page 15: Quantum Dots for experimental anti-fraud labeling

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0917/ML091740009.pdf

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

A random example of a patent for this technology: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3150399A1/en

I bing searched for "quantum dots fluorescence watermark" and there is much much more to examine.

It seems to me that no technology exists to use an entangled state or any sort of 'quantum informational' advantage. It does make sense that they could use quantum dots as tags. Perhaps there was some non-sicentists phone game from quantum dot tracking to quantum information/encryption tracking? The 'quantum encryption state' within paper idea seems really bad. The idea of these dots being used is not so crazy at all, and reliable proven methods as would work in court actually exist.

reposting from previous bread:

I see a reference to a quantum system of some sort for ballot watermarking or tracking. To my mind, this could only mean the use of "quantum dots" as basis for a labeling scheme. "Quantum dots" are sort of like fluorescent very large molecules. They are proposed for use in various schemes, but they have a property of being fluorescent to a highly tunable narrow (single) frequency. I don't think other quantum information technologies are present for any sort of use of quantum properties such an encrypted quantum state or an object that could be 'tracked' in a direct or easy way.

The quantum dots, in theory, could be in the ballot, and could be spatially arranged in ways that encode, as well as having different combinations of fluorescent frequencies that they react to upon light being shined on them. For example, maybe dots were reliable made for 3 or 4 frequencies, and laid out in a pattern of consecutive rectangles. What is interesting, is the DHS or someone else could in theory have placed machines in the US mail system that could track the motion of these objects automatically as they were sorted, right along with stamp-checking, etc.

So consider that the INFOWARS interview is maybe an ignorant riff off of a misunderstanding of a misunderstanding of something maybe someone said…