No reduction from DEPIR to OT

A reduction of class unstated from DEPIR to OT would imply a contradiction.

Statement

Migrated verbatim from BIPW17 - Can We Access a Database Both Locally and Privately § Notes:

• I think this version of PIR might get around the DMO00 barrier, because it’s not clear how to do the preprocessing — sender needs to keep DBs private, but sender needs to keep secret key secret

Notes

class: unstated: no citing page says which notion of reduction is meant. Recording a class the wiki does not state would add a claim.

Recorded during migration and not fixed — these are claims about the source text, not changes to it:

• BARRIER-EVASION claim: asserts the DMO00 barrier (any non-trivial single-server PIR implies OT) does NOT apply to secret-key DEPIR. This is a claim that a reduction does NOT exist, so the target model’s Q-form ((exists reduction of class C) ⇒ Q) has no Q to record — the record is a negative existence claim only.
• The DMO00 wikilink resolves correctly to content/References/DMO00 - Single Database Private Information Retrieval Implies Oblivious Transfer.md, and the DMO00 abstract does state PIR ⇒ OT, so the barrier being evaded is correctly identified.
• The existing inventory already carries the DMO00 edge (single-server-private-information-retrieval ⇒ oblivious-transfer) from Primitives/oblivious-transfer.md:124 and single-server-private-information-retrieval.md:144. This record is the only place in the corpus claiming that edge is evaded.
• SUSPECTED ERROR / GARBLED (recorded, not fixed): the stated reason is ‘sender needs to keep DBs private, but sender needs to keep secret key secret’ — the same party is given both obligations, which does not distinguish the sk setting. Almost certainly the client/receiver is the party that holds the secret key.
• Double-hedged (‘I think … might get around’), and no class of reduction is named, so the barrier is untyped.
• No citation for the evasion claim itself.