Did anyone knew this? Ever since 2002, almost every photocopier comes with HDD, that stores everything you've copied
They're like a gold mine of sensitive data..
I dont believe that it would hold a copy of every document scanned (what would be the point in putting in the code / storage space to do it? Who would pay for it?) and I also don't believe anyone will really have the time to buy up used photocopiers to find loads and loads of totally mundane documents...
You're entirely missing the point here. The story demonstrates they easily bought several photocopiers that included very sensitive documents (sex crimes and drug business). The authorities who hold that information have a responsibility to erase it before disposing of it. We have seen various stories in the recent past in the UK where lots of personal data has been made available to people who shouldn't have it (e.g. the MI5 briefcase on the train, the name/address/NI number etc of 25 million people going missing). It's indicative of the incredibly poor standards around people's personal data. As world governments amass vast quantities of personal information about their citizens the scope for that data becoming publicly available increases too. You can choose to call this a non-story if you wish but you're seriously missing the point and obviously haven't considered the implications.
you consider your beer belly to be your manhood? Okaaaaaay......
This was suprising to me, I dont see why a photocopier needs to hold more than the image it is currently working on - but the truth became clear on the last segment.
They charge $500 for the security upgrade, which deletes the file after use. Then they blame everyone else for not buying the security upgrade.
As ever, to find the truth you have to be absolutely cynical.
It doesn't matter that your copier is old, what about a copier at the DVLA or your bank or your GP, etc, etc.
You'd have thought the place that buys and sells used machines would at least check to see if there is something left in it, even if it's paper, things to be copied or toner.
But it's a total none story for everyone who doesn't care about the security of their personal details
A photocopier in 1980 didn't have any memory at all. Sir Clive Sinclair was putting the finishing touches to the first mass market home computer, with a staggering 1kb of memory. HP had just released a PC with a staggering 8kb which was expandable to 16kb, IBM had one with a whole 32kb, and the biggest monster I could find was this oddity, which was expandable to 256kb.
I'm talking kb here not mb, 1024kb = 1mb.
The issue here isn't what is on your own photocopier, but what of your information which is copied elsewhere.
It is a major problem, and it is an entirely manufactured one. The photocopier industry have purposefully creating this issue themselves in order to sell expensive security kits - and it's ridiculous - there is no reason to store any data at all once the copy is complete. Even if there is some kind of document recall funcitonality it need only be for the last few prints.
Is there any proof (besides something from a "copier security" website) that this is true? It seems rediculous that multiple companies would spend money on software and hardware that makes it store all this stuff and not market the feature at all.
are you serious? did you even click on the link in the very first post? it was aired on an american tv news station.
and in case you're still missing the point; >>CLICK HERE!!!<<
i was going to coment on your first post in this thread but i was so gobsmacked you've completely overlooked the issues reguarding personal data being on these hdd's. imagine one of those copiers was from your bank. would you then understand?
the penny is still falling for you on this one. and by the looks of things, it's still get a long way to go yet.
lol, it's not a 'feature' Didn't the date "2002" gave you any hints? This is US government's deal, they can has your private data, to protect you from terrorists
*IF* this is true, then yes I can see the problem.
But I can't honestly see any company willingly buying hard drives, and adding programming to store documents when it gains them no benefit. The video showed an ordinary 3.5" IDE drive. Thats what, £50 ish for a tiny drive in 2002? Why would any company add a £50 component for no reason to their products? Thats £50 of profit they are throwing away on every machine. Add to that the cost of a programmer coding the OS to create a file from a document, and then store the document, which will slow the copier down anyway.
You could claim it's for the $500 option to delete the data - but i'm sure very few companies will pay for that, and even if they did I doubt it'd be the 1 in 8 needed to bear the cost of adding it in the first place.
In terms of source, all I can find is articles referring back to the CBS New & Star articles - I cant find anything else at all. The closest i've found are a few messages from Xerox explaining that the HDD is used as a buffer and is wiped when shut-down anyway. They claimed the old copier they found had done 48k copies, and it seems the older ones had 10GB drives in them. That means each page must of been able to fit in 213KB. Thats a PDF-level of compression, and even then only for pure text - I think a Photocopier would need a bit of a speedboost to be able to compress to a PDF level on the fly.
Yes they all have storage buffers (or at least most hi-end network printers do - my Dad's Xerox has 512MB of RAM iirc), but these are EEPROM which get wiped as soon as the power goes.
Like I said it depends on the product, ever used a fairie or rip server Jack? There's a multitude of different products on the market to suite different niches and it's not a stretch to imagine them using whatever the cheapest drive is for bulk buy (not always the smallest), or whatever drive suites their other requirements (low rpm speed, quality etc).
The Xerox article expresses that Xerox thought about this, but if you follow the link and actually watch the video we are talking about (an you clearly havnt), you'll see yet have somebody from another manufacturer there.
Now it may be that old documents are being deleted on an as required basis, when space is needed, rather than when the document is finished with, with the intent on making furter profit from secure options.
How much of an issue this really is I couldn't say, but the scenario does appear to be plausable and from a credible source (CBS + 2 printer manufacturers).
