←back to thread

285 points pavel_lishin | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.435s | source
Show context
twalkz ◴[] No.43551892[source]
> My printer does not print tracking dots. Can I hide this fact?

> If there are really no tracking dots, you can either create your own ones (deda_create_dots) or print the calibration page (deda_anonmask_create -w) with another printer and use the mask for your own printer

The thought of being able to “spoof” the tracking dots of another printer has interesting implications for deniability. Though I guess in this case you’d still need access to the original printer to print the anonmask…

replies(2): >>43551967 #>>43553819 #
tgsovlerkhgsel ◴[] No.43553819[source]
Once you are at the level of forensic investigations that go down to the tracking dots, most attempts at spoofing anything will be relatively obvious and provide further evidence that narrows down the list of suspects to those aware of such techniques.

You might fool someone who does such analysis casually but I'd expect an actual experienced investigator to e.g. go "the tracking dots are clearly brand X, but the raster used for greyscale is obviously from Y, soooo"

replies(1): >>43554373 #
1. thinkingemote ◴[] No.43554373[source]
Have these dots been used as evidence in a court?
replies(1): >>43555424 #
2. UncleEntity ◴[] No.43555424[source]
They've been used to figure out who leaked government documents in a few cases IIRC.