amp@pobox.com wrote:
As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings, especially ones related to the Internet. (Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc. First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not treated as an absolute.)
So how would the courts prosecute if me and (n) number of other persons distribute separate pieces of a "binary", i.e., encrypted or otherwise? There has been some prior discussion here of splitting files in creative ways then sending the pieces through multiple channels (and at different times?).... Would the courts then insist that every data transmission I ever make would have to be proved to be meaningful (viewable) text, or in the case of a binary, have a court-approved checksum? Is there a presumption that only NSA will be able to forge the checksums, to get around this problem (for themselves)?