Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Printer tracking dots

Printer tracking dots, also known as machine identification codes (MIC), are microscopic yellow markings deliberately embedded by many color laser printers into the background of every color-printed page, forming a repeating grid pattern that encodes the printer's serial number and, in some cases, the date and time of printing to enable forensic identification of the device and user. These dots, typically invisible to the unaided eye and measuring fractions of a millimeter, were implemented at the behest of government agencies, such as the U.S. Secret Service, primarily to combat currency counterfeiting by allowing authorities to trace illicit reproductions of banknotes back to specific printers. The technology originated in the mid-1980s with early implementations in devices from manufacturers like Xerox and Canon, but gained public scrutiny in the early 2000s through investigations by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which decoded patterns in models such as the Xerox DocuColor series, revealing a 15x8 dot grid using 7-bit encoding for serial numbers and timestamps, verifiable via magnification or blue LED illumination. While not universal—certain models like older HP Color LaserJet 4500 series omit visible yellow dots—most contemporary commercial color laser printers incorporate some variant of these forensic markers, though patterns may evolve beyond yellow dots to evade casual detection. Significant controversies surround their deployment due to inherent privacy risks, as the codes facilitate surveillance of non-criminal printing without warrants or user notification, potentially linking individuals to sensitive documents in investigations unrelated to counterfeiting, a concern amplified by the absence of regulatory oversight on their use by law enforcement. EFF research underscores that while intended for legitimate forensic purposes, such as authenticating document origins in fraud cases, the mandatory embedding raises causal issues of compelled self-incrimination in printing activities, prompting calls for transparency from manufacturers who have largely confirmed compliance under secretive agreements with governments. Detection methods, including high-resolution scanning at 600 dpi or spectral analysis tools, allow independent verification but highlight the challenge of circumvention, as dots persist across firmware updates and brands.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Implementation

Printer tracking dots, also known as Machine Identification Codes (MICs), originated in the mid-1980s as a steganographic technique developed by Xerox to address concerns over the potential use of high-quality color copiers for counterfeiting currency. The advancement of color reproduction technology in photocopying and early printing devices raised alarms about realistic forgery of U.S. banknotes, prompting Xerox to embed imperceptible yellow dots encoding the device's serial number. These dots, typically measuring around 0.1 millimeters in diameter and spaced within a small grid pattern, were designed to be invisible under normal viewing conditions but detectable with magnification or blue light. The U.S. Secret Service, tasked with combating counterfeiting threats, requested that printer and copier manufacturers implement such tracking mechanisms voluntarily to trace forged documents back to specific machines. Xerox complied by integrating the code into its color devices, including early laser printers and copiers, without public disclosure to preserve the forensic utility against criminals. Canon similarly adopted the technology around the same period, establishing a de facto industry standard for color output devices amid rising incidences of color-based forgery enabled by improving printer resolutions. This early implementation focused on serial number encoding, with timestamps added in subsequent refinements to provide temporal data for investigations.

Public Discovery and Government Involvement

The public discovery of printer tracking dots occurred in 2005 when researchers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) conducted forensic analysis on output from Xerox DocuColor color laser printers, revealing nearly invisible yellow dots encoding printer serial numbers, dates, and times, a feature implemented across multiple manufacturers. This revelation built on earlier 2004 reports but was confirmed through EFF's decoding efforts using blue light illumination and magnification to identify the systematic patterns present on documents. The technology stemmed from secretive collaborations initiated in the mid-1980s between the U.S. Secret Service and printer manufacturers, including Xerox and Canon, to embed machine identification codes (MICs) for tracking counterfeit currency production by linking documents to specific devices. These mandates required color laser printers sold in the U.S. to include the codes, with the Secret Service justifying non-disclosure on national security grounds to prevent circumvention by criminals. The practice extended internationally through similar agreements with European law enforcement and manufacturers, as global firms like Fuji-Xerox complied with requirements from governments including Japan, ensuring widespread adoption without public acknowledgment. As of 2025, no significant policy shifts have occurred despite EFF's calls for transparency since 2005, with the codes remaining embedded in commercial color laser printers produced by major vendors. Analyses in 2024 confirmed the persistence of these covert mechanisms, showing no transition to disclosed or optional methods, as manufacturers continue cooperation with authorities amid ongoing anti-counterfeiting efforts.

