[LINK] By hook or by crook.

[Forename Surname]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:45:04 +1100
Jim Birch <planetjim at gmail.com> wrote:

> It would be relatively easy to produce identifiable voting papers via
> individual micro variations in the printing without obvious barcodes*.
> 
> See, eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography   AFAIK there
> are commerical systems available (and used by governments) that do this
> sort of encoding to identify individual printed copies of secure documents
> that might be leaked.
> 
> Your protection is due to cultural factors, not because it is
> technologically infeasible.
> 
> Jim
> 
> * That is, if someone at the ABS actually had a reason to do it,  and could
> quietly assemble a small team to do it, and were willing to take the risk
> that the required conspiracy wouldn't leak, which it very likely would.
> And could be bothered.


My point was more that it would be trivial with the current printing, not that it is technically possibly to covertly keep tabs on our ballot forms.
If you can find microdots or yellow-ink patterns or whatsits, then that's all very well (well, terrible really), but as of now some joe bloe could easily connect the dots  w i t h o u t  any fancy schmancy kit or Big-Government COnSp1R4cY.
To wit: I am more worried about one or two people being able to do this  w i t h o u t  it being the intention of the A. B. S. to make this possible.  Maybe that was not very clear in my original post.