Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink

from the sorry-I-can't-do-that,-Dave dept

For more than a decade now, computer printer manufacturers have been engaged in an endless quest called: "let's be as annoying as humanly possible." That quest, driven by a desire to monopolize and boost the sale of their own printer cartridges, has resulted in all manner of obnoxious DRM and other restrictions designed to make using cheaper, third-party printing cartridges a monumental headache. Often, software or firmware updates have been designed to intentionally grind printing to a halt if you try to use these alternative options.

Beyond that, there are other things printer manufacturers do that make even less sense if a happy customer is the end goal. Take for example Canon's history of disabling the scanning and faxing functionality on some printer models if the printer itself runs out of ink. It's a policy designed to speed up the rate at which users buy expensive cartridges (god forbid you go a few months just scanning things without adequate levels of magenta), but it's exemplary of the outright hostility that plagues the sector.

And now Canon is facing a $5 million lawsuit (pdf) for its behavior. The lawsuit, filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (first spotted by Bleeping Computer) claims Canon fails to adequately disclose the restrictions to consumers:

"Canon does not represent or warn consumers that ink is a necessary component in order to scan or fax documents. As a result, consumers are forced to incur unexpected and unnecessary burden and expense in the form of ink purchases or in the alternative be unable to scan or fax documents using the so-called all-in-one device. Canon knew, or should have known, that its representations and advertisements regarding the All-in-One Printers were false and misleading, and that they failed to disclose material information."

There's no technical reason for such restrictions as they pertain to scanning and faxing. But like most restrictions of this type, when consumers complain, they're (falsely) informed it's a product safety issue of some nebulous kind. See, for example, this Canon customer service response to one user who complained he could no longer scan when he ran out of ink (notice how he doesn't answer the actual question and keeps the focus on printing):

"These precautions are in place to prevent damage to the printer from occurring if printing with no ink is attempted. The printer uses the ink to cool the printhead during the printing process. If no ink is present, the printhead could be damaged or the unit would require service."

Again, being a misleading jackass to goose printer cartridge sales is not a cogent business strategy. And the fact this kind of stuff just keeps happening decade after decade showcases not only the ineffectiveness of class actions as a meaningful behavior shifting tool (of course binding arbitration has become arguably worse), but the overall fecklessness of U.S. regulators who generally lack the resources to properly police dodgy behavior at the scale it happens in the U.S.

Filed Under: business models, ink, printer, scanner, scanning
Companies: canon

Slow Down TSA Lynch Mob: That Naked Scanner Expose Video Is Exaggerated & Old News

from the be-real dept

So, a video made by a TSA-critic and blogger named Jonathan Corbett has been making the viral video rounds, supposedly showing how "anyone can get anything past the TSA's scanners." Now, I've been a huge critic of the TSA's scanners and the TSA itself. I think the entire security process is a joke and a form of security theater. I think the naked scanners are a huge waste of taxpayer money and potentially dangerous. But... I'm somewhat surprised at how quickly people just believed what was said in Corbett's video. You can watch the video here: First off, I was surprised to hear that the "revelation" was that by putting something on your side, the machines wouldn't notice it. That's not a revelation at all. It was one of the conclusions that came out in a research report published in 2010, which got a fair amount of publicity at the time. Among various vulnerabilities for the scanners, the report noted:

The images are very sensitive to the presence of large pieces of high Z material, e. g., iron, but unless the spatial resolution is good, thin wires will be missed because of partial volume effects. It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box- cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible. While there are technical means to mildly increase the conspicuity of a thick object in air, they are ineffective for thin objects such as blades when they are aligned close to the beam direction.

In other words, strap a knife to your side, and perhaps the machine won't spot it. We heard that years ago. So, nothing new here.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that the machines now take images from multiple angles, which would rule out this vulnerability. On top of that, Corbett bases his claim on a couple of sample images that are black and white -- and uses that to claim that a black object on your side will not show up against the black background. Once again, I'm pretty sure his info is now completely out of date. The TSA has been upgrading the scanners so they no longer show the "nude" picture. Just last month we showed an image of what the new machines show: And they show this in public, since there's no more nudity to contend with. Notice that there's a white background... and it's not a scan anyway, but a detector system that highlights points to check out.

Now, it is true that Corbett was able to get through the machines with a metallic box in his side pocket, and that's his proof. He does this twice. While, again, I'm not impressed by the machines, I don't think this is "proof" in the sense that Corbett believes. First of all, official tests show that there's a ridiculously high error rate with these machines -- they let through "bad stuff" all the time. So, I agree with Corbett that the machines are a complete waste and should be done away with, but I don't think one guy going through the scanners twice without getting stopped for a little metallic box in his pocket... is absolute proof that anyone can get through without getting stopped.

Of course, it seems worth pointing out that a metal box is not a dangerous object, and the point of the machines (so we're told) is to stop threatening objects from getting through -- not just metallic objects. So it's possible that the TSA agents saw this thing in his pocket and immediately saw that it wasn't something dangerous. Corbett's test was whether or not the scanners detect metal. But they're not metal detectors, so the test itself is flawed.

So, while I don't agree with the TSA's response to this video in which "Blogger Bob" somewhat angrily snaps back about how important TSA scanning is, I don't think Corbett's claims are that convincing and I'm surprised at how much press it's been generating. Yes, the scanners are probably pointless, and it's all security theater, but that doesn't mean we should all stop thinking through the details on videos that potentially show some weaknesses in these machines.

Filed Under: defeat, jonathan corbett, naked, scanner, security, security theater, tsa

Canadian Newspaper Reinvents The CueCat?

from the Do-Not-Want dept

The Canada-based National Post is apparently the first newspaper in North America to try adding 2D barcodes to its printed product. By doing so, its newspaper audience can whip out their mobile phones to see what kind of breaking updates have happened since the dead tree publication was stamped with ink. Readers just have to download an app to their phone (if it's not already a pre-loaded function), find the barcode on the front page of the paper, scan it with their barcode-capable phone, and voila! -- instant happiness. This is the best innovation since the CueCat! (/sarcasm)

Seriously, though, I'm not against experimenting with innovative products, but this combination doesn't make much sense to me. The newspaper audience that is tech-savvy enough to have a barcode-capable phone (and actually use it) does not seem like the appropriate target audience for a system that simply re-directs them to mobile content. Smartphone users are already reading mobile content, so this barcode system unnecessarily complicates what they're already doing. (In fact, it also drives these users away from the printed edition even more so by promoting the fact that more recent news is online.) And the newspaper readers who don't use smartphones are obviously not going to jump at the chance to figure out how to turn barcodes into newspaper articles. Clearly, if any audience is going to start scanning 2D barcodes, there must be a useful reason for doing so. Simply being the first newspaper to use barcode technology is nice, but there needs to be a compelling service behind the technology to succeed. I'm reminded of the colorful saying: "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Filed Under: cuecat, news, scanner
Companies: national post