Me and my team used these yellow tracking dots to reconstruct shredded documents for a DARPA shredder challenge over a decade ago. You can see our program highlight the dots as we reconstruct the shredded docs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzZDhyrjdVo
Thanks to that, we were able to win by a large margin. :)
Oh wow, I remember hearing about this challenge on Daily Planet when I was still in elementary school. It's super cool seeing a follow up, it brought back a hidden memory.
what was the process of getting each of the shredded pieces scanned for your program to use. I'm guessing that process could have a write up on it just as much as the solver. there's definitely a personality type that can handle that type of mess
DARPA scanned the shreds. The funny thing is, they didn't want to shred the original paper, so first they photocopied the paper in a high quality color copier, shredded it, and scanned it. And that's where the little yellow dots came from. :D
Had the experience of poking at tracking dots recently for circumstances I won't share here.
Do y'allself a favor and get a blue LED flashlight and point it at a color print. It's shocking how many are printed. It looks like a spattering of sand across the entire page!
Not to mention failure to accurately print what you sent to the printer. There must be some use case where these "invisible" dots actually undermine the intended output.
> 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…
Per Wikipedia, the dots' "arrangement encodes the serial number of the device, date and time of the printing", so all you really need to spoof somebody else's printer is the serial number. Which can likely these days even be accessed remotely through printer settings.
No need to examine the printer. Just find a sheet of paper that printer printed, decode the dots, and then print your super illegal whatever with their printer's dots and a timestamp that makes sense for whatever you're framing them for doing. Nobody's ever gonna believe "the dots were a lie." They sound too much like fingerprints.
It depends on how it gets the serial number. If it reads it from internal memory then spoofing your own serial number on each document print is the obvious workaround.
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"
Adding some context to this, because it's a really interesting read that's worth the time if you ask me: it's about how some recently 'discovered' early playtest versions of Pokemon cards were found to be fake, or at least very suspicious, based on the presence (and decoding) of these dots.
I also find it interesting because the person who posted the discovery and breakdown of the dots stood to personally lose thousands of dollars they'd spent on the fakes, but posted their findings anyway.
What happens if I print the same page in multiple printers? Like, have the first printer print the actual contents, and then have the other printers add just a little bit of stuff in still-white areas. Does one printer mess the dots of the others?
I'm beginning to think the MIB show up to any nerd's house who starts an equivalent of OpenWRT project, for printers. Can't have untracked speech, need to be able to surgically strike certain founts of inconvenient memes. This sort of thing is why my craigslist sourced b&w laser printer is on its own VLAN with a CUPS server playing go-between. Nobody consented in an informed manner to Niantic's operation for the last decade+. Nobody consents to their every print being traceable. There is nothing, nothing about the product or process which warns the device owner or user that "Lack of obvious visible identifiers in the output does not mean it is identifier-free (steganographic identifier)." Just like nobody consents to the Universal Machines in our products being locked down to the point that even we the owners can't repurpose them as we see fit. We as peoples have come to accept the barrage of insults from commercial and state entities, that it's either a shit-sandwich or no-sandwich at all (plus a beating). Louis Rossmann's Consumer Action Taskforce (CAT) is becoming a great anthology of what I am talking about in this regard.
It's time to fight back! Let's start hacking the good printers out there, get their firmwares replaced with something viable, and start divorcing this nonsense. These tracking dots and other steganographic tracking methods exist precisely to track people like me and silence me, people who point out the occulted control methods, people who spread memes deemed information hazards and malinformation by the giant onyx squid.
Besides, if I wanted to counterfeit I would [naïvely] get one of those tight tolerance watchmaker CNCs and have printing stamps made out of aluminum or something. Printing to paper in the usual home-office way seems to me an asinine method which is easily detected by most people who handle bills regularly.
The point of these technologies is to stop the low hanging fruit and trace the source of ransom notes, leaked documents, and the like.
For counterfeiting, a technical person's first thought is: "how does the Bureau of Engraving and Printing actually do it?" and then they do that - and you nailed it: offset printing.
Laser printers and inkjets can't even remotely compare.
That's a lot more work, skill and initial investment required than just trying to slap a dollar bill on a copier. Which means a lot fewer people will try, especially since the people with these skills can usually easily make enough, and possibly more, money through legitimate means.
There were people who did counterfeiting "right", down to getting real printing presses, suitable paper etc. https://www.businessinsider.com/frank-bourassa-on-how-he-cou... (it's strongly implied that he got away with 6 weeks in prison and likely got to keep a decent amount of the profit).
This gonna be pretty important in the next years... people, if you plan on printing protest flyers and pamphlets, either get them done in a professional print shop (if you know someone you can trust, that is), or at the very least buy the printer in cash, never ever connect it to the Internet, and only connect it via USB to a Linux computer - macOS and Windows both will install printer drivers automatically that might phone back to the mothership and link your printer ID to some sort of identifier.
The github references this document: Timo Richter, Stephan Escher, Dagmar Schönfeld, and Thorsten Strufe. 2018. Forensic Analysis and Anonymisation of Printed Documents. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security (IH&MMSec '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 127-138.
Readit News
Super cool demo btw
(I mean it is, but seeing this almost real-world implementation is fun!)
Do y'allself a favor and get a blue LED flashlight and point it at a color print. It's shocking how many are printed. It looks like a spattering of sand across the entire page!
https://datadotusa.com/technology.htm
> 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…
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"
I also find it interesting because the person who posted the discovery and breakdown of the dots stood to personally lose thousands of dollars they'd spent on the fakes, but posted their findings anyway.
To be clear, it's possible/probable that some or all of it could still be read depending on details I don't know.
It's time to fight back! Let's start hacking the good printers out there, get their firmwares replaced with something viable, and start divorcing this nonsense. These tracking dots and other steganographic tracking methods exist precisely to track people like me and silence me, people who point out the occulted control methods, people who spread memes deemed information hazards and malinformation by the giant onyx squid.
[/rant]
For counterfeiting, a technical person's first thought is: "how does the Bureau of Engraving and Printing actually do it?" and then they do that - and you nailed it: offset printing.
Laser printers and inkjets can't even remotely compare.
There were people who did counterfeiting "right", down to getting real printing presses, suitable paper etc. https://www.businessinsider.com/frank-bourassa-on-how-he-cou... (it's strongly implied that he got away with 6 weeks in prison and likely got to keep a decent amount of the profit).
1. You're looking for a very specific person.
2. You want to unconstitutionally punish somebody for free speech, and you don't care who, you just want to cheaply find a convenient victim.
In that respect, tracking-dots are an invitation to #2, since they don't really need much in the way of human labor-hours or focus.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
There is a copy here: https://ericbalawejder.com/assets/hexview/Forensic-Analysis-...
It sounds like they mostly understand the dot patterns wherever they found them, with some caveats that are explained in the paper.