Slashdot Mirror


Meet the Font Detectives Who Ferret Out Fakery (wired.com)

New submitter rgh02 writes: Earlier this year, the former prime minister of Pakistan and his family came under scrutiny thanks to revelations in the Panama Papers. The smoking gun in the case of a forged document was none other than a font -- Calibri, which, as it turned out, wasn't even available until after the document had allegedly been signed and dated. This is not the first or the last time typography helped crack a case, and often with help from experts appropriately referred to as the 'font detectives.' At Backchannel, Glenn Fleishman dives into the adventures of the experts ferreting out fakery with their knowledge of fonts and the high-profile cases they've found themselves involved in.

72 comments

  1. Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by halivar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Credulously accepting Times New Roman in MS Word as a typewriter font is what got Dan Rather into trouble.

    1. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by halivar · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "fake, but true" narrative. The memo was fabricated whole cloth. The guy admitted it was a fake.

    2. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, yes. "It was all fake from beginning to end, but it was true anyways! I have no actual evidence, but I know in my heart it was true!"

    3. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by ThatsLoseNotLoose · · Score: 2

      Sad thing was the substance of the report was actually true. But that didn't matter.

      How do you know that? Where is the real document that proved that?

    4. Re: Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. Otherwise known as credibilitygate

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by halivar · · Score: 1

      That's what the fucking news was calling it back then. Blame them.

    6. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by AlanObject · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If you take the fake memo out of the story you still end up with the fact that GWB skipped out on his service obligations. That has been well established and corroborated by many witnesses. However the right-wing noise machine was able to drown out all facts related to the case other than the memo's origin and I see that it is still working quite well here.

    7. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does your built-in "truth detector" tell you about Seth Rich's murder?

    8. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the only way that we can verify anything as true. Especially in politics, if people simply credulously believe evidence supporting their "side" then their opinions cannot be trusted. In that context, unless there's proof, we have no reason to believe it. To accept otherwise is to ask biases to run rampant.

    9. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      How do you know that? Where is the real document that proved that?

      If you are really interested in the subject you could start with the Wikipedia article. I notice that many of its citation links are broken (a constant problem there) but you can find references to many "documents" indicating that GWB basically stopped flying for the TNG before his obligation to do so was up.

      However most people are more interested in defending their predetermined political position rather than looking at evidence so I have no real hope of anyone here paying attention.

    10. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by halivar · · Score: 1, Informative

      Without the memo, there is no such "fact." That was the smoking gun. Everything else speculation.

    11. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *autistic Russian screeching about Hillary and e-mails*

    12. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by will_die · · Score: 1, Informative

      No you don't. The rathermemos claimed that Bush had not fulfilled his obligations and that pressure had been put on the officials to cover it up. Both of those claims are false. Bush did fulfill his obligations under the laws that were in place and there was no pressure put on people to cover up something that did not happen.
      Maybe you should stop listen into those alt-left noise machines and learn some of the real world facts.

    13. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by halivar · · Score: 2

      When an allegation is made, you cannot be disappointed in people for asking for proof. Like, real proof; not fake memos or poorly-cited Wikipedia articles. If everyone was more skeptical and had a higher bar of what proof was, all this "fake news" bullshit on social media would be a complete non-issue.

    14. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      You've got it backwards: when you make a claim, you have to provide the evidence, not tell people, "You have to go find the evidence I'm not willing to research."

      However most people are more interested in defending their predetermined political position rather than looking at evidence so I have no real hope of anyone here paying attention.

      How dare these people not look at the evidence you can't be bothered to show!

    15. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Never claimed to have a built-in "truth detector." That's the province of people who know Bush is guilty with no evidence. Also, who's Seth Rich and what about his murder?

    16. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seth Rich was the purported WikiLeaks source at the DNC (claim supported by Assange and refuted by the DNC lawyers).

      Rich's death is claimed to be either the result of Demonrat retribution (i.e. murdered for leaking the DNC server emails proving systemic involvement in fixing the primary election process for Clinton; resulted in resignation of Debbie Wassermann Schultz and Donna Brazille),or alternatively a botched robbery attempt by a passer-by (i.e. shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time).

    17. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget Barry Jennings being in Building 7 on 9-11-2001 ae911truth dot org

    18. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      What's interesting is that if you read the Thornburgh-Boccardi report, Mary Mapes (the person who was investigating this story for CBS, and was fired along with Rather) had actually found several witnesses who indicated that GWB volunteered for service in Vietnam while at the Texas ANG, but didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. Among witnesses mentioned include a TexANG flight instructor and LTC Killian's son.

