44:00 GMT

Continuing a reinterpretation of Robert Greene’s 1998 landmark, “The 48 Laws of Power”, I turn his Law #4 sideways (applying the law to the fighting of counterfeiting and other forms of fraud) and then turn it upside down (using the laws to create better businesses).

Given the definition of Law #4, need I say more? Actually, the irony is that to argue for saying less, a relatively thorough post is needed. Saying less is an art. One must say enough, often provocatively, to obey the other Laws of Power (commanding attention, generating mystery, etc.), but not say too much to appear common. Not only is it an art, but it is also the secret of art. Why did Klein pick (and try to patent) the hue of blue known as Klein Blue? Why did Marcel Duchamp “pick” a urinal for his show? Certainly, neither of them was about to tell. What could be more common than a single element in a palette or a single stall in a men’s room? By saying less than necessary, Klein and Duchamp succeeded where many others fail.

What does it mean? Let the other person decide...

Robert Greene interprets the fourth Law of Power as the power to be vague, open-ended, and sphinx-like. Can such ambiguity be achieved through idiocy? Think of Peter Seller’s character in “Being There,” whose sagacity is certified by his oracle-like “I like to watch” and “I can’t read.” Far better to say less—“I like to sit on my fat derriere watching TV” and “I am illiterate” are unlikely to generate a dedicated followership.

My interpretation of Robert Greene’s sense of this law comes from the field of dietary restriction (I have done research in this area in a past life: see for example Ferguson VL, Greenberg AR, Bateman TA, Ayers RA, Simske SJ: Effect of age and dietary restriction without nutritional supplementation on whole bone structural properties in C57BL/6J mice. Biomed Sci Instrum 35:85-91, 1999). Essentially, food and words are death. The human body is designed to cycle only so many calories—say 80-100 million—in a lifetime. Caloric restriction—willingly reducing your caloric intake—will in general lead to a longer life. The same is true of words. Your power base will only survive so many words. The more apt you are to offer free advice and speak your mind, the shorter your lifespan of power will be. We all love to deliver a witty phrase—we’re light at ease after a litotes, literate through alliteration, happy through hyperbole—but few of us are as clever as we think. And each beautiful flower of true bon mot will be lost in the forest of cliché if we choose the road of sarcasm, cynicism and attack.

Greene cites Louis XIV as following Law #4 to the letter: “L’état, ç’est moi” and the smile of Buddha. So much more effective for a long and unchallenged reign than, for example, Coriolanus, whose spite and common complaining took him from hero to zero, from warrior to weary-er.

SIDEWAYS:

Law of Power #4 is important for anti-counterfeiting. Empower your agents in the field; but do not let them talk themselves into ineffectiveness. Focus your education and training costs to make your agents better able to provide the information you need, but not to digest it themselves. Does your agent need to understand everything she sees? Not unless you want to create a potentially powerful double agent. Do not allow any single agent in the field to collect too much information or know too much. Make her capable of conveying value with a credible degree of deniability of knowledge. It’s safer for your strategy and safer for your agents. The best agents, or “feet on the street”, are not just secret agents; they are to some extent uninformed agents. Make sure they are only capable of saying less than what is necessary to compromise your brand protection program. Otherwise, you will always be competing with the highest-paying counterfeiter for the agent’s services.

UPSIDE DOWN:

How can this Law be turned upside down? Isn’t purposely saying less duplicitous by nature? Not if you turn the art of saying less into the art of listening more. Listen to your partners. You and your partner have the following breakdown of problems: (1) Problems you can solve, (2) Problems the partner can solve, and (3) Problems neither can solve. Usually, (1) and (2) are not fully overlapping, but even if they are, you and the partner will solve them in different ways. Indeed, (1) + (2) = (3), and simply listening to how your partner solves a problem you “already know how to solve” may lead to solving set (3). When you talk, you will naturally address either (1) or (3) and so have 0% chance of solving new problems. When they talk, the focus is problems they can solve—and your chance to learn. This is really, really hard work--listening to someone explain how to solve a problem you already know how to solve. But it is the road to learning.

Ultimately, your “power” rests on what you know. Listening is a much harder skill than saying less than necessary. Listening is an active event—unlike hearing, which is passive. Learn to say less by listening. Let your partner finish her thought, and internalize what she says. If different than what you know, then why? Is it because what you had previously viewed as a single topic is actually two or more? What are the conditions to disambiguate these subtopics? Now you’re not just listening, you’re learning. And when you are likewise allowed to share your experiences, true collaboration has occurred. All by taking turns in saying less.

