-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. Problematic?
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
Merciadri Luca luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be 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
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?
Difficult to
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]
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 you
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 than
-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 problem is:
-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 because if
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
strict
Johannes Wiedersich johan...@physik.blm.tu-muenchen.de 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
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
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, occasional is
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 format is
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. If it
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
Merciadri Luca luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be 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
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 problem is: either you
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
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. me, here) has to
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 do
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,
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
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
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 comparison with
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
-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.
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.
Sure, but I
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 default for a
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
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 with
Merciadri Luca luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be wrote:
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
Merciadri Luca luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be wrote:
The PDF specification itself recommends using external encryption in
this case. From section 7.6.1 of the PDF specification:
NOTE: Conforming writers
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
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
Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:31:30 +0200
Merciadri Luca luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be 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
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
Merciadri Luca schreef:
Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:31:30 +0200
Merciadri Luca luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be wrote:
Anti-features like locking and password protection are not supported
and, if implemented, could make the free software tools appear non-free
by
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 if
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 an
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 is no
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 format
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com 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
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 real
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,
free
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
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/~merciadri/
I
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
2010/4/19 Merciadri Luca luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be:
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
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 they
can
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 _and_ the
ML
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 neither the
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
2010/4/19 Merciadri Luca luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be:
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
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 they are
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 maintain
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 displayed on
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
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.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com 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
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 document as
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
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 close
Merciadri Luca luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be 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
60 matches
Mail list logo
