Sample Essay Exam Responses


Here is an example article and essay question used in a previous midterm.  It is followed by sample student responses and instructor critique.  

Sleuths Crack Tracking Code Discovered in Color Printers

By Mike Musgrove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Last year, an article in PC World magazine pointed out that printouts from many color laser printers contained yellow dots scattered across the page, viewable only with a special kind of flashlight. The article quoted a senior researcher at Xerox Corp. as saying the dots contain information useful to law-enforcement authorities, a secret digital "license tag" for tracking down criminals.

Yesterday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco consumer privacy group, said it had cracked the code used in a widely used line of Xerox printers, an invisible bar code of sorts that contains the serial number of the printer as well as the date and time a document was printed.

With the Xerox printers, the information appears as a pattern of yellow dots, each only a millimeter wide and visible only with a magnifying glass and a blue light.

The EFF said it has identified similar coding on pages printed from nearly every major printer manufacturer, including Hewlett-Packard Co., though its team has so far cracked the codes for only one type of Xerox printer.

The U.S. Secret Service acknowledged yesterday that the markings, which are not visible to the human eye, are there, but it played down the use for invading privacy.

"It's strictly a countermeasure to prevent illegal activity specific to counterfeiting," agency spokesman Eric Zahren said. "It's to protect our currency and to protect people's hard-earned money."  It's unclear whether the yellow-dot codes have ever been used to make an arrest.

Xerox spokesman Bill McKee confirmed the existence of the hidden codes, but he said the company was simply assisting an agency that asked for help. McKee said the program was part of a cooperation with government agencies, competing manufacturers and a "consortium of banks," but would not provide further details. HP said in a statement that it is involved in anti-counterfeiting measures and supports the cooperation between the printer industry and those who are working to reduce counterfeiting.


Write an essay that criticizes the printer tracking codes described in the article from the perspective of the EFF.


I suggest your write your own response to the essay, for practice, then read the sample essays below.

Student Essay #1

The printer tracking codes seem to me to be full of errors.  It states in the article that there's no evidence to whether or not they codes have ever been used.  As a consumer I wouldn't want to go out and buy any product that had a potential of keeping track of what I do.  This issue could lower the demand to buy printers.

Instructor critique:
Four sentences is not enough to constitute an essay. There are several severe grammatical and usage errors.  The essay is not written from the perspective of the EFF as required, but rather from the view of a consumer or a business.  Grade: F.  


Student Essay #2

The printer tracking codes are infringing upon the consumers privacy.  The key aspects of privacy include: freedom from intrustion and freedom from surveillance.  The printer companies have violated both of these aspects.  Everything we print (exaggeration) has a tracking code displaying the printers serial number and date and time of printing. This is surveillance. (Absolutely not.) We are considered guilty until proven innocent. (True, but completely irrelevant here).  Since these codes are used to track people down (the article doesn't say this), we can be identified. (Vague.)  Having hackers or the government know what we print is infringing upon our personal privacy. (The issue is not about hackers.)  When printing from our home computer we have the "expectation of privacy" it is unfair that what we print, in our own home could be tracked or used against us.  (Explain more how this information is going to be used against us.  The article doesn't say this so it needs elaboration.) We cannot be anonymous if the paper we use has special tracking codes.  This seems to be a violation of the 4th amendment of privacy.  (The 4th amendment doesn't mention privacy.)

Instructor critique:
The essay is a single paragraph which might be acceptable except that it keeps repeating the same thing instead of developing the theme or exploring other ideas. It fails to mention the key issue about informed consent.  Grade: D

Student Essay #3

Gone, now, are the days when a person didn't have to worry about the documents they print and how they could be used against that person.  (Needs elaboration - how are the documents going to be used against people?)  Color laser printers are so commonly used in our homes for personal or professional matters, and now we discover that the government, or anyone else who is smart enough to crack a code, (The government doesn't need to "crack" the code, they invented it.) can invade our privacy when it comes to what we print. (Vague.  Needs to explain specifically what privacy is being invaded.)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a consumer privacy group was able to crack this code printed on our documents from color laser printers, so it's probably safe to say that some others will be able to as well. (So what?  Why is this bad?) Consumers' privacy is at stake here, and the consumers had no prior warning or knowledge that it was an issue.  There is no form of notification or warning (Good) on the box or instruction booklet of the printer, so this is clearly a violation of privacy. 

Instructor critique:
The key point was mentioned about lack of consent. However, the essay needs more development -- why is this bad?  What are the potential harms here?  The government thinks it's okay, so just saying "it's not okay" isn't an adequate argument.  Grade: C-.