Technical Mechanisms

Encoding and Pattern Generation

Printer tracking dots are generated through subtle perturbations in the halftone screening process applied to the yellow channel of the CMY color model during electrophotographic printing in color laser printers and copiers. These perturbations manifest as an array of minuscule yellow dots, typically 100-120 micrometers in diameter, arranged in periodic rectangular grids superimposed across the printed page. The grids commonly consist of 8 rows by 13 to 15 columns, with dot positions spaced approximately 0.1 to 0.5 mm apart, repeating every few millimeters to ensure redundancy and coverage. The encodes in a binary , where the presence of a signifies a '1' and its absence a '0', with each column or row representing a byte read in a specific direction (e.g., top-to-bottom per column, right-to-left across columns in Xerox systems). This scheme allows encoding of up to 14 seven-bit bytes, including parity bits for error detection. Encoded information typically comprises the printer's unique serial number—often a 14-digit identifier expressed in binary-coded decimal—and a timestamp capturing the print date and time to the nearest minute; some variants also include page counts or manufacturing codes. These encoding patterns adhere to principles established by the , involving manufacturers like , , , and , which promoted the technology's starting around to embed machine-readable without . The leverages optical physics and limitations: dots on substrates provide minimal to the eye's reduced to patterns, achieving densities of roughly bit per several dots while preserving overall , as the perturbations are below the of typical at reading distances.

Variations Across Manufacturers

Xerox's DocuColor printers utilize a standardized 15 by 8 grid of yellow dots, spaced roughly 0.1 millimeters apart, to encode the device's serial number, manufacturing details, and print timestamp in a fixed pattern repeated across pages. This approach, decoded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2005, serves as an early prototype for machine identification codes (MICs) and remains discernible under blue light magnification. Other manufacturers, including , , and Brother, implement proprietary MIC variations that differ in dot arrangement, spacing, and encoding schemes, often still employing faint yellow dots but with brand-specific grids or offsets to embed serial numbers and timestamps. For instance, EFF analyses of models from these companies reveal patterns that deviate from Xerox's uniform grid, such as irregular repetitions or integrated halftone modulations tailored to each printer's firmware. These adaptations stem from independent development under confidential U.S. guidelines, prioritizing forensic recoverability over standardized formats to accommodate patent protections and hardware constraints. Color printers predominate in deployment to their precise toner-based , sub-millimeter patterns infeasible for most inkjet models with coarser droplet sizes. through the confirms in the of post-2000 color lasers from vendors, though newer devices incorporate non-yellow alternatives or subtler steganographic methods to reduce while retaining . Such evolutions reflect responses to detection rather than diminished to reliability.

Detection and Analysis

Visibility and Forensic Techniques

Printer tracking dots, consisting of microscopic yellow marks approximately 0.1 mm in diameter, are rendered visible through illumination with blue LED light, which causes the yellow toner to absorb the light and appear as dark spots against the paper background. This effect is enhanced by magnification of 10x or greater, allowing forensic examiners to discern the subtle patterns without specialized equipment beyond standard optical tools. Alternatively, scanning printed pages at high resolutions such as 600 dpi on a flatbed scanner captures the dots digitally, enabling subsequent image processing for analysis. In forensic settings, decoding these dots involves aligning the periodic grid structure—typically spaced at intervals like 0.5 mm horizontally and varying vertically—to identify binary-encoded data where the presence or absence of dots represents bits mapping to the printer's serial number, model, and print timestamp. Image analysis software facilitates this by enhancing contrast, applying filters to isolate the yellow channel, and performing grid extraction algorithms to reconstruct the encoded information. Techniques documented by security researchers include manual alignment under controlled lighting or automated pattern recognition, ensuring reliable interpretation in laboratory environments. These dots are predominantly found in commercial color laser printers and are absent from most monochrome models or certain low-end devices, limiting their universality as a tracking mechanism. While the patterns demonstrate resilience to photocopying, repeated copying can introduce degradation in dot alignment and clarity, potentially complicating forensic recovery after multiple generations.

Tools and Methodologies for Decoding

Professional decoding of printer tracking dots, or machine identification codes (MICs), relies on forensic-grade scanners and software tailored for automated pattern recognition and data extraction from high-resolution images of printed documents. Regula Forensic Studio (RFS), a forensic analysis platform, incorporates an automated yellow dot tracker as of October 2025, which processes scans by separating color channels, aligning dot grids, and decoding embedded serial numbers and timestamps without manual adjustments. Open-source toolkits like DEDA (Dots Extraction, Decoding, and Anonymisation), released by TU Dresden researchers in 2018, provide scripts for Linux-based environments to extract MIC data including printer serial numbers, print dates, and times from 600 DPI scanned images of color laser printouts. DEDA supports analysis of known and unknown tracking patterns across multiple manufacturers by detecting periodic dot arrays and interpreting their binary encodings. Core methodologies involve preprocessing scanned images to isolate faint yellow dots through channel extraction and noise filtering techniques, such as thresholding or wavelet-based denoising, to reveal the underlying grid structure. Periodic signals in the dot patterns are then analyzed to map positions to encoded bits, with cross-verification of decoded serials against proprietary manufacturer or law enforcement databases where accessible to confirm printer origins. Post-2020 advancements include algorithmic enhancements for detection in DEDA and similar tools, robust decoding of dot spacings and densities without hardware modifications, though full remains to specialized software like Regula's.

