Shit.. does this mean the micro-dot printer theory might come into play? If these were downloaded and printed on a bunch of different private (household) printers, each printer would have its own unique microdot fingerprint... If you could get a sample of the printed ballots and compare the printer's fingerprints with the official state printed ballots, you might be able to build a case...
Private printers tend not to have that technology as far as I know.
But company/college printers have some counterfeiting detection and tagging capability - or did - as there are not as common and more easily traced through procurement chains and log-ons.
Any sources? Or just another red herring to chase down?
There are links to the files in the thread I linked, so you can see what they look like.
IF ballots are recounted at the precincts then we may be able to spot the copies.
Assuming whoever is bringing them in messes up, and brings the wrong precinct ballots.
That would be a LOT easier to spot "its not our number" than duplicate serials.
Shit.. does this mean the micro-dot printer theory might come into play? If these were downloaded and printed on a bunch of different private (household) printers, each printer would have its own unique microdot fingerprint... If you could get a sample of the printed ballots and compare the printer's fingerprints with the official state printed ballots, you might be able to build a case...
Private printers tend not to have that technology as far as I know.
But company/college printers have some counterfeiting detection and tagging capability - or did - as there are not as common and more easily traced through procurement chains and log-ons.