3 ms·

If you can't connect it to the user in any way, it's no longer personal information. Expect the data protection agency to compliment you.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> If you can't connect it to the user in any way, it's no longer personal information Just because you can't connect it doesn't mean nobody else can.
- GordonS 8y ago
  For all practical purposes, a secure, one-way cryptographic hash is irreversible.
  - shabble 8y ago
    I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. It's bcrypt hash is: '$2b$15$qUxzZ5ZF55lMuqiH9GMjQOHkNyee86qd2Vh2kQyF5P3U6JZJx9AEC' I bet nobody could ever reverse this secure cryptographic hash to figure out what it could be... ;)
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    I think you need to address converse the examples in the article in order to assert this.
- unilynx 8y ago
  http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/r26.htm http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/r26.htm ... account should be taken of all objective factors, such as the costs of and the amount of time required for identification, taking into consideration the available technology at the time of the processing and technological developments. The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable. ... It's sufficient if one can't reasonably reconnect the data back to the user. It doesn't need to be NSA-proof.
  - merinowool 8y ago
    It doesn't say that information cannot be _reasonably_ reconnected, but that you shouldn't be able to reconnect it at all. I don't know how you have drawn that it shouldn't be NSA-proof from this text if it literally says "in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable."
    - unilynx 8y ago
      Its in the original link, I may have limited the quote too much: ... To determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used ...
      - Nomentatus 8y ago
        Thanks for the quote. Wow. I wonder if this odd definition doesn't render "unidentifiable" to mean "almost certainly identifiable by someone, with a current technique" - since, given enough techniques, most of them will be statistically unusual. I admit it's a start, but mangling semantics that baldly gives me the willies. The parallel history of cryptography is little more than a history of overconfidence re what counters were thought to be likely, and not. Do we really need to recapitulate that?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> If you can't connect it to the user in any way, it's no longer personal information Just because you can't connect it doesn't mean nobody else can.

GordonS 8y ago
For all practical purposes, a secure, one-way cryptographic hash is irreversible.
- shabble 8y ago
  I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. It's bcrypt hash is: '$2b$15$qUxzZ5ZF55lMuqiH9GMjQOHkNyee86qd2Vh2kQyF5P3U6JZJx9AEC' I bet nobody could ever reverse this secure cryptographic hash to figure out what it could be... ;)
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  I think you need to address converse the examples in the article in order to assert this.
unilynx 8y ago
http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/r26.htm http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/r26.htm ... account should be taken of all objective factors, such as the costs of and the amount of time required for identification, taking into consideration the available technology at the time of the processing and technological developments. The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable. ... It's sufficient if one can't reasonably reconnect the data back to the user. It doesn't need to be NSA-proof.
- merinowool 8y ago
  It doesn't say that information cannot be _reasonably_ reconnected, but that you shouldn't be able to reconnect it at all. I don't know how you have drawn that it shouldn't be NSA-proof from this text if it literally says "in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable."
  - unilynx 8y ago
    Its in the original link, I may have limited the quote too much: ... To determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used ...
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      Thanks for the quote. Wow. I wonder if this odd definition doesn't render "unidentifiable" to mean "almost certainly identifiable by someone, with a current technique" - since, given enough techniques, most of them will be statistically unusual. I admit it's a start, but mangling semantics that baldly gives me the willies. The parallel history of cryptography is little more than a history of overconfidence re what counters were thought to be likely, and not. Do we really need to recapitulate that?