Student Essay #4

Such tracking poses serious threats to personal privacy. (Not a coherent introductory sentence.  "Serious" is probably an exaggeration.)  While the Secret Service and printer manufacturers say that it is an attempt at preventing counterfeiting, there is potentially more at risk.
The barcode is printed on every picture, not just ones involving currency.  This poses a significant threat to personal privacy because everyone who prints a picture from their computer has unknowingly (Yes, emphasize this.) given out personal information. (Not just pictures, any document.) ("Personal information" is an exaggeration.  Only a serial number and date/time.) 
This creates serious anonymity issues.  Imagine if a prominent public official printed off brochures discussing his AA meeting, this person could potentially be identified.  (Weak example: AA meetings are confidential and participants don't print off brochures discussing the meeting.   But more importantly, the only agency that would be identifying the person is the Secret Service.  Is there something bad about that?  It's not a crime to join AA. It's not clear where this argument is going.)
The use of such barcoding within pictures creates a very slippery slope.  While it is supposed to be used in counterfeiting cases only, what is to say it won't be abused elsewhere.  (Like where?  With specific examples and more development this might go somewhere, but without elaboration it's not much to go on.)

Instructor critique:
It does mention the key issue, that customers don't know the barcode appears on their printouts.  But the rest of the argument lacks development and uses weak examples. Grade: C

Student Essay #5
From the perspective of the EFF, these printer tracking codes are very wrong.  It violates our privacy because it acts as a type of surveillance. (Not even close to surveillance.) By coding the serial number of the printer and the date and time of the print it is keeping track of individuals. (Actually, no, it can track printers.  You need to explain how that might possibly lead to individuals.)  It is also a violation because the Privacy Act restricts tracking to only those with reasonable cause.  (This is a misunderstanding of the restrictions stated in the Privacy Act, and the act doesn't apply here anyway because it isn't the government making the printers.)  It is also violating consumers rights because they are not aware this is happening.  Because the yellow dots cannot be detected with a naked eye it is impossible for all consumers to know about the tag. It also doesn't state that each document will be tagged when a printer is purchased, therefore it is illegal for the printer to do so. (Actually it is not illegal.  It may be unethical and that's what your argument is supposed to conclude. )

Instructor critique:
It does mention the key issue, that customers are unaware of the barcodes.  In fact it belabors the point somewhat.  It fails to explore the implications of this or make a case why it is unethical. There are several factual errors. Grade: C+

Student Essay #6
The codes being printed by these printers are hidden and not commonly known.  This is a violation of privacy.  The printer's serial number as well as the time and date the document was printed is written in the code on the paper.  This makes it possible to track down a person who printed or even created a certain document. (How?  The article doesn't say, so you need to elaborate on how this could happen.) Although public printers would be hard to monitor, the time and date would be able to narrow the people who printed on that printer significantly.  These codes are used to "protect currency" but they seem to violate privacy rights more than anything.  (Redundant).  It is not even clear if the codes have been used to make an arrest. (OK, so what does that imply?) As of now they are invisibly gathering information. (Redundant).  Every document that is printed is connected to a specific time and location. (Actually, only time, there is no location in the codes.) This tracking is being done without the individual's knowledge, it is a form of surveillance. (No, it isn't).  The government can gather documents they find threatening and pinpoint where they were created (Explain how this could be possible) and monitor all those that are there.  (This hints at government abuses - needs development). It is a violation of privacy. (Yes, you already said that).

Instructor critique:
It does mention the key issue, that customers are unaware of the barcodes.  It hints at some other issues but doesn't develop them fully.  It repeats itself and makes several errors.  Grade: B-.

Student Essay #7
Unless the person is notified that their documents might be labeled with a printer tracking code, this should be illegal. (Good, focuses on key issue and distinguishes ethical issues from legal ones).  The codes invade a person's expectation of privacy because they are not aware that their document could be tracked.  Although it is to reduce counterfeiting, this system needs to be put under the "necessary and compelling" judicial test.  Although there is compelling government interest in protecting our currency, there are other less-obtrusive means to do this (Example?) 
Many innocent people's privacy is invaded with this system (Explain how.) Although it is unclear whether this code system has led to an arrest we must weigh the costs and benefits.  (Confusing). It is my guess that hardly any arrests have come out of this and similar to the airport example in the book of 5% of searched people actually having drugs, we must ask ourselves is this invasion of privacy worth it? In this case, until we learn that this system is highly successful, it is not worth giving up freedoms and privacy.

