3 ms·
This is true. In fact it would be better to not indicate that the data was redacted. Instead of redacting it, change it to something else in the redacted rang
by btilly 8y ago
This is true.
In fact it would be better to not indicate that the data was redacted. Instead of redacting it, change it to something else in the redacted range, preferably more common. With no hint about which pieces of data were changed, the attacker can't use what you describe.
Heck, merely including random small (unidentified) changes makes matching much, much harder.
- nixpulvis 8y agoYes, but now when you find out that some important property you're testing for was caused by a mold outbreak in 85535, you'll be disturbed to know that the research was published for a subject in 85001.
- oh_sigh 8y agoYou could publish the criteria for how your data may be jittered, but just not the specifics. Then, future users of the data could know to what extent they can rely on accuracy of the data.