Thanks for the quote. Wow. I wonder if this odd definition doesn't render "unidentifiable" to mean "almost certainly identifiable by someone, with a current technique" - since, given enough techniques, most of them will be statistically unusual. I admit it's a start, but mangling semantics that baldly gives me the willies.

The parallel history of cryptography is little more than a history of overconfidence re what counters were thought to be likely, and not. Do we really need to recapitulate that?