5 ms·

It's truly infuriating. I think the answer is to provide proof of authenticity. Perhaps something like a hash that users can use a website to verify if their p

by atomi 9y ago

It's truly infuriating. I think the answer is to provide proof of authenticity. Perhaps something like a hash that users can use a website to verify if their purchase is indeed authentic, and actively encourage customers to file chargebacks for products that fail the verification. Hit them where it hurts. This is something that needs to be actively fought by both governments and consumers.

astura 9y ago
But is Grandma really going to understand how to verify authenticity and/or why she should?
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  > actively fought by both governments and consumers.
  - astura 9y ago
    So it "needs" to be "actively fought" for but my point was consumers don't "actively [fight]" for things when they don't understand why they will benefit from it.
- jff 9y ago
  I think you'd be surprised how easily Grandma cottons to the idea of cheap knock-off crap, and that by typing a code from her multivitamin bottle into product-validation.gov, she can verify it's not full of heavy metals.
  - rtkwe 9y ago
    Not sure a system like that can really work. All a counterfeiter needs to do is buy or scan a legitimate product if it's just a code printed on it and now all the devices validate as 'real'. Can't do a challenge response authentication with a simple printed HMAC. I guess if we did a lot more intensive inventory tracking so whatever validation service knew batch 213489234 was made 10/21/2019 and was being sold by Amazon/CVS/etc. and was all sold out by 3/14/2020. Then grandma could say 'Oh no' I bought this from BobsDiscountPharma.com so it's maybe fake. Another option that could maybe make it work with a little RFID/powered chip so you could actually do authentication but that's more expensive and creates a lot of ewaste if it gets applied to a lot of products.
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
      That's what I thought too, then it was pointed out that another part of the system is that "someone else has scanned this code". Which if you're a counterfeiter, you obviously don't scan the code... but then you use it to make your product, and as soon as one of your buyers uses it...
      - rtkwe 9y ago
        That becomes a huge amount data to track though if it's individual labeling. It'll start out ok but quickly get huge. Also doing that requires a decent percentage of people to be actively scanning things, otherwise counterfeiters could just play the odds.
        FooHentai 9y ago
        >That becomes a huge amount data to track though if it's individual labeling. It'll start out ok but quickly get huge. No, it's the same pattern as software CD-Keys and that's been working fine at scale for decades. You draw from a pool of unique, unpredictable codes based on a secret seed, and keep a tally of the number of claims over that code. The only difference here is that instead of the online service 'failing activation' for your software, it simply displays the number of activations to the end user. If 'this code has already been redeemed' comes up for your $2 ali express MOSFETs, you know you're dealing with a knock-off. >doing that requires a decent percentage of people to be actively scanning things, otherwise counterfeiters could just play the odds I'll partially concede this point - It's certainly a factor. However, if the down-stream effect is product returns, the middle man sellers are likely to take corrective action against the suppliers. I'm not convinced that this limitation of the proposed system will render it ineffective.
        rtkwe 9y ago
        > No, it's the same pattern as software CD-Keys and that's been working fine at scale for decades. [Truncate for brevity] It's similar except you're not tracking one product with a few hundreds of thousands to a million or so at the largest scale to tracking many products with billions of copies sold. Just taking vitamins/nutritional supplements for example, last year that market sold 36.1 billion dollars in the US alone so ROM that's 1-3 billion codes to track. That gets whittled down pretty quickly by people who don't use the service but it's still a lot when you start adding other industries too.
EvilTerran 9y ago
Knock-offs are a particularly big problem in the electronic cigarette industry, so many of the device manufacturers already do something like this - usually a code on the device or behind a scratch-off panel on the box (ie somewhere you can't read it without obvious tampering), then a form on their website that tells you whether the code is one of theirs, and if so, whether it's been submitted before (to catch knock-offs copying a genuine code). Eg: https://www.innokin.com/verify-device/ https://www.innokin.com/verify-device/ http://svoemesto.de/serialcheck/ http://svoemesto.de/serialcheck/ https://qr.szkanger.com/check/ https://qr.szkanger.com/check/ https://www.geekvape.com/authentication/ https://www.geekvape.com/authentication/
olegkikin 9y ago
So the counterfeiters will use a real hash from one (or from hundreds) of the real products. That's why creating counterfeit-proof physical money is still an unsolved problem. I've been thinking - maybe something like bitcoin can help. When you buy a product, you get 1 coin with it. When you resell, you have to send that coin to your buyer. Since counterfeiters can't make coins, that serves as a proof. Unfortunately it creates an annoying layer that all sellers of goods must follow.
- atomi 9y ago
  Sure, but what you do is provide a response that shows the amount of times it's been checked. If it's more than once, then you can be sure it's counterfeit.
  - Riseed 9y ago
    If the code has been checked more than once, then you can only be sure that >=(n - 1) counterfeits exist. Checking the code does not verify whether yours is the counterfeit, only that you weren't the first to attempt verification.
    - DuskStar 9y ago
      If the code is behind a scratch off strip, then because you scratched it off and the code was already used, you can be assured that your item is counterfeit. On the other hand, being the first to check the code is NOT perfect proof that your item is legitimate. If the counterfeiter makes 100 of an item, the one of those will still pass verification. Unless you get notified of other attempts later, of course.