Instructor critique:
It does explains the key issue, that customers are unaware of the barcodes.  It provides an ethical argument weighing the harms against the benefits.  It cites a similar case from the textbook as evidence. Grade: B.

Student Essay #8
Digital technology clearly provides a tool for criminals to forge currency, passports, etc.  But to what extent are we willing to sacrifice our privacy for the safety of democracy?  (Hyperbole). 
The tiny yellow dots printed out on my documents do not affect their quality.  In fact, I cannot even see them, but do they somehow compromise my right to privacy?  These small dots can identify my printer as the one that printed a specific document as well as the date and time when it was printed. The Secret Service says this is to prevent counterfeiting but what is to stop them from using it for other things. (Need an example.)
Presumably if I am a criminal I would know about these dots and I would find some way to evade their influence.  Also, doesn't the government already have means of conterfeit protection such as the special paper used for dollar bills? Isn't there some way of still preventing against crime without putting a tracking device in laser printers?
The government's use of this technology invades privacy in a very sneaky fashion.  Most consumers are probably unaware that their printing is being tracked (could be tracked), that their private documents are traceable.  This technology is also something that is not part of public use. Consumers may be tracked unwillingly, their actions monitored (No, this is speculation) their personal information documented, which clearly violates their rights to privacy.

Instructor critique:
It does explains the key issue, that customers are unaware of the barcodes.  It mentions abuses.  It mentions less dubious alternatives.  Grade: B+

Model Essay
Manufacturers should stop including tracking codes in their printers.  It's unethical, it's ineffective, it could be abused, and it sets a dangerous precedent.  It's unethical because the individual is not informed of the kind of information being coded on every document they print with these certain printers.  A key aspect of privacy involves control of personal information and although the coded data may not be very personal, the manufacturer has given the consumer no control at all over the technology that tracks their printer. 
Secondly, these codes are ineffective.  In order to be of use to law enforcement, the code on a document would have to be linked to a consumer. The consumer data would have to come from the manufacturer who presumably associates a person's name with a printer serial number when they send in a warranty registration card.  Many people don't bother to send in registration cards, so the database is incomplete, hindering law enforcement efforts.  Another factor is that the printer codes only track a device, not a person, and if the printer changes hands an innocent person could be wrongly incriminated.  Another factor is how easy it would be for criminals to avoid detection by simply not using the part of the paper that has the codes printed on it. Probably the most compelling fact is that the codes have led to no arrests at all, let alone convictions.  It's not worth risking personal privacy for an ineffective law enforcement tool.  Particularly for a crime that is low on the priority list such as counterfeiting.
Thirdly, the government doesn't have a great track record about sticking to legitimate uses of personal data.  The tracking codes could be use to locate the source of lawfully protected speech that happens to disagree with the current political climate. This is just one more avenue for government to track down or harass lawful alternate political voices. Another concern is that printers are sold internationally and these tracking codes could become a tool of oppression by more repressive governments.
Consumers have a lot to worry about in their future if this incident becomes commonplace.  In essence, government is circumventing legal restrictions such as the Privacy Act by co-opting manufacturers in the private sector, who aren't subject to the Privacy Act, into doing their dirty work for them.  Who knows what other consumer technologies are revealing information about us since there are few legal restrictions on information gathering by private enterprise.  Perhaps that new High Definition TV you bought that has an internet connection for downloading movies is tracking what films or TV broadcasts you watch and uploading the data to the manufacturer who is cooperating with federal agencies.

Instructor Critique:
A complete and fully developed essay, with a good thesis sentence.  Builds an argument from multiple angles, provides appropriate detail and specific evidence, shows good insight into the subtle issues of this scenario. It isn't without flaws, but it makes a logical, complete, rational argument. Grade: A.
Isolated error examples.
If you have factual errors in your essay it seriously weakens your argument.  Here are some examples.

"The clearest argument against the government using printer tracking codes is the obvious violation of the Privacy Act of 1974."  Actually, no, this doesn't apply, because the government didn't make the printers.

"The codes are not protected very well and contain sensitive data."   I don't think the data in these codes would qualify as "sensitive."   It's just a serial number and a data/time.  There's no name, no address, etc.

"The ability of the EFF to crack the code shows that the codes are not well protected and can be deciphered by everyday people."  So what?  They don't contain personal information.   This isn't a crucial factor here.

"Citizens have the right to know the type of strategy or software the govenment is using to collect personal information."  There are THREE errors in this statement. The information is not "personal."  The data is not being "collected."  The government isn't doing it, manufacturers are.  You can't build a convincing argument based on errorneous premises.