Forensic Applications

Role in Counterfeiting Prevention

Printer tracking dots, formally known as Machine Identification Codes (MICs), were instituted primarily to the forensic tracing of color printers employed in counterfeiting. In response to the mid-1990s in high-quality reproductions facilitated by affordable color and inkjet , the U.S. forged agreements with manufacturers such as , , and Brother to embed these codes in printed output starting around 1995. The codes consist of periodic arrays, typically 0.1 in diameter and spaced at 1 intervals, imperceptible without magnification or blue light illumination, encoding the printer's serial number, model identifier, and production timestamp. This traceability mechanism disrupts counterfeiting by establishing a verifiable chain from forged notes to the originating device, circumventing the inherent anonymity of consumer-grade digital printing. Upon seizure or analysis of suspect currency, authorities decode the MICs to match patterns against known printer outputs; serial numbers link to manufacturing records or purchaser data, while timestamps correlate with operational timelines. In practice, the Secret Service integrates MIC examination into counterfeit investigations, confirming printer involvement in seized equipment and aiding prosecutions— for instance, by verifying that dots on bogus bills align with those from confiscated devices, thereby proving causation in illicit production. The system's deterrent stems from elevating the of printer-based : operators cannot untraceable fakes without specialized evasion, as models broadcast identifying on every . Pre-MIC proliferation of color printers correlated with escalating technologically produced counterfeits, valued at $1 million in 1990 rising to $6 million by 1992, underscoring the need for such countermeasures amid offset-to-digital shifts. By 2014, while inkjet and methods accounted for 60% of seized fakes, MIC-enabled tracing has sustained against these vectors, per protocols focused on dismantling digital counterfeiting .

Evidentiary Use in Criminal Investigations

In 2017, the (FBI) utilized printer tracking dots to link a printed classified leaked to the to a specific color printer at the suspect's , aiding the of on charges of unauthorized of . The dots encoded the printer's serial number and print timestamps, which matched the device accessed by Winner, corroborating digital access logs and narrowing suspects among those handling the original file. This hardware-level traceability provided irrefutable physical evidence of printing origin, distinct from metadata that could be altered. Beyond national security leaks, tracking dots have supported investigations into anonymous threat documents by identifying printer models and serial numbers in printed materials recovered from crime scenes. Forensic analysis of these patterns integrates with other techniques, such as ink dating and paper forensics, to establish provenance in cases involving fraud or extortion where digital trails are obscured. For instance, law enforcement agencies decode the dots to trace documents back to specific machines, enabling subpoenas for purchase records or owner identification when serial numbers align with registered devices. The evidentiary stems from the dots' and , offering a causal between printer and output that resists anonymization methods like scanning or photocopying. In documented applications, this has facilitated convictions by excluding alternative printing sources and confirming suspect possession of at the time encoded in the . While primarily developed for counterfeiting probes by the U.S. , expanded use in broader criminal contexts demonstrates the 's in establishing forensic chains of custody for printed .

Controversies and Balancing Interests

Privacy and Surveillance Criticisms

Privacy advocates have raised concerns that machine identification codes, or tracking dots, in printed documents by color printers facilitate unconsented surveillance by government agencies, potentially enabling the tracing of individuals without judicial oversight. The () argues that the technology's development in the mid-1980s through collaboration between manufacturers like and and U.S. government entities, such as , occurred without public disclosure or legislative debate, allowing agencies to link documents to specific printers and print dates covertly. This secretive implementation, according to the , lacks statutory limits beyond manufacturers' voluntary privacy policies, permitting potential misuse for non-counterfeiting purposes like monitoring dissidents or whistleblowers. In practice, the codes played a role in the 2017 arrest of , a U.S. intelligence charged with leaking classified documents to The Intercept; forensic of yellow on the printed her printer, demonstrating how physical documents can incriminate sources in targeted investigations. Civil liberties groups contend this capability could chill political expression or anonymous printing, as individuals unaware of the might self-censor to avoid traceability, framing the system as an extension of broader surveillance infrastructure normalized in media critiques despite its hardware-specific constraints. Counterarguments emphasize that decoding requires possession of the physical document, typically obtained via or , distinguishing it from warrantless digital and limiting applicability to ex post facto forensic scenarios rather than proactive . Empirical reviews as of October 2025 reveal no documented cases of routine civilian targeting or systemic abuse through these codes, with usage confined to evidentiary roles in criminal probes like the Winner case, underscoring a between theoretical overreach risks and observed .

