Thanks for the analysis Ian. On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:53 AM ropers <rop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I reject the insinuation that only blackmailers need anonymous speech. > Reality Winner is but one example to the contrary. > Without anonymous speech, there can be no free speech. > > People might deem it a no-brainer that "They" would do something like > this, but the real no-brainer is understanding that printer > steganography and the secrecy surrounding it are corrosive to > democracy, honest commerce and the rule of law. > > In any honest commercial transaction, the customer would be informed > prior to the sale about the presence of any anti-features. Especially > when those anti-features enable a government-driven privacy invasion > or warrantless metadata surveillance. The U.S. Constitution in > particular especially protects PAPERS and effects. > > In any non-kangaroo court, evidence obtained by secret mechanisms > mandated by secret laws would be inadmissible. > > Obvious technical feasibility does not entitle hackers to do whatever > they want, and neither can, under any reasonable rule of law, > governments be allowed to do whatever they want just because they > perceive some advantage to doing it, and just because they can get > away with it for a while. > > Democracies understand that the people are more trustworthy than > concentrated power, which is why democracies have the people hold > governments in check. > Tyrannies are the opposite, and have governments hold the people in check. > > Under any non-tyrannical government of laws, the introduction of > printer steganography, if carried out, would not have been secret to > start with. > In a free society, this would have been a matter of public debate, > giving the people a chance to reject the intrusion before its > introduction, and a chance to know what rules they are operating under > and what world they are living in. > > Printer steganography is the kind of chain most people will only > notice once they move and start exercising their rights. If you're > only free because you don't dissent, you're not free. > > --Ian > >
