in the context of preventing leaks: if/when this nears ubiquity, the first ID'ing of leaks will obviously lead to the second effect of deterring further leaks.
>their ability to outsmart Google
it knows all the words: that is why i should not had had to had reminded it incessantly.
>continuing to obscure the entropic state of the x-M medium and remain plausibly deniable
lemme draw this out cuz you seem intimidated with simple abstractions.
imagine a three page power-point composed of Header, Text, companyLogo, no other data, aside from inclination from the plane.
under the plausibility presumption the header and text and company logo cannot be within ~15
interval degrees from the plane, you only have a state-space of so many combinations, which puts a hard limit (Shannon's) on the medium's maximum signal/noise ratio.
assuming people cannot collude to delineate between copies, they arent going to be able to perceive subtle shifts in the inclination/position/font/inclusion/exclusion of elements.
however more generally, this key-space needed for the LEAKER_ID wont be much larger (in magnitude) than the user pool of potential leakers, with a simple CRC for resiliency.
imagine a three page power-point composed of Header, Text, companyLogo, no other data, aside from inclination from the plane.
under the plausibility presumption the header and text and company logo cannot be within ~15 interval degrees from the plane, you only have a state-space of so many combinations, which puts a hard limit (Shannon's) on the medium's maximum signal/noise ratio.
assuming people cannot collude to delineate between copies, they arent going to be able to perceive subtle shifts in the inclination/position/font/inclusion/exclusion of elements.
however more generally, this key-space needed for the LEAKER_ID wont be much larger (in magnitude) than the user pool of potential leakers, with a simple CRC for resiliency.