3 ms·

> order to avoid acknowledging the existence of said marks Not likely. It's been common knowledge for a long time.

Larrikin 9y ago
The reporting on this everywhere besides tech sites has completely left this part out. Its not common knowledge to a lot of people.
- pilsetnieks 9y ago
  Do you mean tracking dots in general? They've been mentioned in mainstream media, it's just that nobody cares. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/technology/personaltech/24askk-001.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/technology/personaltech/24... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801663.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...
  - pessimizer 9y ago
    That they were in two articles 10 years ago is not evidence either that it's common knowledge or that no one cares. They have their own wikipedia article.
- dom0 9y ago
  MICs are usually mentioned in the same sentence that also explains why you can't print nor scan money. The big Wikipedias have long articles on it with many sample images: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography
  - tropo 9y ago
    or a Florida birth certificate (WTF?) If you need to fax one, you'll need to find a really old fax machine without color printer or scanner capability.
1001101 9y ago
The EFF has been covering this for a while, and in 2015, released a list of printers that do/do not display tracking dots [1]. [1] https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-d...
- qb45 9y ago
  Yes, it's been well known for years to anybody who wants to know, but staying quiet still appears to be working very damn well for the NSA - right here you have a leaked NSA document where both the leaker and journalists failed to redact the dots.
pessimizer 9y ago
Not that common, and intelligence institutions often have policies not to acknowledge things that are known to be true. I think that not discouraging people from mailing printouts when they don't want to be identified is a good enough reason to pretend that they didn't just read all the info they needed from the printout itself.
cmiles74 9y ago
I was just speaking to a co-worker about this and they didn't know about the dots. Anecdotal as always, but we shouldn't take for granted that everyone is aware of this.

The reporting on this everywhere besides tech sites has completely left this part out. Its not common knowledge to a lot of people.

pilsetnieks 9y ago
Do you mean tracking dots in general? They've been mentioned in mainstream media, it's just that nobody cares. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/technology/personaltech/24askk-001.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/technology/personaltech/24... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801663.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...
- pessimizer 9y ago
  That they were in two articles 10 years ago is not evidence either that it's common knowledge or that no one cares. They have their own wikipedia article.
dom0 9y ago
MICs are usually mentioned in the same sentence that also explains why you can't print nor scan money. The big Wikipedias have long articles on it with many sample images: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography
- tropo 9y ago
  or a Florida birth certificate (WTF?) If you need to fax one, you'll need to find a really old fax machine without color printer or scanner capability.

1001101 9y ago

The EFF has been covering this for a while, and in 2015, released a list of printers that do/do not display tracking dots [1]. [1] https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-d...

qb45 9y ago
Yes, it's been well known for years to anybody who wants to know, but staying quiet still appears to be working very damn well for the NSA - right here you have a leaked NSA document where both the leaker and journalists failed to redact the dots.

pessimizer 9y ago

Not that common, and intelligence institutions often have policies not to acknowledge things that are known to be true. I think that not discouraging people from mailing printouts when they don't want to be identified is a good enough reason to pretend that they didn't just read all the info they needed from the printout itself.

cmiles74 9y ago

I was just speaking to a co-worker about this and they didn't know about the dots. Anecdotal as always, but we shouldn't take for granted that everyone is aware of this.