Stefan's suggestion is interesting, but I know pretty much nothing about
the Law: I am doing (CS) engineering studies!
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21 at 15:04, Stefan Monnier penned:
>
>
> Except that most technical people would probably rather hammer a nail
> through their forehead
On Wed, Apr 21 at 15:04, Stefan Monnier penned:
>
> Now think about the other route: the one based on the law instead of
> technology: the legal document can simply describe what she's
> allowed to do, and that will automatically cover all imaginable ways
> to circumvent any technological means yo
> My reason is quite complicated, and is really justified. Briefly, one
> person that I know needs to have some report I wrote, but this person
> should not be able neither to print it nor to extract content from it,
> for a simple reason: this person could transmit a part (or the whole)
> [of the]
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Merciadri Luca wrote:
> > Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> >> Just use a grey-by-dotting watermark for black text, merge the layers
> >> and it will
> >> be rather difficult to remove the watermark.
> > I did not merge the layers before sending it to them. Problematic?
>
>
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>
>
> You might use a password if you wanted to provide complete access for
> some people and no access for others. For someone who has the password,
> there is no real protection. I sent some financial documents to a loan
> officer once as a pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> Just use a grey-by-dotting watermark for black text, merge the layers
>> and it will
>> be rather difficult to remove the watermark.
> I did not merge the layers before sending it to them. Problemat
Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>> Merciadri Luca wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The PDF specification itself recommends using external encryption in
>> this case. From section 7.6.1 of the PDF specification:
>>
>> NOTE: Conforming writers have two choices if the encryption methods
>> and
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2010-04-20 14:34, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> [snip]
> >
>
> Yup. It regularly bites government agencies who faultily redact FOIA
> documents.
>
Okay.
--
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merciadri/
I use PGP. If there is an incompatibility problem w
On 2010-04-20 14:34, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
[snip]
Just use a grey-by-dotting watermark for black text, merge the layers
and it will
be rather difficult to remove the watermark.
>
I did not merge the layers before sending it to them. Problematic?
Yup. It regularl
Xavier Vello wrote:
> Le Tuesday 20 April 2010 01:33:37, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
>
> There's a configuration option in KPDF (and okular, its KDE4 version) saying
> "obey DRM limitations" (unchecked by default). You can activate it, and a
> tool
> like kiosk might help to configure the defaul
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Merciadri Luca wrote:
> > Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> >> Merciadri Luca dijo [Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:00:13PM +0200]:
> >>
> >>
> >> Yet, you say in your previous reply they would be able to remove the
> >> watermark from the document. That is clearly more complicated.
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> Merciadri Luca dijo [Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:00:13PM +0200]:
>>
>>
>> Yet, you say in your previous reply they would be able to remove the
>> watermark from the document. That is clearly more complicated
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Merciadri Luca dijo [Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:00:13PM +0200]:
>
>
> Yet, you say in your previous reply they would be able to remove the
> watermark from the document. That is clearly more complicated.
>
Sure, but I think that PDFs are composed `in layers,' aren't they? If
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2010-04-20 06:58, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> [snip]
>
> In that case, he should be using Acroread, which means you have little
> to fear.
>
> >
>
> Seems pretty typical to me...
It might be pretty typical, but when considered at another scale than
`my scale' (i.e. the compariso
Merciadri Luca dijo [Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:00:13PM +0200]:
> > As you quote, others have told you the PDF-provided security is
> > fake. It is just a flag flipped to tell the reader program to pretty
> > please make life miserable for the user.
> >
> Yes, but it is often sufficient to prevent
On 2010-04-20 06:58, Merciadri Luca wrote:
[snip]
So, you need to ask yourself:
(a) Does this "colleague" run Linux?
Nice question. He does not.
In that case, he should be using Acroread, which means you have
little to fear.
(b) If so, will he read it with Acroread?
/
(c) Will he be be m
Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 April 2010 12:16:26 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
>
> In my opinion, the more safety checks there are, the more stupid the users
> become.
> Without safety they have to be awake and careful to what they are doing.
>
Objectively and theoretically, yes. But, t
godo wrote:
>
>
> They can but if you make lousy quality .jpg maybe they can't.
> Try <70 dpi and not use some ordinary font. If they print they get
> messy text hard for scanning.
But if I had tried such a quality, they would not have been able to read
it! But nice proposition.
> But whatever you
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:27:39PM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> > Merciadri Luca wrote:
> > > Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> > >> Why would an
> > >> honest soul ever allow information to be read, but not printed?
> > >>
> > > To maintain honesty? An honest soul (i.e
With such files (.jpg ones) they can print it directly, can't they?
They can but if you make lousy quality .jpg maybe they can't.
Try <70 dpi and not use some ordinary font. If they print they get messy
text hard for scanning.
