Its steganography to hide a bitcoin txn from a human inside a hidden channel. But its so simple to hide from a packet inspection engine I wouldn't even call it steganography... for example the "image" downloaded could look like random bits to a person (obviously not a meaningful image) but the packet inspection engine would not be able to determine that.
We need to act soon, because if the 5 Eyes has their way (and they are almost there) then the world will accept that HTTPS means encryption but in fact it does not. Then the NWO will say that any data that is encrypted (i.e. random) but not done with HTTPS is prohibited on the internet. The public is almost to the point of gleefully agreeing.
That would hamper business greatly. Almost everything I did, for instance, was over ssh/ssl. It would take years and billions of dollars to re-write the work of countless engineers who've done likewise.
The next hand which would be played would be to mandate the use of core ssl which had a (known) backdoor. I could not honestly say that I would have difficulty compliling it in and thus not needing to re-write my tools however.
The hand past that would be trying to find a safe home for the core network and stego. One of Adam Back's memorable quotes here on this thread IIRC went something like "at the margins steganography wins." The trouble is that if Bitcoin has moved beyond what is possible to do at these margins, we lose.