Empirical Benefits for Public Safety and Rule of Law

Printer tracking dots, also known as machine identification codes, have enabled agencies such as the to trace the of documents produced by color printers, facilitating the and of used in counterfeiting operations. By encoding printer numbers, dates, and times in imperceptible yellow patterns, these markers allow forensic examiners to forged or documents directly to specific devices, expediting investigations into rings that exploit high-quality printers to replicate banknotes or securities. This contributes to broader efforts against counterfeiting, which imposes substantial economic costs on governments and financial systems through diminished in and associated expenses, though precise attribution of savings to tracking dots remains indirect amid multifaceted measures. In criminal investigations beyond forgery, tracking dots have proven instrumental in attributing anonymous printed materials to perpetrators, thereby supporting prosecutions that uphold the . A notable instance occurred in , when faint dot patterns on a leaked classified published by were analyzed, revealing printer details that aligned with at the workplace of contractor Leigh Winner, aiding federal authorities in identifying and arresting her for unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information on foreign election interference. Although the FBI did not publicly confirm the dots' role, multiple forensic analyses and expert assessments indicate their utility in narrowing suspect pools through verifiable print provenance, demonstrating causal efficacy in resolving cases involving threats to national security. These forensic applications enhance deterrence by undermining the presumption of anonymity in illicit printing, paralleling identifiable markers like vehicle identification numbers that balance individual traceability with public order without empirical evidence of net societal harm exceeding investigative gains. Law enforcement reports emphasize that such technologies prioritize targeted use in verifiable crimes, such as extortion via printed threats or document fraud, fostering rule-of-law enforcement by enabling swift evidentiary linkages that prevent escalation of undetected offenses. Coverage in mainstream outlets has often amplified privacy critiques while underreporting these operational successes, potentially skewing perceptions away from documented instances where tracking dots have directly advanced public safety objectives over abstract anonymity claims.

Circumvention Strategies

Technical Workarounds and Their Limitations

Attempts to disable printer tracking dots, known as Machine Identification Codes (MICs), primarily involve firmware modifications or software interventions. Firmware mods seek to alter the printer's embedded code that generates the dots, but such changes require expertise and access to proprietary firmware, which manufacturers often protect against tampering; success rates are low for models due to hardware-level in many laser printers. Disabling modes or yellow toner usage in black-and-white operations can sometimes prevent dot generation, as MICs typically rely on yellow or toner, though certain printers continue embedding codes even in monochrome via alternative patterns. Post-printing obfuscation tools, such as the 2018 developed by researchers at , aim to existing dots by additional yellow grids during a secondary , rendering the original unreadable under forensic . physical methods, like over or high-contrast backgrounds, partially obscure of the faint yellow dots when viewed under , but these do not eliminate the underlying . These workarounds face significant limitations in practice. Firmware alterations risk bricking the device or voiding warranties, and hardware-embedded MIC generation in printers resists complete disabling without specialized . techniques like DEDA add detectable patterns that advanced forensic tools can identify as tampering, potentially flagging documents for closer rather than fully anonymizing them. Moreover, contemporary printers employ varied encoding schemes beyond dots, including adaptive or non- methods, undermining software fixes and preserving traceability for high-volume or scenarios. Such partial measures reduce but do not eradicate forensic utility, as residual patterns or inconsistencies often enable partial decoding equipped with manufacturer .

Implications for Privacy Protection

While circumvention strategies enable protections for select users, their practical viability remains constrained by the ubiquity of tracking dots in color printers. Privacy-conscious individuals, such as journalists handling sensitive documents, have achieved partial by selecting models documented as dot-free, including certain inkjet printers or models from manufacturers like Brother and , as cataloged by forensic analyses up to 2024. However, achieving comprehensive avoidance necessitates forgoing color or restricting output to modes, which curtails functionality for users requiring high-volume or full-color , thereby imposing significant trade-offs. The empirical trade-offs of these approaches highlight a causal : effective evasion demands specialized of printer models, modifications, or output preprocessing, barriers that deter casual or low-stakes users more than sophisticated . This dynamic favors criminals with resources and to invest in evasion—such as sourcing or employing technicians—over innocent parties seeking routine , as evidenced by ongoing forensic reliance on dots in counterfeiting and cases without widespread reports of . Consequently, rather than undermining , the technology's underscores the case for targeted regulatory oversight, such as mandatory disclosures of tracking features, over prohibitions that could eliminate its deterrent effects on . As of October 2025, forensic reports and industry assessments indicate no breakthroughs in total circumvention applicable across contemporary printer fleets, preserving the dots' value as a passive identifier in investigations. Recent evaluations confirm that virtually all commercial color laser printers post-2020 embed some form of forensic code, often evolving beyond visible yellow dots to subtler patterns, rendering blanket evasion reliant on obsolete hardware impractical for most users. This enduring efficacy reinforces the need for privacy protections centered on informed consumer choice and printer transparency, balancing traceability's benefits against surveillance risks without eroding the mechanism's role in upholding evidentiary standards.

