3 ms·

Wouldn't then a hash of your email also identify you as a person? The companies can still build a profile of you if they just agree to use the same hashing func

Wouldn't then a hash of your email also identify you as a person? The companies can still build a profile of you if they just agree to use the same hashing function :/

comex 8y ago
Or even if ShadyAdtechCo just knows what the hashing function is, and has a list of plaintext email addresses to test against – perhaps obtained from one of the datasets they're joining against, or even from crawling the web.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Hashing should be done with salt for precisely that reason.
  - comex 8y ago
    If you mean a static salt, that could help mitigate against hacks (if the attacker has access to the database but not the code), but where adtech is concerned it's probably more realistic to assume that the datasets they're using were disclosed willingly. If you mean using a different salt for each address, that could work for some use cases, but it wouldn't work for the use case described in the blog post, since Touch Surgery needs to be able to lookup whether a given address is in the database (to see whether they've previously declined an invitation).
    - richardwhiuk 8y ago
      Why is it reasonable to assume they were disclosed willingly? That sounds like a startling assumption and the reverse of the one I'd make. Without good evidence, you must assume they were disclosed unwillingly.
    - aychedee 8y ago
      It's really no problem to do this. We're using a variation on this: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/158400/etc-shadow-how-to-generate-6-s-encrypted-password https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/158400/etc-shadow-h.... The output of crypt (where the input is an email address) is pretty useless if we did suffer a data breach. They'd have to hash every known email address with that salt in order to figure out who had declined an invite from us.
      - comex 8y ago
        What is the salt based on?
    - TimothyBJacobs 8y ago
      Couldn't the salt be unique to the requesting account? I would assume that just because a user declined an invitation from one user, they still might want to accept an invitation from a separate user.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
IANAL, but specifying how you hash the e-mails (algorithm + salt generation) would be part of your GDPR compliance process.
k__ 8y ago
We'll have to wait til someone got sued into oblivion before we know that
- henrikschroder 8y ago
  Noone will get sued under the GDPR. That's not how it works.
  - tzs 8y ago
    Article 79 says that each data subject that considers that their rights under GDPR have been violated by a controller or processor has the right to an effective judicial remedy, which may be brought before a court in either the Member State where the data subject resides, or where the controller or processor has an establishment. This is distinct from administrative and non-judicial remedies. That sure sounds like suing.

Wouldn't then a hash of your email also identify you as a person? The companies can still build a profile of you if they just agree to use the same hashing function :/

comex 8y ago

Or even if ShadyAdtechCo just knows what the hashing function is, and has a list of plaintext email addresses to test against – perhaps obtained from one of the datasets they're joining against, or even from crawling the web.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Hashing should be done with salt for precisely that reason.
- comex 8y ago
  If you mean a static salt, that could help mitigate against hacks (if the attacker has access to the database but not the code), but where adtech is concerned it's probably more realistic to assume that the datasets they're using were disclosed willingly. If you mean using a different salt for each address, that could work for some use cases, but it wouldn't work for the use case described in the blog post, since Touch Surgery needs to be able to lookup whether a given address is in the database (to see whether they've previously declined an invitation).
  - richardwhiuk 8y ago
    Why is it reasonable to assume they were disclosed willingly? That sounds like a startling assumption and the reverse of the one I'd make. Without good evidence, you must assume they were disclosed unwillingly.
  - aychedee 8y ago
    It's really no problem to do this. We're using a variation on this: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/158400/etc-shadow-how-to-generate-6-s-encrypted-password https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/158400/etc-shadow-h.... The output of crypt (where the input is an email address) is pretty useless if we did suffer a data breach. They'd have to hash every known email address with that salt in order to figure out who had declined an invite from us.
    - comex 8y ago
      What is the salt based on?
  - TimothyBJacobs 8y ago
    Couldn't the salt be unique to the requesting account? I would assume that just because a user declined an invitation from one user, they still might want to accept an invitation from a separate user.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

IANAL, but specifying how you hash the e-mails (algorithm + salt generation) would be part of your GDPR compliance process.

k__ 8y ago

We'll have to wait til someone got sued into oblivion before we know that

henrikschroder 8y ago
Noone will get sued under the GDPR. That's not how it works.
- tzs 8y ago
  Article 79 says that each data subject that considers that their rights under GDPR have been violated by a controller or processor has the right to an effective judicial remedy, which may be brought before a court in either the Member State where the data subject resides, or where the controller or processor has an establishment. This is distinct from administrative and non-judicial remedies. That sure sounds like suing.