plausible deniability, watermarking / stego busts

[Major Variola (ret.)]

FBI makes arrest in movie 'screener' case
Chicago man to be charged with copyright infringementThe Associated
Press
Updated: 9:02 a.m. ET Jan. 23, 2004LOS ANGELES - A man who allegedly
used the Internet to distribute Oscar “screener” movies sent to him by a
member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has been
arrested in Illinois, authorities said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4037016/

Agents said the films have been traced back to a longtime Academy
member, 69-year-old actor Carmine Caridi, who was described as a friend
of Sprague’s.

In addition to the movies, agents said they found an array of
duplicating and illegal satellite television interception equipment in
Sprague’s home about 20 miles south of downtown Chicago.

Caridi told investigators he sent VHS copies of about 60 movies he
received each year to Sprague. He allegedly told investigators he
received no money for the films, and believed Sprague was merely a film
buff who wished to watch them.

Re: 1st amend, compelled speech in US

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 08:29 PM 1/22/04 +, petard wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:47:07AM -0800, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
>> ...public health officials are considering legal action to force AOL
and
>> certain websites to warn members about...
>>
>> http://wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62005,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
>>
>> Compelled speech is prohibited, suggesting it is treason, no matter
the
>> reason.
>>
>So is it prohibited that drug companies are compelled to disclose known

>side effects of their medications in order to sell them, and treason on

>the part of FDA employees who enforce that?

[ The Ministry of Mental Health would like to caution you that the
accompanying
text may contain unsoc ideas that may lead to discontent and other
psychomedical
conditions requiring treatment from licensed MiniHealth technicians.
Have a nice day.]

Excellent question.

It is conceivable that a state can legitimately define some terms of
commerce
so as to prevent *fraud*.  (Congress may do so for interstate trade.)
Eg, plant and chemical names, weights and measures, etc.

If some physical object has proved side nonobvious effects, its
conceivable that the state
can compel that speech.   Note that these are physical objects, not
bits, and
its to prevent fraud in commerce that enables state action.

[ The Ministry of Mental Health would like to caution you that the
accompanying
text may contain unsoc ideas that may lead to discontent and other
psychomedical
conditions requiring treatment from licensed MiniHealth technicians.
Have a nice day.]

When the state wants to insert speech into other's *conversations*,
someone
needs to read the BoR.

[ The Ministry of Mental Health would like to caution you that the
accompanying
text may contain unsoc ideas that may lead to discontent and other
psychomedical
conditions requiring treatment from licensed MiniHealth technicians.
Have a nice day.]

And note:

In a free nation, folks would be able to decide who
endorses products, including foods and drugs.   If the kosher council
required some kind of warning ("Do not smoke this product with diary
products")
then you would have to follow their rules if you wanted to use their
logo.

Any federal rating or private Consumer Reports organization
would simply be a competitor in the field of reputations.

[ The Ministry of Mental Health would like to caution you that the
accompanying
text may contain unsoc ideas that may lead to discontent and other
psychomedical
conditions requiring treatment from licensed MiniHealth technicians.
Have a nice day.]