by atomi 9y ago

astura 9y ago

But is Grandma really going to understand how to verify authenticity and/or why she should?

nerfhammer 9y ago
> actively fought by both governments and consumers.
- astura 9y ago
  So it "needs" to be "actively fought" for but my point was consumers don't "actively [fight]" for things when they don't understand why they will benefit from it.
jff 9y ago
I think you'd be surprised how easily Grandma cottons to the idea of cheap knock-off crap, and that by typing a code from her multivitamin bottle into product-validation.gov, she can verify it's not full of heavy metals.
- rtkwe 9y ago
  Not sure a system like that can really work. All a counterfeiter needs to do is buy or scan a legitimate product if it's just a code printed on it and now all the devices validate as 'real'. Can't do a challenge response authentication with a simple printed HMAC. I guess if we did a lot more intensive inventory tracking so whatever validation service knew batch 213489234 was made 10/21/2019 and was being sold by Amazon/CVS/etc. and was all sold out by 3/14/2020. Then grandma could say 'Oh no' I bought this from BobsDiscountPharma.com so it's maybe fake. Another option that could maybe make it work with a little RFID/powered chip so you could actually do authentication but that's more expensive and creates a lot of ewaste if it gets applied to a lot of products.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    That's what I thought too, then it was pointed out that another part of the system is that "someone else has scanned this code". Which if you're a counterfeiter, you obviously don't scan the code... but then you use it to make your product, and as soon as one of your buyers uses it...
    - rtkwe 9y ago
      That becomes a huge amount data to track though if it's individual labeling. It'll start out ok but quickly get huge. Also doing that requires a decent percentage of people to be actively scanning things, otherwise counterfeiters could just play the odds.
      - FooHentai 9y ago
        >That becomes a huge amount data to track though if it's individual labeling. It'll start out ok but quickly get huge. No, it's the same pattern as software CD-Keys and that's been working fine at scale for decades. You draw from a pool of unique, unpredictable codes based on a secret seed, and keep a tally of the number of claims over that code. The only difference here is that instead of the online service 'failing activation' for your software, it simply displays the number of activations to the end user. If 'this code has already been redeemed' comes up for your $2 ali express MOSFETs, you know you're dealing with a knock-off. >doing that requires a decent percentage of people to be actively scanning things, otherwise counterfeiters could just play the odds I'll partially concede this point - It's certainly a factor. However, if the down-stream effect is product returns, the middle man sellers are likely to take corrective action against the suppliers. I'm not convinced that this limitation of the proposed system will render it ineffective.
        rtkwe 9y ago
        > No, it's the same pattern as software CD-Keys and that's been working fine at scale for decades. [Truncate for brevity] It's similar except you're not tracking one product with a few hundreds of thousands to a million or so at the largest scale to tracking many products with billions of copies sold. Just taking vitamins/nutritional supplements for example, last year that market sold 36.1 billion dollars in the US alone so ROM that's 1-3 billion codes to track. That gets whittled down pretty quickly by people who don't use the service but it's still a lot when you start adding other industries too.

EvilTerran 9y ago

Knock-offs are a particularly big problem in the electronic cigarette industry, so many of the device manufacturers already do something like this - usually a code on the device or behind a scratch-off panel on the box (ie somewhere you can't read it without obvious tampering), then a form on their website that tells you whether the code is one of theirs, and if so, whether it's been submitted before (to catch knock-offs copying a genuine code). Eg: https://www.innokin.com/verify-device/ https://www.innokin.com/verify-device/ http://svoemesto.de/serialcheck/ http://svoemesto.de/serialcheck/ https://qr.szkanger.com/check/ https://qr.szkanger.com/check/ https://www.geekvape.com/authentication/ https://www.geekvape.com/authentication/

olegkikin 9y ago

So the counterfeiters will use a real hash from one (or from hundreds) of the real products. That's why creating counterfeit-proof physical money is still an unsolved problem. I've been thinking - maybe something like bitcoin can help. When you buy a product, you get 1 coin with it. When you resell, you have to send that coin to your buyer. Since counterfeiters can't make coins, that serves as a proof. Unfortunately it creates an annoying layer that all sellers of goods must follow.

atomi 9y ago
Sure, but what you do is provide a response that shows the amount of times it's been checked. If it's more than once, then you can be sure it's counterfeit.
- Riseed 9y ago
  If the code has been checked more than once, then you can only be sure that >=(n - 1) counterfeits exist. Checking the code does not verify whether yours is the counterfeit, only that you weren't the first to attempt verification.
  - DuskStar 9y ago
    If the code is behind a scratch off strip, then because you scratched it off and the code was already used, you can be assured that your item is counterfeit. On the other hand, being the first to check the code is NOT perfect proof that your item is legitimate. If the counterfeiter makes 100 of an item, the one of those will still pass verification. Unless you get notified of other attempts later, of course.