LM> I think I need to clarify my threat model. I'm positing a scenario in which LM> transmission of ciphertext and stegoed anything is illegal, but transmission LM> and use of "conspicuous" digital signatures is legal. Furthermore, the govt. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ah. No big deal then. After stegoing, you sign the GIF. LM> sanitizes the LSBs of digital images for our protection, perhaps distorting LM> a mean of X% of the LSBs of a mean of Y% of transmitted images. Out-of-stego- LM> channel checksummation would IMHO be crucial in such a situation. Sending multiple copies of the same GIF would go a long way toward solving this, if X% and Y% were low enough. Say I get 5 copies, and reconstruct the origial via a "voting" protocol. Also, if we break down the file into smaller blocks, and sign each block individually, we can narrow down the errors. But I am having a real problem with an overt policy of fiddling with people's mail. If they did that, it would likely cause a huge backlash that would be felt at the ballot box. * --- * Monster@FAmend.Com *