cross-posted from !boycottchina@sopuli.xyz: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/45608582
(note that many printers do this; this is a cross-post of a call to boycott Canon and Xerox specifically)
Most (if not all) color printer makers are printing unique tracking dots on every printed page. But some of them are transparent about it and disclose it to consumers.¹
In any case, in the mid-1980s Xerox and Canon developed the anti-consumer feature decades before it became known to the public in 2004. So certainly we can blame them for surreptitiously assaulting our privacy.
It’s the surreptitious element of this that is the most infuriating. Transparently disclosing the feature to consumers is the socially responsible approach because at least informed consumers know they are signing up for:
- reduction of print quality
- higher cost of consumables (more yellow consumption)
- loss of privacy
- inability to print a black document when yellow ink/toner is empty
Xerox and Canon should be boycotted not just for the anti-consumer feature but for concealing it.
¹ citation needed… I don’t recall where I read that some printer makers are transparent about it. I would like to know which ones are transparent just from a standpoint of knowing where the integrity is.
update: foss circumvention proposal
Tracking dots have never been about print quality or cost though.
Tracking dots have never been about print quality or cost though.
It’s about the effect. The motivation is only relevant insofar as determining whether it’s an asshole design or a crappy design. The design is:
- deliberate (not a matter of incompetence)
- anti-consumer (anti-privacy, non-transparent, costs consumers more for negative value in return)
- voluntary (not mandated by law)
Therefore it is an asshole design.
What do you mean “about print quality”? What something is “about” depends on whose perspective you have in mind. Of course it’s about print quality if you are printing artwork for a blacklit rave venue, when the blacklight makes the yellow dots appear and ruin the art.
Of course yellow ink has a cost. Color inks generally cost more than black inks. The cost of all ink sold in this way is quite high due to other asshole designs. When you cannot print black docs because you’re out of yellow ink (so the printer maker can tag your doc with metadata), who do you think pays for that?
Even if you don’t care about quality or price personally, how would this design cease to be an asshole design?
Asshole designs are meant to annoy customers one way or another. Printing dots is deliberate from governments to track anyone who uses such a product. It could be a bit crappy though, but people don’t care if they buy that kind of product. If you really cared, you would have bought a black and white laser printer instead.
It’s about the effect
I disagree. It’s about the intent and result IMHO. Intent is to spy (not crappy even if I disagree with it) and result is insignifiant since people still buy those printers.
Asshole designs are meant to annoy customers one way or another.
No they’re not. Annoyance is /incidental/, and only if discovered. And in the event of discovery, annoyance in itself works counter to supplier’s profit interests. But when the exploit yields higher profit than the loss due to annoyed customers, we have an asshole design that persists in the marketplace.
Printing dots is deliberate from governments to track anyone who uses such a product.
Citation needed. Plz cite relevant law. And then explain how printers /without/ tracker dots get away with it.
It could be a bit crappy though,
The difference between crappy design and asshole design is intent. You don’t accidently implement tracker dots.
but people don’t care if they buy that kind of product.
Speak for yourself. Edward Snowden has a good quote w.r.t those who don’t care about privacy take a selfish stance in light of others who need privacy. And those who don’t care about free speech because they have nothing interesting to say. That’s not to say others are not due their rights.
I personally care in all situations where a product or service /that I pay for/ works against me. Products and services I buy should serve me, not adversaries and not work against me.
If you really cared, you would have bought a black and white laser printer instead.
I did better than that. I pulled a black printer out of the dumpster. So I am not subject to tracker dots and I also avoid supporting the industry financially. Of course I still have to use public printers to print color pages.
I disagree. It’s about the intent and result IMHO.
Result is effect. That’s not disagreement.
Intent is to spy (not crappy even if I disagree with it)
There are multiple profit-driven intents for the manufacturer’s decision. “Spying” is not one of them, unless you can show that the maker is getting paid when the gov subpoenas data. The intent is inherent in all ways the printer maker profits from the move, like selling more ink.
and result is insignifiant since people still buy those printers.
That is actually what makes the result signficant. The more printers purchased, the more people get exploited.
Printing dots is deliberate from governments to track anyone who uses such a product.
Citation needed
This has to be a joke. It has been used for that purpose since typewriters during the cold war. What would be the point? Wasting yellow ink for fun? We know that they contain the identifiers of the printer.
What would be the point?
To prove motivation that supports your bizarre claim. The printers are not made by the government. They are made by a profit-driven corporation. You described a government motivation for an action taken by a private enterprise. That makes no sense¹ – unless you can find a law that compels the tracking. In which case the law would be the motivation, not the tracking.
¹(edit: caveat: assuming a non-communist regime. Of course if the companies are gov owned and controlled, then your claim is feasible. Are you in China? Note that Xerox, Canon, and HP are not HQd in China)
Wasting yellow ink for fun?
For profit.
By extension: Profit = fun for the shareholders
How are you failing to grasp that the printer business is actually a distraction from the ink and toner business? The printer is just the mechanism by which they exploit the sale of consumables. They hope to fool consumers like yourself into thinking the transaction is about the printer, not the consumables. The marketing has worked wonders on you but some consumers (most?) see more clearly that it’s all about selling ink at 10+ times its cost.
update: printer ink costs as much as ~$12,000 per gallon, 6× more than human blood. So of course printer makers are happy scatter yellow ink all over every page of every black document that gets printed. It cheats consumers out of 100s of thousands of dollars, if not millions.
From another source:
Back in 2013, Consumer Reports determined the ink inside inkjet cartridges cost between $13 to $75 per ounce!* That’s more expensive than the world’s finest perfumes!