←back to thread

List of Printers Which Do or Do Not Display Tracking Dots

(www.eff.org)
586 points prawn | 4 comments | 06 Jun 17 22:12 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mattpavelle ◴[06 Jun 17 22:48 UTC] No.14502165[source]▶
My cursory research into this topic (this morning...) lead me to believe inkjet printers may be uncompromised (not printing steganographic dots). The NYTimes believed this to be the case as well back in 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/technology/personaltech/24...) - anyone with more knowledge of the subject have information about this?
replies(1): >>14502411 #
1. schoen ◴[06 Jun 17 23:28 UTC] No.14502411[source]▶
I wrote the original article, and that consistently matches what we've learned and heard. However, that doesn't mean that forensics can never identify the printer that printed a document (there's an entire lab at Purdue that's been studying possible ways to do so for over a decade!), just that the printers are not intentionally engineered to track their users.

Edit: It looks like the Purdue lab was only publishing research from 2003 to 2010, or hasn't updated its web site.

replies(1): >>14504896 #
2. CodeWriter23 ◴[07 Jun 17 09:56 UTC] No.14504896[source]▶
So they perfected it and received a gag order under the State Secrets Act.
replies(1): >>14508629 #
3. schoen ◴[07 Jun 17 18:17 UTC] No.14508629[source]▶
Good thing this country doesn't have a State Secrets Act!

(Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act if they filed for a patent.)

replies(1): >>14509251 #
4. CodeWriter23 ◴[07 Jun 17 19:34 UTC] No.14509251{3}[source]▶
That's what I was referring to. Thanks for the clarification.