This time I really don't understand why you've been downvoted. Now it feels like some powerful users know something I don't, but they won't tell

Because it was a response to a statement that the result matters more than the implementation details that consisted of achieving the same effect by cleverly modifying the implementation..

I really meant something like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability#Use_in_c...

Result matters, but who's to attack when it's in fact the user who mixes some theoretically unrelated things to achieve such result? Sadly I know it wouldn't work in practice, but that's how I understood that comment

Three separate services, each hosting segments of a file that have to be put back together in some way. Either those three sites will have information on how to rebuild the file (revealing the reason they're hosting it in the first place), or there'll be a 4th party involved that provides the information. It starts looking like an organized conspiracy, if a court ends up looking at it. And that's the answer: The target companies file suit against whatever sites seem to be involved in the conspiracy.

Either that, or it ends up being so obscure that the target company(ies) never notice.

I see it as a kind of reductio ad absurdum.