Yes. The filename is "obfuscated". The hint is in the name. But it's enough to prevent pattern matching! For me, obfuscation is enough. But "standard" can be used if you want stronger encryption. That's why I wrote "obfuscated/encrypted" in my reply, above.
From the documentation (https://rclone.org/crypt/)
This is a simple “rotate” of the filename, with each file having a rot distance based on the filename. We store the distance at the beginning of the filename. So a file called “hello” may become “53.jgnnq”
This is not a strong encryption of filenames, but it may stop automated scanning tools from picking up on filename patterns. As such it’s an intermediate between “off” and “standard”. The advantage is that it allows for longer path segment names.
There is a possibility with some unicode based filenames that the obfuscation is weak and may map lower case characters to upper case equivalents. You can not rely on this for strong protection.
- file names very lightly obfuscated
- file names can be longer than standard encryption
- can use sub paths and copy single files
- directory structure visible
- identical files names will have identical uploaded names
Cloud storage systems have various limits on file name length and total path length which you are more likely to hit using “Standard” file name encryption. If you keep your file names to below 156 characters in length then you should be OK on all providers.