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
