> On 4 May 2015, at 3:09 pm, Rohan McLeod <[email protected]> wrote: > > Russell Coker wrote: >> On Sat, 2 May 2015, Jason White <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Morrie Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> (Not that I'm saying that snail mail is free from >>>> risk either, but >>>> a letter can be dropped in a post box anywhere, so the chance of being >>>> exposed is >>>> minimal, or at least can be minimised by taking the fairly simple >>>> precautions of using >>>> generic stationary, print the content using standard fonts on a common >>>> model of >>>> printer, and random choice of post box to send the letter on its way.) >>> Some printers, unfortunately, embed subtle identifying information in their >>> output. >> https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking- >> dots >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography > > Russell, > both these seem to refer exclusively to laser-printers; > a quick google didn't seem to find similar issues with ink-jets; > absence of evidence, is evidence of absence ? :-) > > regards Rohan McLeod
Gents, if you are concerned about traceability, there are (certain) colour laser printers that print their ‘fingerprint’ which will point to that particular printer. NB: Not every laser printer will do this. Only some (as per reports). I am now aware of inkjets being affected by the same issue, nor I am aware of b&w laser printers that are ’traceable’. Ignorance is a bliss in this regard. One needs to be very careful… Cheers, DB > _______________________________________________ > luv-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