Policy and Broader Context

Regulatory Frameworks and Secrecy

In the United States, no federal laws or regulations mandate the inclusion of tracking dots in color laser printers, but the practice emerged from voluntary agreements between manufacturers and government agencies, particularly the U.S. , to aid in counterfeiting investigations. These arrangements, initiated in the , established de facto standards requiring major manufacturers like , , and others to embed machine identification codes without public disclosure of specifics. The has confirmed that such deals ensure compliance for forensic purposes, linking printed documents to specific devices via serial numbers and timestamps. Government opacity surrounding these codes is deliberate, as evidenced by responses to inquiries from the . In 2004 and subsequent requests, agencies including the Secret Service denied or redacted details on code patterns and implementation, citing national security exemptions to prevent aiding potential counterfeiters who could otherwise design evasion techniques. This secrecy is framed as essential for maintaining the technology's utility, with public revelation of decoding methods argued to undermine its role in tracing illicit reproductions of currency and secure documents. Internationally, analogous frameworks exist without explicit mandates for tracking dots, though anti-counterfeiting directives under frameworks like the 2005 IPRED ( Directive) and related security standards encourage similar forensic to . Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) between manufacturers and agencies enforce globally, preserving as of 2025, with no of despite ongoing . This status quo reflects a prioritization of investigative over , as broader could enable systematic circumvention by bad .

Manufacturer Compliance and Global Practices

Major color laser printer manufacturers, including (), , , and , embed codes (MICs), often as dots, in outputs from models produced since the late . This originated from voluntary agreements following approaches by U.S. agencies like , aimed at tracing counterfeit without formal mandating the . Adoption remains widespread among U.S. and brands, with the () verifying MIC patterns in dozens of , , and models through direct testing up to the mid-2010s. Japanese manufacturers such as and Brother exhibit similar patterns of across their lines, reflecting . In the 2020s, while yellow dots persist in many mid-range devices, premium models from these firms have shifted toward less visible or forensic markers, though comprehensive testing confirms ongoing in recent color lasers. The primary incentives for compliance are liability mitigation—avoiding with counterfeiting tools—and eligibility for government procurement contracts, which prioritize anti-forgery capabilities over user-configurable privacy options. Firmware-level integration precludes consumer opt-out, a design choice uniform across compliant manufacturers regardless of market. Practices show greater uniformity in currency-issuing economies like the U.S. and EU, where counterfeiting threats drive , compared to regions with less centralized , though brands MICs consistently in export-oriented .

Comparable Forensic Technologies

Digital Watermarking in Printing

in printing embeds imperceptible , such as serialized codes or , into digital files like PDFs before they reach the printer, aiming to track origin or on the physical output. These marks, often integrated via tools like , modify —such as text edges or backgrounds—to survive printing and potential scanning, as demonstrated in techniques modifying stroke pixels for and robustness against print-scan . Unlike printer tracking dots, which are generated directly by printer independently of input files, software-based watermarks rely on pre-print and can be applied for purposes like marking confidential . A key limitation is their vulnerability to tampering: embedded watermarks in PDFs can be edited, overlaid, or stripped using standard software, including Acrobat's own "Remove Watermark" function under Edit PDF tools, or alternative processors like , prior to printing. This editability contrasts with the hardware-enforced indelibility of tracking dots, which integrate forensic data at the printing stage, rendering them resistant to digital manipulation without physical alteration of the output. Research on robust schemes, such as DWT-DCT composites, emphasizes post-print resilience but does not mitigate pre-print stripping, highlighting software methods' dependence on user or workflow compliance. In empirical enterprise contexts, digital watermarks complement hardware tracking by enabling customizable, content-specific markings in secure printing pipelines, such as those for legal or financial documents, but lack universal enforcement due to inconsistent adoption across consumer devices and ease of circumvention. For instance, while Adobe's features support dynamic watermarks for branding or access control, they require deliberate application and do not inherently persist against file redistribution or editing, unlike mandatory hardware dots standardized in color laser printers since the early 2000s. This positions software watermarking as a flexible but less tamper-proof alternative, suitable for controlled environments rather than broad forensic identification.

