[sillysaurus3]

Under no circumstances was this done in the name of art.

Out of curiosity, why point this out? It's obvious that you didn't do it for a number of reasons. Hundreds, in fact. So why art?

I also did it for philosophical reasons. I believe that all digitized information past and present will be inevitably become known & public post facto. It's the nature of information & knowledge in our technological world to distribute itself until the world converges on total information omnipresence. So if, in the end, all [digitized] information is known, then there is no point in hiding information. This is more of a philosophical viewpoint though. obviously it's impossible for all information to converge in this way.

This would be the end of freedom. I'll go into the reasons if needed, but the discussion has happened a few times before. Suffice to say, if you're not allowed to have privacy, then you're not allowed to be free.

[polarix]

Freedom is vague, here, but I think what you want will still be possible (at least theoretically) given causality and physical distance.

Deeper freedom (that is, infinite potential) is inherent to being itself, but if what you're looking for is something more like diversity or novelty, then yes, that's contingent on perceptual subject-object duality.

[TeMPOraL]

Causality and physics is also what makes GP's wish near-certainty given continuing technological progress. Hiding information is going to get only harder.