      See pages 61 and 130:

      http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/...

    19. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That has been well established and corroborated by many witnesses.

      Many (most?) of those witnesses turned out to be either lying or mislead into giving a false testimony. See page 129 in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report for example:

      http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/...

      Practically the only witness who wasn't would be Killian's secretary, who came out of the woodwork after the fact. There were also many witnesses who recalled GWB volunteering for 90 days of service in Vietnam under a program they had at the time, but he didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. See page 61 and 130. Nobody ever brought this up.

      However the right-wing noise machine was able to drown out all facts related to the case other than the memo's origin and I see that it is still working quite well here.

      Go read the report. Likely every fact that you take for granted in this case was fraudulent. Mapes and Rather weren't fired for political reasons; they were fired because they wanted this story to be true so bad that they were completely willing to ignore inconsistencies in witness testimony while making almost no attempt at all to corroborate their sources.

      Even without the memo, it's blatantly obvious that Rather and Mapes royally fucked up.

    20. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      In fact, come to think of it, reading back in Killian's secretary's comments, she admits she had no firsthand knowledge about GWB, while shortly thereafter saying it was correct...Both statements seem contradictory, so she shouldn't be considered a reliable witness either.

    21. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Which wikipedia article? This one?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I don't see anything like that in it. I do see this:

      Mapes and Dan Rather, among many other journalists, had been investigating for several years the story of Bush's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to the National Guard.[17]

      In other words, they were investigating it, but there were no documents, witnesses, or other evidence. And yes, the reference is broken.

      Another interesting bit:

      On November 9, 2005, Mary Mapes gave an interview to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross. Mapes stated that the documents have never been proved to be forgeries. Ross expressed the view that the responsibility is on the reporter to verify their authenticity. Mapes responded with, "I don't think that's the standard." This stands in contrast to the statement of the president of CBS News that proof of authenticity is "the only acceptable journalistic standard."

      And this one:

      Also on September 10, The Dallas Morning News reported that "the officer named in one memo as exerting pressure to 'sugarcoat' Bush's military record was discharged a year and a half before the memo was written.[75] The paper cited a military record showing that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972, while the memo cited by CBS as showing that Staudt was interfering with evaluations of Bush was dated August 18, 1973."[76]

      If anything, the wikipedia article on this has an overall tone of saying that the CBS narrative at the time was fraudulent; far removed from the "fake but accurate" narrative you are trying to push.

    22. Re:Let's not forget "Memogate" 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course Bush is guilty. He's a politician.

  2. Font Detectives by TimothyHollins · · Score: 4, Funny

    This sounds like the least interesting crime show I have ever heard of, and I will not watch the dramatization even if Tom Hanks plays the lead.

    1. Re:Font Detectives by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

      even if Tom Hanks plays the lead

      Stand by for outrage when they select Idris Elba.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Font Detectives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      personally I would rather watch 3 hours of Idris Elba shelling peanuts than ANYTHING at all with Tom Hanks, though it was largely pointless casting him as Heimdall. Captain Britain would work much better I think

  3. I Wonder... by alex67500 · · Score: 1

    When did Comic Sans appear?

    1. Re:I Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If instead you would have typed that exact question into a search engine instead of your comment, I'm sure you would receive a more informative answer than this cheeky wisecrack comment.

    2. Re:I Wonder... by gachunt · · Score: 1

      It appeared just in time for everyone with Microsoft Publisher to think they were a professional graphic designer.

      Complementary Comic about Comic Sans

    3. Re:I Wonder... by halivar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't need Google. It appeared the day Lucifer and his angels rebelled against God. It was formed in the fires of hell, created to hold the damned for all eternity. It is first of the horsemen of the Apocalypse, to be followed by Papyrus, Bleeding Cowboy, and finally the anti-christ, the false messiah, Helvetica.

    4. Re:I Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can tell this is false because hell didn't exist until the rebellion was crushed so a font forged un hell couldn't have been created when the rebellion began.

    5. Re:I Wonder... by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Perhaps... but the OP didn't ask when (or how, or why) it was created, he asked when it appeared. Presumably "appeared" would typically mean appeared to people with a typical range of perceptual ability.

