If you're going to do several illegal things to get someone in trouble you might as well just place child porn on their computer...
Or put childporn in encrypted format. Just make sure the password is easy to break like 12345.
There are many ways you could legally put an encrypted file on someone else's computer. But if you use actual KP then you're putting yourself at unnecessary risk. Better to have something innocent so if you get caught before you finish your sabotage you can use the key to decrypt the data and show it was innocent.
You don't even need to do that. You can just say that your music files/photos are really encrypted using stenography and you can't prove otherwise. They can't prove they are encrypted either,but I sure they wouldn't bother with such small details.
Same error as in the article, so for clarity/pedantry value: this is steganography (with a ga). Stenography is a fancy word for shorthand.
and its still encryption, and they can prove that there is information there. A couple projects (one from uMich's CITI lab) showed that you can tell with high certainty when an image has steganographic data added too it.
Nope. They can show _with a high certainty_ that the image is not quite usual; that's still a pretty long shot from _proving_ the irregularity is actually steganography (but that's where we leave the un/certainties of crypto and enter the realm of law).
That is a fair point, they can show it was altered and "likely" to have concealed data but not that it does. Which would leave a reasonable doubt one would hope. I joked with Peter Honeyman once that perhaps I should just add 'bite me nsa' as a secret steganagraphic message in all my images so that they would have something to read. He suggested that the people who make a habit of taunting the bears in the circus are the ones who show up in the stories about bear attacks :-)