You have missed the point by such a wide margin that I have to wonder if it wasn't intentional.

The same techniques used here can be applied in other domains for other purposes. That would not "defeat its only purpose". The danger is the normalization of watermarking for [ insert good reason here ] with regulation eventually making it mandatory once everyone is accustomed to it. Rinse and repeat to gradually boil the frog.

We live in a world where nearly all printers already watermark everything they print with their serial number. It wouldn't be at all surprising if the next modernized variant of that technology encoded personal and contextual data tied to the user.

▲

throawayonthe 24 days ago | parent [-]

you're the one missing the point: why would this technique be used for any of those? the comment you're replying to describes both the incentives to not do that and existing technology that would be more effective for what you imagine

and yeah exactly printers already watermark, why would they need synthid

	▲	fc417fc802 24 days ago \| parent [-]
		> describes both the incentives to not do that It's a bogus claim (as I previously stated). Applying the same technique in another domain or for a different purpose does not defeat the original purpose for which a technique was developed. People can do both things. No one said anything about printers using synthid. The modernized variant (at least one of them) would apply to digital media produced by the end user. Although since you asked, if the synthid watermarking scheme is more resilient to transformations and conversions than the current one then switching might prove useful.