New 20 dollar bill

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Those FBI "members" must have been jerking your chain, then. There simply isn't a big market for equipment that high end: not even most businesses require it. Which means the material is expensive. Which means not as many people buy it and it tends to be much more easily traceable.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I doubt the Agents I talked too was jerking my chain especially since they had just given the Commandant (of the coast guard)a briefing about Drug Dealers us large numbers of Counterfit Bills in their operations..

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

You'll excuse me if I still have a hard time swallowing it. I've had a lot of hardware experience, both trouble shooting, maintaining, setting up, and operating, and there just isn't something you'd call "standard"  home or office use hardware that will do that sort of work. Sure, there's really expensive stuff that will, but it's not something you'd typically see in someone's home. It's both more expensive and more rare, so easier to trace. ANd like I said, there isn't a big market for it, which is probably the biggest factor for why it isn't common: it costs too much for the minimal revenue return it would mean.

[Spriggan]

No actualy he's right SE, that's why they changed the $20 bill a few years ago.  Scaning and printing US curency was at an all time high because the old us bills were just to simple to duplicate with a $100 scanner and printer.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19980331S0011

[House of Mustard]

Despite my personal aversion to this kind of thing, I have to side with Ehlers here.

The night the change was announced, there was an accompanying story on the news about how all of the locally made counterfiets are really crappy - mostly made by drug dealers with laser printers.  The only really good counterfiets are coming from international criminals with lots of money to invest in the process.  (of course, those guys are making buckets of money.)

[Spriggan]

The new ones that poped up in like 98 are harder to copy with the cheep equipmt  But the ones before that (which is what SE is argueing) we're very easy to copy.  The Treasurey Deparment is just trying to say a step ahead with this new bill.  And anyway I trust what I've read (like that article I posted) about this and not a guy (no offence SE) that's not involved in what's going on.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

From the Treasury Dept's Website

-Underlining is my own.

"Counterfeiting: Increasingly Digital
Counterfeiters are increasingly turning to digital methods, as advances in technology make digital counterfeiting of currency easier and cheaper. In 1995, for example, less than 1 percent[/b] of counterfeit notes detected in the U.S. was digitally produced. By 2002, that number had grown to 40 percent /[/b] according to the U.S. Secret Service. "

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

My point is not that digital reproduction is impossible. Merely that it isn't possible with your average home user's printer/scanner. I'm positive digital counterfeiting is increasing, I would have guessed that without seeing numbers. But it takes higher end machinery.

Let me reiterate: my point is that you won't, in just a couple years, be able to run down to best buy, drop $100, and have equipment you can plug into a normal desktop computer capable of realistic counterfeits of U.S. currency. If you disagree, go to BYU and use the equipment in the HumPub to make a counterfeit. To keep it legal, print it on an 8.5x11 page and print on the side "The reproduction on this page is not legal currency." Or add a single black line across the words "legal tender for all debts" on it. This is a fair test, as the humpub has better equipment than your average user has on his desk (in terms of the scanner, anyway). Or find an equivelant set of hardware and run the test. I don't think you can make a convincing fake.

[Brian]

I read that article on TechWeb, and while I'm sure its accurate, I think they didn't go into enough detail about the quality of these electronic reproductions, or how many people those copies actually fooled.

To produce a copy of a bill printed 10 years ago that would look and feel even remotely believable to the inexperienced eye, I suspect you'd need the right paper (which would be very difficult to come by, unless you know how to make it yourself) and a quality full color laser printer.

Even then, there have been methods in place for a long, long time that deter counterfeits. Serial numbers are of course one of those methods.. I suspect most banks can determine whether the serial number on the bill is real. If the serial number test fails, there is enough detail on a bill that unless you have the capability to print at very high resolutions, its going to be noticeable.

Like SE, I consider myself fairly proficient with technology and image manipulation, but even if I wanted to try to counterfeit a bill (not that I ever would ) I'm positive I couldn't do it convincingly.

The real threat in counterfeit money still comes from big time criminals with the funds to pull it off convincingly. And I doubt those guys use red-burning ink to print their bills. I'm all for our government taking as many steps as possible to deter counterfeiters -- and I'd rather they spend already-budgeted tax money to do it than that they ignore it and let our economy be affected by criminals.

[Spriggan]

Again it comes down to what the Sceret Service says and what you say.  And I beleave they have alot more experence and knowledge about this then any of us do.  If anyone that frequented TWG has any knoweldge it's 42.  He;s the only profesional artist here.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Downtown/2020/Downtown_010601_counterfeitmoney_feature.html

http://www.accessatlanta.com/search/content/partners/wsbtv/news/korbut0905.html

http://www.accessatlanta.com/search/content/partners/wsbtv/news/fake0425.html

http://www.s-t.com/daily/02-00/02-16-00/a01lo006.htm

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr2000/q2/money.htm

I canfind hundreds of links supporting Mustards and my arguments and not one supporting yours.  You're just flat wrong.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Only one of those articles indicates that the bills were of high quality. And note that i never said it was impossible (at least, I never meant to). Just that You have to spend more than $100 on you printer/scanner combo to get you the equipment to do it. You're cheap run of the mill hardware won't do it. And note also that these examples all seem to have fundamental problems with them. Even if they are capable of fooling a casual observer, they seem to hint that even somone who just looks for a couple key things can discover the forgery.

[Spriggan]

I agree with almost everything you just said.  There are flaws, but they are high enough quality to fool most people.  The trained observer can tell a fake done with plates as well.  I don't think you need to spend a lot.  $100 for the scanner, $100 for your printer and your standard $700 Dell computer.  The more you spend on your printer the better the quality.  But certanly the most expensive thing is photoshop ($499) or like program.  I guess you could use Photoshop elements ($79).  The arguemnt I got from you and Brian was that they dindn't fool a lot of people.  True most people won't be useing the fiber paper that the profesionals use, but still most of it fools your adverage store clerk and that's what's important.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

It fools 'em, but not for very long. And it seems that most of these guys get caught.