How easy it is to be a fake. Get up in the morning, slap on some fake aftershave, dress yourself in fake designer fashions, drink a fake cup of coffee, use a fake travelcard, go to work to use fake software, meet some fake friends after work for some fake whisky and a couple of fake cigarettes – then go home and slip into some fake name-brand pyjamas before drifting off to sleep.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a mere snapshot of the ‘counterfeiting nightmare’ that penetrates every industry and profession in the world. Would-be officers’ false driving licences and forged academic qualifications are just some of the pitfalls out there waiting to trip up even the most discerning security manager.
Counterfeiting may seem like a victimless crime, but that is assuredly not the case. In some instances, such practices can even be a danger to our health.
Only recently, several people died in Cambodia after taking counterfeit malaria drugs sold as Mefloquine and Artesunate. Nigerian farmers in the country’s Plateau State have seen crops founder solely due to a fake fertiliser scam, while the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers in Australia have been quick to warn consumers and producers alike of the prevalence of counterfeit automobile wheels.
One of the main problems that retail security teams face is that computers (and related hi-tech equipment) are now so prevalent, and can be bought inexpensively to help produce very good copies of packaging and product documents. That said, counterfeiting could hardly be listed as a new phenomena. The first anti-counterfeiting technologies were invented by the Chinese, who were renowned worldwide for their skilful duplication techniques developed in the 8th Century (when paper currency was first introduced).
The notes were protected against fraudulent copying by using multi-colour schemes, complex designs and a mixture of paper fibres. In other words, the cornerstones of many anti-counterfeiting methods used to protect today’s blue chip concerns.
Fighting the fakes
Solutions to the problem of counterfeiting are many and varied, but retail security and loss prevention managers will be interested to learn that those self-same solutions – and their application – dominate proceedings in the latest anti-counterfeiting publication produced by the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) Commercial Crime Services Division.
The aptly-named ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Technology Guide’ has just been issued by the London office of the Paris-based global business group. The guide has been designed by the ICC as an aid for companies (in particular brand owners and their in-house security teams) who need to be informed of the counterfeiting risk, at the same time providing a series of options that security teams might want to take on board to protect their clients from the counterfeiting dilemma.
In essence, explains the guide, anti-counterfeiting strategies may be neatly divided into two categories – namely overt technologies (those visible to the human eye) and covert (secret and invisible) techniques that can only be identified by the use of special equipment and/or chemicals.
An addition to those categories would be semi-covert methods, creating security features that can be seen when held up to the light or near to a heat source.
Overt technology will be used when a manufacturer wants the security device to be seen by the consumer (holograms being a classic example). The ICC guide states that: “Overt devices provide an easy method of checking whether or not the product is authentic without the need for specialist equipment. Spot checks can be carried out quickly and easily by law enforcement officials, manufacturers’ agents and in-house security teams”.
The ICC guide is quick to point out that consumers need to be made aware of the overt device through advertising or information about the product itself. “If the device cannot be found by the customers, they may choose not to buy it,” states the guide.
A covert device is one that’s specifically tailored to be identified by a few chosen individuals who can verify its authenticity with special equipment. Since the customer is not ‘in the know’, some companies decide to use overt devices as well as the covert (eg placing a hologram on the label) that the customer can see, but will also include information within the hologram that can only be read with a scanner. However, the ICC guide warns that covert devices may not be suitable if the product changes hands too frequently, and there are few opportunities to carry out verification.
Whichever anti-counterfeiting method a business uses, the ICC guide stresses several goals that must be achieved. The technology used must be near impossible to copy or replicate – when dealing with anti-counterfeiting strategies the chances of achieving a full-proof method are slim. They must be monitored in case counterfeiters are able to copy a security feature.
End users must also bear in mind the cost of the technology when deciding on systems to be deployed, and how much they are prepared to invest. The ICC guide suggests that security managers beware the bottom line – always prevalent in their executives’/clients’ minds.
In addition, the durability of the technologies must be able to withstand various storage conditions and temperatures such that the secured packaging or documentation will last. The security device must also be easily applied in a mass production environment.
Last – but by no means least – simplicity is key for the public to be able to identify the security marking, while easy authentication is a priority. It almost goes without saying that such marks must not be easily removed from the product(s), document(s) or packaging.
Anti-counterfeiting techniques
The ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Technology Guide’ includes a comprehensive listing of the various anti-counterfeiting technologies available, themselves split into a broad number of categories.
Security printing is an obvious inclusion. This is composed of several techniques that can help prevent counterfeiting. Watermarking is a good example, of course, whereby the mark is set as an integral part of the paper by a cylinder mould, or is embossed upon it by the fourdrinier method.
As we’ve already mentioned, much counterfeiting is now perpetrated on computer and via colour photocopying. By way of a solution, the ICC ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Technology Guide’ suggests using printing techniques such as intaglio printing to add ‘texture’ to a document or packaging, thereby differentiating its appearance. Such a technique raises images on paper by using 2,000 lbs of pressure from an inked steel plate.
Security inks can also be effective against counterfeiting, as any attempted changes made to a document will result in the ink changing colour or bleeding onto the paper. Several types of inks can be used, including multi-fugitive inks – that react chemically when there is an attempt to change them using organic and chemical compounds – and metallic inks (which change over to the colour black when they’re photocopied).
Holograms (or DOVIDS – Diffractive Optical Variable Image Devices) are widely used. They are easy to identify and can be found on many items, ranging from software packages through to labels for clothing and cosmetics. Holograms are available in 2D and 3D images. The 2D variety are very popular because of their attractive appearance and lower price, but they can be a security risk as copying them is easier than it is a 3D hologram.
The ICC’s ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Technology Guide’ explains that 3D holograms are safer because “they have a foreground, mid-ground and background, so it’s possible to place an image in all the planes.”
Meantime, the guide states that security labels can be divided into three areas according to their use. Transfer-resistant labels are used to prevent counterfeiters from taking the labels from genuine packaging and reusing them. Tamper-proof labels are used to prevent genuine packaging from housing fake goods (eg filling a genuine spirits bottle with sub-standard liquids). It’s here that biocoding comes into play. This is where a chemical marker carrying coded information is added.
Authentication labels contain several anti-counterfeiting technologies. Some techniques used to authenticate the labels involve ultraviolet fluorescent inks, heat-sensitive security threads and – once again – holograms.
The guide also explains how products might be tagged by smell. An odour is incorporated into the packaging, or within the product itself, and its authenticity checked with a handheld ‘electronic nose’.
Ultimately, in-house security teams cannot afford to sit back and expect to avoid becoming victims of counterfeiting. Reading the ICC’s new guide should be the first step in building an effective barrier against the ‘product and system terrorists’.
