3 ms·

> Number of git commits!!! Well, it's true. Differential privacy is a nice idea, but in this particular case, you're disparaging a style of research that -- to

> Number of git commits!!! Well, it's true. Differential privacy is a nice idea, but in this particular case, you're disparaging a style of research that -- to date -- has had a much greater impact on improving actual, real world privacy than all the fanciest query engines in the world. > Software changes the world. The most important thing to know about differential privacy is that when in comes to privacy, software always plays second fiddle to policy and politics. Differential privacy algorithms are literally nothing other than the implementation of a legal spec. Without the law, the algorithms are pointless. Mind you, I don't intend to disparage differential privacy work in any way! But disparaging policy research while holding up differential privacy systems as the answer massively misses the point...

aub3bhat 10y ago
LOL I actually don't use differential privacy at all! My software implements legal requirements as stated by the agency providing the data. Which are equivalent to a stronger version of K-Anonymity. I am not at all against Policy Research, the issue is that this particular paper is a spectacularly BAD example of Policy Research. Policy research should not be driven by FUD around AI (e.g. the quote "did not constrain the company from using AI analytical techniques on the data") or some corporation.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > I actually don't use differential privacy at all! I was just going by your own description on the product website. Anyways, kind of irrelevant since your "software implements legal requirements as stated by the agency providing the data". That's basically my whole point. > ...is a spectacularly BAD example of Policy Research I tend to judge research by its merit and its impact. Merit is discussed at length elsewhere, and IMO you're flat out wrong about the normalcy of this particular agreement. But we can leave that to other threads. In this thread, you're disparaging the research based upon its impact ("real debate", "real systems"), when in fact it has had a direct impact.

aub3bhat 10y ago

LOL I actually don't use differential privacy at all! My software implements legal requirements as stated by the agency providing the data. Which are equivalent to a stronger version of K-Anonymity. I am not at all against Policy Research, the issue is that this particular paper is a spectacularly BAD example of Policy Research. Policy research should not be driven by FUD around AI (e.g. the quote "did not constrain the company from using AI analytical techniques on the data") or some corporation.

throwaway729 10y ago
> I actually don't use differential privacy at all! I was just going by your own description on the product website. Anyways, kind of irrelevant since your "software implements legal requirements as stated by the agency providing the data". That's basically my whole point. > ...is a spectacularly BAD example of Policy Research I tend to judge research by its merit and its impact. Merit is discussed at length elsewhere, and IMO you're flat out wrong about the normalcy of this particular agreement. But we can leave that to other threads. In this thread, you're disparaging the research based upon its impact ("real debate", "real systems"), when in fact it has had a direct impact.