      Besides... I would suggest that Comic Sans isn't even really that bad a font by (most) objective measures. The single biggest complaint that most can legitimately make about it is that it suffered hugely from overuse in contexts where a whimsical looking font was not actually appropriate (resume's, corporate bulletins, and even funeral announcements, to name just a few) and that is what gave it most of the bad rep it now enjoys. It has a few technical problems, but usually these are seen as secondary to how poorly people have historically used the whimsical font in places where it was not appropriate. If Comic Sans were to have originally had all of the characteristics of the more modern font Comic Neue, for example, it would have been no less reviled than it is today.

    6. Re: I Wonder... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      You misspelled Aldus Pagemaker but we don't mind. Everybody knew what you meant.

    7. Re:I Wonder... by halivar · · Score: 1

      Perhaps... but the OP didn't ask when (or how, or why) it was created, he asked when it appeared. Presumably "appeared" would typically mean appeared to people with a typical range of perceptual ability.

      I don't think you picked up on this, but... I was joking.

    8. Re:I Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet Bob knows when it was created.

  4. Do we need font detectives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Font detectives. Really?

    You'd think when checking forged documents that this would be common procedure. Check the details about the font used.

    Also would it be possible to add some kind of watermark of some sorts in all fonts? That way it would make it easier. Instead of identifying the font based on its look, you could identify it based on some type of small watermark in the letters. Just spitballing here. Go easy on me.

    1. Re:Do we need font detectives? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Watermark in the font? Like a character that's unique to the font so that it's clear that it's the font in-use?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re: Do we need font detectives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC OP here. Yea I'm not really that informed on fonts. Does each font have a special letter that can determine it's the font in question? A shape or look that matches no other font. Or is this at the discretion of the font creator? I know each font is unique but some fonts do look alike to the naked eye. I know that most popular fonts would be able to be ID'd. Can someone forge a font? What's stopping someone from forging a font and using that font to mimic the original font?

        Another question I have, is there a database of all the fonts and when they were created that they use to ID? What is the current way to ID a font? Thanks.

      Maybe I should google lol.

    3. Re: Do we need font detectives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fonts and their associated kerning can be quite unique. Designers spend hours agonizing over shapes and curves. E is simple. But consider letters like g, y, f or q. So many ways to draw those but still be recognized but the subtle differences reveal the font.

  5. How to get answers on the internet by sjbe · · Score: 5, Funny

    If instead you would have typed that exact question into a search engine instead of your comment, I'm sure you would receive a more informative answer than this cheeky wisecrack comment.

    The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask the right question but to post the wrong answer.

    1. Re:How to get answers on the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      post the wrong answer.

      So, use Bing?

    2. Re:How to get answers on the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Op's mom is a nice lady.

  6. Maybe, maybe not? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I'm not trying to defend anyone here, but this sentence bugs me:
    "Calibri, which, as it turned out, wasn't even available until after the document had allegedly been signed and dated."

    Should it rather be:
    "Calibri, which, as it turned out, wasn't even available legally until after the document had allegedly been signed and dated."

    Would it be possible he used a pirated copy that was released earlier, making the document legit?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Maybe, maybe not? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Depends on when it was actually developed, and how it was released. If it wasn't even developed yet or was still restricted to the lab, then no. And even if it existed but wasn't part of a mainstream distribution and still required extraction from a Beta release of some product, it still casts doubt that it would have been used by those who put forth the document. Most people aren't going to go through the effort to get new fonts like that.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Maybe, maybe not? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Questions like these are, to me, one of the best use cases for blockchain stuff. Prepare a document, store the hash in the transaction (Btc has some data available, so it's possible), and record on blockchain. Pow, proof that you had a document with that hash available on that date. You don't even have to tell anyone what it says, but you can easily prove you had it then.

    3. Re:Maybe, maybe not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should it rather be: "Calibri, which, as it turned out, wasn't even available legally until after the document had allegedly been signed and dated."

      I can't help but shake my head whenever I read about this Calibri story. Calibri was developed in 2004; released with Office 2004 for Mac; and available for download from Microsoft's font web site in 2004. Microsoft received design awards for it in 2005. The statement "it wasn't available until 2007" is rather disingenuous and applies only to Office 2007 (for Windows) which also included it in its release on January 30, 2007.

      "Font Expert" my ass.

  7. fixedsys to avoid date conflicts by shuz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I try to use fixedsys fonts such as system in all of my writing they are widely accepted and have a tested user base. On top of that the system font avoid most modern time based conflicts as it dates back to the 1980's. It takes low resources and low resolution to create on a display device. I would encourage everyone to use system font and avoid all the painful issues of compatibility, performance, and legal ramifications that other much newer fonts can have.

