[FRIAM] hidden

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I'd like to avoid your (more accurate) use of holography in talking about this "holographic principle". While the technical details of actual holography are interesting, it adds noise to the idea I'm offering. (Again, I don't believe this idea, myself. I'm offering it as a rewording of what I heard EricC say.) So, I'm offering an analogy to the Bekenstein bound or the holographic principle in physics. I probably should never have used that word "holographic". I'm regretting it, now.

On 5/19/20 11:16 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> These are all examples of selecting or valuating transformations
> (letter-scrambles and elisions) based on the relative entropy yielded in
> a secondary lexicon?

I haven't, yet, invoked entropy in my attempt to reconstruct privacy from the bare concept of hidden with which I started this thread. I did invoke it earlier, in other threads, because I *do* think it will apply with higher order forms of privacy. But for "privacy through obscurity" all we need is the combinatorial explosion.

> thus something like entropy relative to the target domain of some model
> or another?

Not yet, no. You *could* argue that a particular target, like Frank, could be identified and attacked via the class inferred from that particularity. In principle, I think this is what therapy does. It's definitely what industrial espionage is about. Some cute girl moves into the apartment next to the young engineer with a newly minted yellow badge and she proceeds to *decrypt* the engineer. She would definitely use some conception of entropy relative to the "young engineer" domain.

But we don't need that for privacy through obscurity.

> And there IS an art to plausible ambiguity, [...]

Yes. In an adversarial co-evolution, it's relatively easy to exploit privacy for some gain. And a skilled hacker will be able to eliminate implausible decoders based on implausible results they generate. But, like with the above, adversarial systems imply targets. And this lowest order privacy doesn't need that for its justification.

> And you aren't even invoking quantum computing, which throws a whole
> other wrench into, no?

Well, I did by implication. QC simply exploits time/space tradeoffs, at least for my purposes, here. And by "With enough time/resources, ..." and the "etc.", I tried to imply QC along with all the other issues surrounding computational power limitations. We don't really need QC to puncture privacy through obscurity. Targeting will suffice. Frank can't be obscure if we can surveil him in particular ... like some psychodynamic stalker.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