Other Hardware-Based Tracking Methods

Banding patterns in photocopiers and laser printers manifest as subtle horizontal striations resulting from mechanical inconsistencies, such as drum rotation irregularities or toner distribution variations, enabling forensic identification of the originating device through image analysis techniques like Fourier transforms. These artifacts differ from tracking dots by lacking intentional encoding, instead relying on inherent manufacturing tolerances that produce quasi-unique noise signatures analyzable via statistical pattern recognition. Such methods have been applied in questioned document examinations to link copies to specific machines, though their reliability diminishes with device wear or maintenance. Inkjet printers exhibit nozzle signature patterns due to microscopic variations in printhead alignment, ink droplet ejection inconsistencies, or partial clogs, which generate distinctive void or misalignment artifacts across printed lines or fills. Forensic extraction involves scanning high-resolution images and applying signal processing to isolate these signatures, distinguishing them from laser-based dots by their dependence on fluid dynamics rather than embedded calibration data. Unlike the standardized, serial-numbered dots in color laser printers, inkjet signatures are less uniform and primarily exploited in specialized investigations rather than routine tracking. In secure printing environments, such as or classified systems, RFID in printers facilitates by embedding tags in output or associating print with via proximity readers, extending identification beyond visible markers to supply-chain . This approach logs like credentials or timestamps without altering the printed directly, contrasting with physical markers by prioritizing over post-print forensics. remains confined to high-security contexts due to implementation costs and lacks the passive ubiquity of tracking dots across consumer s.