    --
    There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
    1. Re: fixedsys to avoid date conflicts by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 3, Informative

      I try to use my manual Smith-Corona. There is something nostalgic about having to use a lower case 'l' for the numeral 'one' because your keyboard doesn't have a key for 'one.'

    2. Re: fixedsys to avoid date conflicts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I try to use my manual Smith-Corona. There is something nostalgic about having to use a lower case 'l' for the numeral 'one' because your keyboard doesn't have a key for 'one.'

      My mother liked how typewriters have a "Mr. and Ms." key

    3. Re: fixedsys to avoid date conflicts by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There are kits to convert them into computer keyboards.

      Unicode characters for Mr and Mrs, but that would require a custom driver or at least a keyboard layout.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Dupe... And Spam by Luthair · · Score: 1

    rgh02 is a spammer who also upvotes other articles from his employer.

    If this story sounds familiar its because it was done, twice.

    1. Re:Dupe... And Spam by sootman · · Score: 1

      This is not a dupe. This is a new story (from Sept. 13) about the "Sharif" incident AND OTHERS.

      RTFA.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    2. Re:Dupe... And Spam by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I don't read spam?

    3. Re:Dupe... And Spam by sootman · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you get the facts before you comment?

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  9. The circle is complete by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Fonts of knowledge researching fonts for knowledge.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  10. The memos were fake by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bush Jr's b.s. "service" was real. It was painfully obvious he landed a cushy position with the Airforce he had no business or qualifications for and that his father's connections got him that (and kept him out of war zones). What's more, his opponent Kerry actually went to 'Nam and somehow managed to get branded a coward.

    The whole thing stinks. Like it was cooked up to shut down talk about why it was Bush Jr ended up with such a desirable position in the first place. During the latest election there were several incidents of phony docs critical of Trump floating around too. Tax documents, stuff that "proved" the Russian connection, etc, etc. IIRC Sam Bee got one (she mighta just reported on one).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The memos were fake by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Bush didn't write a letter declaring his hatred for the military, did he?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:The memos were fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kerry was a hero! Getting a grain of rice embedded in your butt cheek hurts! And to think that sinister doctor wasn't going to nominate him for a Purple Heart! The swine!

    3. Re:The memos were fake by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

      Bush Jr's b.s. "service" was real. It was painfully obvious he landed a cushy position with the Airforce he had no business or qualifications for and that his father's connections got him that (and kept him out of war zones). What's more, his opponent Kerry actually went to 'Nam and somehow managed to get branded a coward.

      Kerry went to 'Nam all right, but did a lot of questionable things in conjunction with that service, including staging himself "in battle" so that he could film himself, labeling himself and his fellow soldiers "war criminals", claiming to have thrown his medals over the White House fence and later saying he "borrowed" somebody else's medals to stage that as well, not to mention all his Swift Boat claims that were refuted by people who served with him. I won't call him a coward because I haven't studied the details enough to make that kind of judgement, but the little I do know makes him look phony, manipulative, and pathetic.

    4. Re:The memos were fake by I75BJC · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Al Gore, Jr. (the VicePOTUS of the USA and the DNC candidate for POTUS in 2000). He served as a "Reporter" for the military newspaper but his 1 year tour was cut short (without a reason). Kept out of combat but receiving a "military service" designation. It was a sham service in comparison to all the others who fought and died in Viet Nam. But does any one complain Prince Albert received preferential treatment? You sure didn't! "Why?" may I ask.

    5. Re:The memos were fake by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      not to mention all his Swift Boat claims that were refuted

      Friend, there's a reason that slandering someone with fake allegations is called swiftboating - all of the 'refuting' turned out to be BS.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    6. Re:The memos were fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Gore family complained:
      http://partners.nytimes.com/li...

      They suspected that the Nixon administration kept him out of Vietnam to avoid giving his father anything that might have some political advantage.

    7. Re:The memos were fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia = Fake.

      Why do you cite a source where anyone can say anything?

    8. Re:The memos were fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's about the laziest criticism you could have come up with. That Wikipedia article cites 86 sources, many of which reference even more sources.

      Here, have a couple:
      http://voices.washingtonpost.c...
      http://media.washingtonpost.co...

  11. With all this technology by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    Man, it's getting so hard to cheat these days.

  12. Re:Obama's Fake Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then how do you explain the newspaper notice after he was born?