3 ms·
The trouble is when we're holding on to the original data because we want the option to process it in new ways later on. The fundamental problem is that data co
by lolc 9y ago
The trouble is when we're holding on to the original data because we want the option to process it in new ways later on. The fundamental problem is that data correlates facts. Thus - as the article rightly points out - if you know some of the facts you can reconstruct identities.
I find the distinction between information and exformation revealing: Information is the bits we gleaned from the data, exformation is the bits we discarded while reducing the data. The efficacy of an information processing system is in how much it discards while extracting the information we need. The expensive operation is not the recording but the forgetting.
If you want to protect data from being stolen, distill it as soon as possible into the information you need. And destroy the rest. It comes down to the value of being able to re-run the analysis versus the effort to guard the data.
- madrox 9y agoAs someone who's had to work through the implications of GDPR lately, I think the future of user data is that you can't keep the option to "process it in new ways" later. Permissions are becoming opt-in instead of opt-out.
- mjevans 9y agoYou probably can, but you need to be upfront about what you're collecting and the context that is being stored with it. It MAY be more ethically permissible to degrade the context and preserve only the most valuable and least personally identifying data. (Such as saving only the actual search query and a local timestamp, but filtering out anything related to a recognized name that isn't famous)