References

  1. [1]
    List of Printers Which Do or Do Not Display Tracking Dots
    This list shows color laser printers and whether they print yellow tracking dots. "No" means no visible dots, not no tracking. "Yes" means dots were seen.
  2. [2]
    Printer Tracking Dots: Hidden Security Marks - Regula Forensics
    Oct 10, 2025 · The so-called “yellow dots”, or printer tracking dots, are microscopic patterns printed on every page by many color laser printers. These dots ...
  3. [3]
    Printer Tracking | Electronic Frontier Foundation
    ... dots produced by a Xerox DocuColor printer. Those dots allow the document's origin and date of printing to be ascertained, which could have played a role in...
  4. [4]
    DocuColor Tracking Dot Decoding Guide - EFF
    The printer serial number is a decimal number of six or eight digits; these digits are coded two at a time in columns 14, 13, 12, and 11 (or possibly just 13, ...
  5. [5]
    Investigating Machine Identification Code Technology in Color Laser ...
    Jul 22, 2005 · At the request of the United States Secret Service, manufacturers developed mechanisms that print in an encoded form the serial number and the ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  6. [6]
    Is Your Printer a Spy? - Medium
    Mar 6, 2025 · It was developed in the mid-1980s by Xerox to quell fears that the company's color copiers could be used to counterfeit bills. They received a ...Missing: 1990s | Show results with:1990s<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Secret Code in Color Printers Lets Government Track You
    Oct 16, 2005 · Xerox previously admitted that it provided these tracking dots to the government, but indicated that only the Secret Service had the ability to ...Missing: origins 1990s
  8. [8]
    Software:Machine Identification Code - HandWiki
    Feb 9, 2024 · Developed by Xerox and Canon in the mid-1980s, its existence became public only in 2004. In 2018, scientists developed privacy software to ...Missing: invention | Show results with:invention
  9. [9]
    Computer printers have been quietly embedding tracking codes in ...
    Computer printers have been quietly embedding tracking codes in documents for decades · In 2004, when color printers were still somewhat novel, PCWorld magazine ...
  10. [10]
    Why printers add secret tracking dots - BBC
    Jun 7, 2017 · The dots also encode a serial number for the printer. These “microdots” are well known to security researchers and civil liberties campaigners. ...
  11. [11]
    Tracking codes in color laser printers cracked - NBC News
    Oct 17, 2005 · The U.S. government is involved with other countries in a separate anti-counterfeiting program meant to prevent currency from being scanned and ...
  12. [12]
    Tracing Paper - Logic Magazine
    May 4, 2020 · Analyzing over a thousand printouts from over a hundred printers, they developed an algorithm to detect and decode the tracking dots of four ...
  13. [13]
    In Future, Printer Documents You - Hackaday
    Jun 22, 2024 · The technology dates back to Xerox and Canon devices from the mid-80s, but it was only publicly acknowledged in 2004. With color printers, the ...
  14. [14]
    How Your Printer Leaves Invisible Tracking Codes on Every Page
    Jun 14, 2024 · Printer tracking codes, also known as machine identification codes (MIC) or yellow dots, have been used by printer manufacturers since the mid- ...<|separator|>
  15. [15]
    What's the consensus on yellow tracking dots from color laser printers?
    Dec 29, 2024 · IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT ALL RECENT COMMERCIAL COLOR LASER PRINTERS PRINT SOME KIND OF FORENSIC TRACKING CODES, NOT NECESSARILY USING YELLOW DOTS.TIL that a lot of printers add nearly invisible yellow dots that can be ...Is there a way to remove yellow dots from the prints of my newer ...More results from www.reddit.com
  16. [16]
    (PDF) Machine identification codes of color laser printers
    Oct 17, 2025 · Printer identification has become a critical field for tracing criminals and validating the authenticity of documents. The current study uses a ...Missing: size | Show results with:size
  17. [17]
    Yellow Dots of Mystery: Is Your Printer Spying on You? - Instructables
    Shine a blue LED light on the blank part of the printed page. As examining a printer page under blue light improves the contrast, the yellow dots should appear ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Printer Watermark Obfuscation
    Oct 15, 2014 · There is a small offset to the tracking dots that varies by printer. The obfuscation grid layer, not individual dots, must be moved to.Missing: fixed | Show results with:fixed
  19. [19]
    Reverse Engineering the Machine Identification Code - ResearchGate
    Jun 25, 2018 · This study analyzed the Machine Identification Code (MIC) used by various Color Laser Printers that this document describes.
  20. [20]
    dfd-tud/deda - GitHub
    1. Reading tracking data · 2. Find a divergent printer in a set of scanned documents · 3. Analysing an unknown tracking pattern · 4. Create your own tracking dots.Missing: methodologies | Show results with:methodologies
  21. [21]
    Color laser printer forensic based on noisy feature and support ...
    Aug 7, 2025 · In our identification scheme, the invisible noises are estimated with the wiener-filter and the 2D Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) filter. Then ...
  22. [22]
    Color printers include back door for Secret Service - ZDNET
    Oct 19, 2005 · Concerned that color laser printers could be used to produce counterfeit currency, the Secret Service secretly worked with printer manufacturers ...Missing: 1990s 2000s
  23. [23]
    Secret coding by household printers is the government's violation of ...
    Nov 9, 2005 · The EFF revealed that it had cracked the code used by a line of Xerox printers. The printers would print a series of tiny yellow dots invisible to the naked ...
  24. [24]
    https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/story?id=5367960
  25. [25]
    Why You Can't Print Counterfeit Money on Your Color Laser | PCWorld
    Jun 7, 2011 · “There's almost certainly a new-generation tracking technology that does not use yellow dots,” warns Schoen. As if we needed more reasons to be ...
  26. [26]
    Tech sleuths cracked the mysterious code that turns your printer into ...
    Jun 9, 2017 · They encode any page that comes out of a printer with a serial number, date and time that can be interpreted using a simple cipher. Printer ...Missing: mandate | Show results with:mandate
  27. [27]
    Making Money Keeps Getting Easier
    Sep 1, 2000 · In 1990, counterfeit currency produced by technological means accounted for only $1 million. By 1992, it had increased to $6 million. Today, it ...
  28. [28]
    Modern-day counterfeiters' tools? Inkjet printers - CBS News
    May 8, 2014 · About 60 percent of the $88.7 billion of fake money produced in the last fiscal year was printed on inkjet or laser printers, up from less than ...
  29. [29]