But whatever you do they can always sent .pdf to somebody and if
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Merciadri Luca wrote:
> > Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> >> Why would an
> >> honest soul ever allow information to be read, but not printed?
> >>
> > To maintain honesty? An honest soul (i.e. me, here) has to send some
> > data to some dishonest person.
>
> The proble
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>
>
> The PDF specification itself recommends using external encryption in
> this case. From section 7.6.1 of the PDF specification:
>
> NOTE: Conforming writers have two choices if the encryption methods
> and syntax provided by PDF are not
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Russ Allbery dijo [Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 02:14:21PM -0700]:
>
>
> The reasons not to want a document printed are quite easy to
> understand, but the mechanism is flawed.
/
> Given the setting you
> mention, you can just slap a red banner stating "Confidential, do not
> print"
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Merciadri Luca dijo [Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 05:32:51PM +0200]:
>
>
> Thing is, PDF is a printing-oriented format. It is a close descendent
> of PostScript, a full-fledged programming language, but geared towards
> printers. The main point that makes PDF a more convenient forma
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2010-04-19 16:17, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
> The "problem" is that Windows is a jailed, restricted, dumbed-down
> environment "operated" by so many clueless users.
>
> It's almost certain that there is the occasional Windows user (and
> with a user base approaching 10^9, "occ
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:17:12PM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
Ummm, unless I'm missing something I don't see *any* post by Russ in
this thread.
Ahh! I see from your original post you *also* posted to
debian-devel. Normally, the only reason to cross-post is
for announceme
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Even with acroread it is possible to print screenshots of the documents.
> Might be a pain to reconstruct a multipage document, but not impossible.
Been there, done that. An absolute pain.
Chris
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:56:05 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
>> IANAL, but you can always take the "legal" path and require that the
>> person you are giving the documents first signs a contract to prevent
>> sharing, extracting or printing data. I know this can sound a bit
>> s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Merciadri Luca wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>> What do you mean by "real protection"? If they possess a copy that they
>> can read they can print it. It should be obvious that there is nothing
>> you can do to stop them.
>>
> Not so obvious, simply
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> Why would an
>> honest soul ever allow information to be read, but not printed?
>>
> To maintain honesty? An honest soul (i.e. me, here) has to send some
> data to some dishonest person.
The pro
Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Sjoerd Hardeman wrote:
>> Pdf "anti-features" are fake security. Don't trust on them, never.
> And what do you suggest if one wants some real protection _and_ the
> benefits of a format like PDF? Thanks.
The PDF specification itself recommends using external encryption in
Merciadri Luca dijo [Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 05:32:51PM +0200]:
> > Pdf "anti-features" are fake security. Don't trust on them, never.
> And what do you suggest if one wants some real protection _and_ the
> benefits of a format like PDF? Thanks.
Thing is, PDF is a printing-oriented format. It is a cl
On 2010-04-19 16:17, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I think people are not understanding why users use this feature in some
environments.
/
Yes, sometimes it's a misguided attempt at DRM, but I've more often seen
it inside a workplace as defense in depth against *mistakes*. One
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I think people are not understanding why users use this feature in some
> environments.
>
/
> Yes, sometimes it's a misguided attempt at DRM, but I've more often seen
> it inside a workplace as defense in depth against *mistakes*. One might,
> for instance, mark a docume
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Camaleón writes:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:47:02 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>> Vincent Danjean wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>>> So, what would be the use case to allow a someone to read the
>>> information but not print it ? In any case, printing it would b
I Rattan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
> Life is simpler than that:
>
>pdf ->postscript ->print
>
> So, do not make the report available!!
I had thought about it, but the guy won't think about it, fortunately.
But you're right. There are many ways for this. Thanks.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Vincent Danjean wrote:
My reason is quite complicated, and is really justified. Briefly, one
person that I know needs to have some report I wrote, but this person
should not be able neither to print it nor to extract content from it,
for a simple reas
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:47:02 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Vincent Danjean wrote:
(...)
>> So, what would be the use case to allow a someone to read the
>> information but not print it ? In any case, printing it would be more
>> or less convenient but it will always be possible if it is display
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>
> The real protection would be not to send that information.
I was not able to do it, because of `human' and organizational reasons.
I had no choice!
> Why would an
> honest soul ever allow information to be read, but not printed?
>
To ma
John Hasler wrote:
> Sjoerd Hardeman wrote:
>
>
> Merciadri Luca writes:
>
>
> What do you mean by "real protection"? If they possess a copy that they
> can read they can print it. It should be obvious that there is nothing
> you can do to stop them.
>
Not so obvious, simply because if t
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
> 2010/4/19 Merciadri Luca :
>
>
>
> Or paper and pencil.