Cheers,

Steve

See Law #3 at: http://www.communities.hp.com/online/blogs/securityprinting/archive/2009/06/16/law-of-power-3-conceal-your-intentions.aspx

Puzzling Advice From the FDA: Add Chemicals to your Drugs

StevenSimske — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:52:00 GMT

The FDA is advocating the addition of chemicals to pharmaceuticals to improve the identification of counterfeits.

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Industry-Drivers/FDA-advocates-food-pigments-and-flavours-to-combat-counterfeits/?c=JiBz%2FX6W897ybeGc6YCjow%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

This is puzzling advice in several ways. First off, the article states:

"IMS health recently estimated that the counterfeit drugs 'market' generates almost $800bn annually and is growing at almost 6 per cent a year." This is either hyperbole or simply poor reporting. $80bn annually is the correct current estimate.

Next, the summary of the advice is stated:

"The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new document argues that incorporating PCIDs into drug formulations could be a cost effective way of differentiating genuine products from fakes. The agency went on to say that PCIDs used in drugs should be pharmacologically inactive and suggests that: 'food additives, colorants, or excipients with established safety profiles,' would be ideal candidates. While in common with other anti-fake labelling methods, PCIDs can be easily detected in the laboratory, their big advantage over traditional methods is that they can be readily identified by patients, healthcare practitioners and pharmacies."

There is certainly a trend to include less, rather than more, exogenous chemicals -- dyes, expedients, etc. -- in food and drugs. So, the FDA advice bucks that trend.

Also, adding PCIDs "with established safety profiles" by definition means that the list of PCIDs to add is public knowledge. This makes it easier for the would-be counterfeiter to obtain those PCIDs, doesn't it?

Regardless, the use of PCIDs would presumably follow one of two strategies:

(1) Controlled substance, in which case the PCIDs used should only be sold by authorized suppliers to authorized buyers. The type of fraud to prevent in that case, then, is the insidious insider who orders PCIDs and sells them for profit to his counterfeiting buddies.

(2) Security by obscurity, in which case the PCIDs should not be published. This is also susceptible to insidious insiders, however, and certainly makes authentication more difficult.

Using PCIDs, in addition, may complicate the authentication process--requiring the deployment of specialized analysis equipment and personnel. The FDA is certainly enamored with nanotechnology, and this may relate. However, track and trace and authentication through the appropriate combination of security printing (remember that tablets can be printed on and linked to the information on the package through the application of the appropriate inference model) and RFID seems, to me, easier, more cost-effective, more scalable, and more effective.

The full draft of the guidance is posted here:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM171575.pdf

Some highlights salient to the discussion:

"There are various available means for presentation and detection of PCIDs (e.g., photolithography, holography, laser scanning devices, and excitation/fluorescence detection). Many identifying characteristics, such as pigments or flavors, could be easily observed by patients, healthcare practitioners, and pharmacies. Some could require the use of instrumental detection (e.g., a scanner or photometric detector)."

"To minimize toxicological risk, FDA recommends using permissible direct food additives, including those affirmed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS), or those ingredients listed in the FDA Inactive Ingredient Guide (IIG)."

What are your thoughts? Any comments? Please post below! Thanks,

Steve

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

See Law #2 at: http://www.communities.hp.com/online/blogs/securityprinting/archive/2009/05/31/law-of-power-2-never-put-too-much-trust-in-friends-learn-to-use-your-enemies.aspx

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

See Law #1 at: http://www.communities.hp.com/online/blogs/securityprinting/archive/2009/05/27/91834.aspx

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

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)

Princeton ACM/IEEE Talk, April 16

StevenSimske — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:49:00 GMT

I've been invited to speak to the Princeton area ACM/IEEE Computer Society meeting on April 16. The full invitation:

PRINCETON ACM / IEEE-CS CHAPTERS

APRIL 2009 JOINT MEETING

Security Printing and Imaging: Stopping Counterfeit Products

Counterfeit products are a growing problem. Since counterfeiters usually target brands, many companies have developed expensive methods of combating counterfeiting in order to protect their brands. But a better technology might simple printed labels. Consumers may use their camera phone on printed product label to retrieve product information. This talk also gives an overview of the science of security printing and imaging -- from classification to the use of color, and the implications for the future of customer/product interaction.

Date: Thursday April 16, 2009, 8pm

(refreshments and networking at 7:30pm)

Place: Sarnoff Corp., Routes 1 and 571, Princeton, NJ

Information: Dennis Mancl (908) 582-7086,

Jan Buzydlowski (610) 902-8343

Please see: http://www.acm.org/chapters/princetonacm for more information on this talk and other talks in the meeting series. I hope to see my East Coast colleagues there. My thanks to Rebecca Mercuri and the Princeton area ACM/IEEE for the invitation.

Cheers,

Steve