51–60 of 118 posts
That's what you get when you use lossy compression, and it's hardly a problem unique to Xerox scanners. Maybe important documents should be scanned to a higher resolution so you don't have problems like this.
This should be on the computer risks digest. There is virtually no reason whatsoever for this problem to exist. This is the domain of "making a problem more risky and complicated than it needs to be" and royally screwing people in the process. Might as well throw the paperwork in a bin and set fire to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing to me the engineers who refuse to update their worldviews about normal people's mental models for "sending data" that still get amazed by this. The size of the files or the number of them are totally irrelevant.
Normal people seem to get that it's considerably harder to ship a barn than a letter, and that if you want to move a barn you use a specialty service rather than the post office. The size and number of files are and should be totally relevant even to "normal" people. When someone asks for something in e-mail, it's perfectly reasonable to say "no, it's much too big" and expect them to understand.
I've seen systems in this day and age that fail in the face of e-mails as small as 5 megabytes (e.g. Yahoo Popgate) which IMHO is far too low - but evidently some sysadmins disagree with me!
This was predictable. JBIG2 is in no way secure for document processing, archiving or whatsoever. The image is sliced into small areas and a probabilistic matcher finds other areas that are similar. This way similar areas only have to be stored once. Yeah right, you get it, don't you? They are similar, not equal. Whenever there's a probability less than 1, there's a complementary event with a probability larger than…
"Digital Photocopiers Loaded With Secrets" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa0akU8bsOQ
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Others have pointed out a credible explanation: to have the document take less space on their hard disk. However, it does not have to be compression, per se. Modern copiers want to correct all kinds of errors such as creases and staples. They also want to optimize the colors. To do that, they have logic for detecting what areas of the page are full-color and which are black and white, which are half-tone printed, whi…
Well we have 14TiB of financial documents archived on our kit. There is no way we even would consider such compression!!! The whole thing is dangerous and wholly illogical. This is akin to a crappy crime flick where someone hits the "enhance!" button on a CCTV still a few times and gets to see the dirt on the guy's teeth. In this case, the computer decides the guy is female and has no teeth.
This was predictable. JBIG2 is in no way secure for document processing, archiving or whatsoever. The image is sliced into small areas and a probabilistic matcher finds other areas that are similar. This way similar areas only have to be stored once. Yeah right, you get it, don't you? They are similar, not equal. Whenever there's a probability less than 1, there's a complementary event with a probability larger than…
Given the way the algorithm works, it would seem to me that "fine print" would be the most vulnerable to the bug (well not really a bug, it's the behavior of JBIG2). I wonder if there will be a clear dividing line, e.g. "smaller than 10pt type is subject to reasonable doubt if a Xerox copier was used"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing to me the engineers who refuse to update their worldviews about normal people's mental models for "sending data" that still get amazed by this. The size of the files or the number of them are totally irrelevant.
Normal people seem to get that it's considerably harder to ship a barn than a letter, and that if you want to move a barn you use a specialty service rather than the post office. The size and number of files are and should be totally relevant even to "normal" people. When someone asks for something in e-mail, it's perfectly reasonable to say "no, it's much too big" and expect them to understand.
Now that's a bug I wouldn't like being responsible for
My first thought was, "I wonder if this has anything to do with copy protections related to anti counterfeiting?" Not that I have any valid reasons to consider this.