>
That needs some determination.
> I know that for some cases this 'restriction through inconvenience' is
> sufficient in practice, but this should not be achievable with free
> software, even if le
James Zuelow wrote:
>
>
>
>
> That's not a technical problem, it's a management problem.
>
I totally agree.
> If you can't trust this person to not forward information when he shouldn't,
> then they should not be involved.
>
_should_. But I am not the person who decides. I am not neit
Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
>> Twas brillig at 17:32:51 19.04.2010 UTC+02 when
>> luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be did gyre and gimble:
>>
>> >> Pdf "anti-features" are fake security. Don't trust on them, never.
>> ML> And what do you suggest if one wants some real protection _
Sjoerd Hardeman wrote:
> Pdf "anti-features" are fake security. Don't trust on them, never.
Merciadri Luca writes:
> And what do you suggest if one wants some real protection _and_ the
> benefits of a format like PDF? Thanks.
What do you mean by "real protection"? If they possess a copy that the
2010/4/19 Merciadri Luca :
> I know that it is _always_ possible (with some determination) to extract
> content, by some way, of a PDF (even if screenshots were to never work,
> you can still use a camera). Principally, the most important aspects of
Or paper and pencil.
> such security features
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <4bcc77a3.9080...@student.ulg.ac.be> you wrote:
>
>
> It is simply not possible to publish something and protect it. The best
> protection in that case is reputation.
>
Please read my other message, which explains the situation I am/was
facing. On the mere
Sven Arvidsson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 15:52 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>
> At least Evince can be convinced to provide this "feature", if you
> toggle /apps/evince/override_restrictions
>
>
No problem. Thanks.
--
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merci
Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:39:03PM +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
>
>
> This is one of the reasons why people who seek to use DRM will not allow their
> software to be made for Free Software Platforms. DRM is not in the best
> interest of the users/re-users of content. And by
Vincent Danjean wrote:
> On 19/04/2010 17:32, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>
> If you have free software (ie software you have the sources and are able
> to recompile) and if you can get the information on the screen, then it is
> only a matter of programmation to be able to have it on printer. So,
>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:39:03PM +0700, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
>
> Twas brillig at 17:32:51 19.04.2010 UTC+02 when
> luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be did gyre and gimble:
>
> >> Pdf "anti-features" are fake security. Don't trust on them, never.
> ML> And what do you suggest if one wants some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Camaleón writes:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:31:30 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>> I have written a PDF that I have blocked for printing, etc. Acrobat
>> Reader won't print it, because of the restrictions defined on the PDF
>> file's content. However,
Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> Twas brillig at 17:32:51 19.04.2010 UTC+02 when
> luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be did gyre and gimble:
>
> >> Pdf "anti-features" are fake security. Don't trust on them, never.
> ML> And what do you suggest if one wants some real protection _and_ the
> ML> benefits of a
Twas brillig at 17:32:51 19.04.2010 UTC+02 when
luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be did gyre and gimble:
>> Pdf "anti-features" are fake security. Don't trust on them, never.
ML> And what do you suggest if one wants some real protection _and_ the
ML> benefits of a format like PDF? Thanks.
There
Sjoerd Hardeman wrote:
> Pdf "anti-features" are fake security. Don't trust on them, never.
And what do you suggest if one wants some real protection _and_ the
benefits of a format like PDF? Thanks.
--
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merciadri/
I use PGP. If there is a
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:31:30 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> I have written a PDF that I have blocked for printing, etc. Acrobat
> Reader won't print it, because of the restrictions defined on the PDF
> file's content. However, KPDF accepts printing it, and extracting
> content from it, etc., even
Merciadri Luca schreef:
Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:31:30 +0200
Merciadri Luca wrote:
Anti-features like locking and password protection are not supported
and, if implemented, could make the free software tools appear non-free
by restricting the functionality available to
I Rattan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
> yes.
Thanks. I assume that this is for the same reason as Mr. Williams
pointed out. Are _all_ the free PDF viewers running under Debian in
accordance with this principle?
--
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.a
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:31:30 +0200
> Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>
>
> Anti-features like locking and password protection are not supported
> and, if implemented, could make the free software tools appear non-free
> by restricting the functionality available to the user. In t
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Hi,
I have written a PDF that I have blocked for printing, etc. Acrobat
Reader won't print it, because of the restrictions defined on the PDF
file's content. However, KPDF accepts printing it, and extracting
content from it, etc., even if these actio
Hi,
I have written a PDF that I have blocked for printing, etc. Acrobat
Reader won't print it, because of the restrictions defined on the PDF
file's content. However, KPDF accepts printing it, and extracting
content from it, etc., even if these actions are unauthorized with
acroread. Is it normal?
60 matches
Mail list logo