    Printer Tracking Dots Back in the News
    Jun 6, 2017 · Those dots allow the document's origin and date of printing to be ascertained, which could have played a role in the arrest of Reality Leigh ...
  30. [30]
    This Secret Printer Code Could Have ID-ed Reality Winner
    Jun 6, 2017 · Many color printers embed grids of dots that allow law enforcement to track every document they output.
  31. [31]
    Printer dots point FBI to contractor accused of leaking NSA report on ...
    NSA contractor Reality Leigh Winner was charged Saturday with leaking classified documents to The Intercept detailing Russian cyberattacks.
  32. [32]
    Tracking Printers to Fight Crime - The New York Times
    Jul 24, 2008 · As anyone with a color laser printer of good quality should know, the ability to print fake money has become much easier but no less illegal. ...
  33. [33]
    EFF decodes secret color laser printer spy markings - Ars Technica
    Oct 18, 2005 · The code is printed on every color page as a series of minuscule yellow dots, arranged on a widely-spaced rectangular 15 by 8 grid. On a regular ...
  34. [34]
    Printer dots raise privacy concerns - ABC News
    The dots, invisible to the naked eye, can be seen using a blue LED light and are used by authorities such as the Secret Service to investigate counterfeit bills ...Missing: prevention | Show results with:prevention
  35. [35]
    Do Household Printers Leave an Invisible Tracking Code ... - Snopes
    Jun 6, 2017 · That's because in October 2005, Internet civil rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation cracked the tracking dot code employed by Xerox, ...
  36. [36]
    Printer forensics to aid homeland security, tracing counterfeiters
    Oct 12, 2004 · Counterfeiters often digitally scan currency and then use color laser and inkjet printers to produce bogus bills. Forgers use the same methods ...Missing: trends 1990s 2000s
  37. [37]
    https://cyberlifecoach.substack.com/p/your-printer-is-spying-on-you-heres
  38. [38]
    Why is there no open source firmware for laser or inkjet printers ...
    May 13, 2023 · Lack of open-source firmware may be due to concerns about modifying tracking data, low-quality components, and the need for validation and ...
  39. [39]
    Automatic Tracking Dot Disabling in BW Printing Mode - EEVblog
    Dec 1, 2015 · Automatic Tracking Dot Disabling ... The solution is this: Disable the use of yellow toner when the printer is only supposed to be using black.Missing: workarounds | Show results with:workarounds<|separator|>
  40. [40]
    Researchers release DEDA to anonymize laser printer tracking dots
    Jul 3, 2018 · DEDA is a new tool for Linux that researchers have created to read and decode the forensic information, and to anonymize information to protect against ...
  41. [41]
    Researchers release app that masks printers' tracking dots
    Jun 27, 2018 · For masking tracking dots on printed documents it's best to add another custom TDM over the printer's one, with the goal of making the decoding ...Missing: scripts | Show results with:scripts
  42. [42]
    Researchers Reveal Details Of Printer Tracking Dots, Develop Free ...
    Jul 2, 2018 · ... tool that the researchers have written, and made freely available. It can be used to obfuscate tracking information that a printer places in ...
  43. [43]
    Any way to disable laser printer tracking info? : r/privacy - Reddit
    Jul 12, 2025 · The anonymization works by printing additional yellow dots on top of the printer's tracking dots. One of the sources linked there is their ...Is it possible to buy a printer without spyware? : r/privacy - RedditWhat's the consensus on yellow tracking dots from color laser printers?More results from www.reddit.comMissing: workarounds | Show results with:workarounds
  44. [44]
    Machine Identification Codes: Why Your Printer Could Be a Privacy ...
    Sep 1, 2024 · Users should consider opting for printers that offer the ability to disable or obscure MICs if privacy is a major concern. Some manufacturers ...
  45. [45]
    Printer Dots | Electronic Frontier Foundation
    EFF submitted FOIA requests to several government agencies seeking information related to the agencies' use of "printer dots" -- tracking codes embedded in ...
  46. [46]
    Tracking codes in photocopiers and colour laser printers | E-5724 ...
    Nov 8, 2007 · A number of photocopiers and colour laser printers that are sold to consumers in the European Union contain forensic tracking mechanisms.
  47. [47]
    Robust PDF Watermarking against Print–Scan Attack - PMC - NIH
    Aug 23, 2023 · We propose an invisible digital watermarking technology based on modifying the edge pixels of text strokes to hide information in PDFs, which achieves high ...
  48. [48]
    What is a watermark and how to add one to a PDF | Adobe Acrobat
    If you add a watermark to PDF, you can mark ownership of the document, enhance the document's security, and reinforce your branding. You likely already ...
  49. [49]
    Robust watermarking against print and scan attack through efficient ...
    This article proposes a blind discrete wavelet transform-discrete cosine transform (DWT-DCT) composite watermarking scheme that is robust against print and ...
  50. [50]
    Securing files: Step-by-step guide to add watermark to PDF ... - Adobe
    Apr 29, 2024 · Here, we will guide you through the steps to watermark PDFs online using Adobe Acrobat's robust features.Adding A Watermark To Your... · Customising Watermarks For... · Comparing Online Tools For...
  51. [51]
    Analysing Banding Features for Classifying Print Processes using ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · Printer identification based on a printed document can provide forensic information to protect copyright and verify authenticity. In addition to ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] The Identification of Colour Photocopiers: A Case Study
    This paper reports the use of these patterns to identify the colour photocopying machine. Methods and Materials. Dotted patterns on colour photocopies. Figure 1 ...<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Modern Approaches to the Forensic Analysis of Inkjet Printing
    This article will provide a comprehensive discussion of modern approaches to the physical and chemical examination of documents produced by inkjet copiers and ...
  54. [54]
    DigiSecForensics - Journal of Digital Security and Forensics
    Jul 1, 2025 · A study of certain characteristic features of various printed documents to determine the type of printer used in forensic investigations.
  55. [55]
    Using RFID Tags For Secure Printing In Offices - LinkedIn
    Mar 20, 2025 · RFID-enabled printers allow IT administrators to track and monitor print activity. Businesses can analyze usage patterns, implement cost-saving ...
  56. [56]
    RFID for Tracking File and Managing Documents - HPRT
    Mar 29, 2024 · RFID uses tags to track document locations, linking files to storage positions, and enabling quick retrieval of files using RFID readers.