4 ms·

Australian authorities released "anonymised" data into the public domain for research. It didn't take long for the ever-amazing Dr. Vanessa Teague et al. to dea

Australian authorities released "anonymised" data into the public domain for research. It didn't take long for the ever-amazing Dr. Vanessa Teague et al. to deanonymise it. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-12-18/anonymous-medicare-data-can-identify-patients-researchers-say/9267684 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-12-18/anonymous-med...

marcinzm 7y ago
To be more specific she de-anonymised 7 individuals in the data set and claimed she could do more (if you used someone's semi-personal information). The risk with good de-identification is generally not that they can find everyone but that given enough knowledge they can find one individual. Or in other words, that your friend find you in the data set with enough effort. It's also why you're supposed to remove famous people from such data sets.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > It's also why you're supposed to remove famous people from such data sets. Because they deserve special protection the mere mortals don't?
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    Because their personal information is public thus everyone has it which makes re-identification much easier. Although nowadays there's so much information out there that "famous" covers a lot of the population. That said, a public data where you can re-identify your friends should not have been released in the first place.
  - roscorollo 7y ago
    Because the average "famous" individual has far more personally identifiable data out for public digest than you or I, It's not about special treatment, just understanding the realities.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      Sure, but the publicly available data is huge for lots of people. I don't see why you'd make an exemption for celebrities. If you can deanonymize people in sensitive data sets, don't release them. Saying "we'll protect the VIPs, the rest can go deal with the fallout of their employers looking at their personal health issues" isn't an option to me.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    But the famous have to deal with paparazzi! Peons are only exposed to insurance companies digging for pre-existing conditions, stalkers, violent exes, potential employers, ...
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  > It's also why you're supposed to remove famous people from such data sets. That's a very Boomer/Gen X thought pattern, Gen Y, Z and Alpha may not be famous yet but will be included in the data set.
- cs02rm0 7y ago
  > It's also why you're supposed to remove famous people from such data sets. I foresee an article - top 10 signs you shouldn't trust a dataset is sufficiently anonymised.
short_sells_poo 7y ago
I had an "of course they did" moment when the article stated: > In 2016, the Government proposed making the re-identification of government data an offence. That's such a typical and idiotic response that it makes my blood boil. That someone can utter such mind-boggling bullshit in 2016. It highlights how the authorities, while having ostensibly good intentions, are absolutely and near-criminally clueless to the realities of modern technology. And I use the word "modern" loosely. Post 2000, anyone who is in a position of power and proposes to fix a data-leak (and I believe this is a data-leak) by making it illegal to analyse said data leak, should be sent to a course on cyber-security, because they are apparently clueless and their decision making presents an acute risk.
- kitd 7y ago
  That's such a typical and idiotic response that it makes my blood boil. That someone can utter such mind-boggling bullshit in 2016. It highlights how the authorities, while having ostensibly good intentions, are absolutely and near-criminally clueless to the realities of modern technology. And I use the word "modern" loosely. It reminds me of Theresa May's desire when she was UK Home Secretary of making it illegal to use non-Government-approved encryption algorithms. AFAIK, there are still plenty among UK Conservatives who believe it should be so.
  - Aromasin 7y ago
    More infuriating, it's often seen as something to be proud about for them. They're compensating for their own inadequacy - they don't understand how something as basic as a smart phone works, so act as if that's a virtue. This lack of knowledge clearly extends to policy too: "The UK came 34th out of the 34 members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) for spending on transport equipment. Illustrating the meagre spending in recent years on the latest technology and industrial kit by UK firms, the study also found Britain ranks near the bottom – 20th out of 21 countries for which data is available – in spending on IT systems and 23rd out of 27 countries for investment in other types of machinery. The UK is better at constructing new homes and office blocks, but even in these sectors, the UK is still well below the OECD average. The only area where the UK is ahead of the OECD average is in intellectual property, ranking 13th of 34 countries. In total, UK capital investment was 16.6% of GDP in 2014, matching Italy’s spending as a proportion of national incomes, while the average across all OECD countries was 20.8%. Germany fell just below the average with a figure of 20%, but France edged higher to register spending equal to 21.8% of GDP. Only Greece and Portugal invested less than the UK, leaving it to rank 33rd out of 35 countries." [0] It's an absolute embarrassment. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/16/uk-investment-tech-transport-tuc-autumn-statement https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/16/uk-investme...

marcinzm 7y ago

To be more specific she de-anonymised 7 individuals in the data set and claimed she could do more (if you used someone's semi-personal information). The risk with good de-identification is generally not that they can find everyone but that given enough knowledge they can find one individual. Or in other words, that your friend find you in the data set with enough effort. It's also why you're supposed to remove famous people from such data sets.

luckylion 7y ago
> It's also why you're supposed to remove famous people from such data sets. Because they deserve special protection the mere mortals don't?
- marcinzm 7y ago
  Because their personal information is public thus everyone has it which makes re-identification much easier. Although nowadays there's so much information out there that "famous" covers a lot of the population. That said, a public data where you can re-identify your friends should not have been released in the first place.
- roscorollo 7y ago
  Because the average "famous" individual has far more personally identifiable data out for public digest than you or I, It's not about special treatment, just understanding the realities.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Sure, but the publicly available data is huge for lots of people. I don't see why you'd make an exemption for celebrities. If you can deanonymize people in sensitive data sets, don't release them. Saying "we'll protect the VIPs, the rest can go deal with the fallout of their employers looking at their personal health issues" isn't an option to me.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  But the famous have to deal with paparazzi! Peons are only exposed to insurance companies digging for pre-existing conditions, stalkers, violent exes, potential employers, ...
Ensorceled 7y ago
> It's also why you're supposed to remove famous people from such data sets. That's a very Boomer/Gen X thought pattern, Gen Y, Z and Alpha may not be famous yet but will be included in the data set.
cs02rm0 7y ago
> It's also why you're supposed to remove famous people from such data sets. I foresee an article - top 10 signs you shouldn't trust a dataset is sufficiently anonymised.

short_sells_poo 7y ago

I had an "of course they did" moment when the article stated: > In 2016, the Government proposed making the re-identification of government data an offence. That's such a typical and idiotic response that it makes my blood boil. That someone can utter such mind-boggling bullshit in 2016. It highlights how the authorities, while having ostensibly good intentions, are absolutely and near-criminally clueless to the realities of modern technology. And I use the word "modern" loosely. Post 2000, anyone who is in a position of power and proposes to fix a data-leak (and I believe this is a data-leak) by making it illegal to analyse said data leak, should be sent to a course on cyber-security, because they are apparently clueless and their decision making presents an acute risk.

kitd 7y ago
That's such a typical and idiotic response that it makes my blood boil. That someone can utter such mind-boggling bullshit in 2016. It highlights how the authorities, while having ostensibly good intentions, are absolutely and near-criminally clueless to the realities of modern technology. And I use the word "modern" loosely. It reminds me of Theresa May's desire when she was UK Home Secretary of making it illegal to use non-Government-approved encryption algorithms. AFAIK, there are still plenty among UK Conservatives who believe it should be so.
- Aromasin 7y ago
  More infuriating, it's often seen as something to be proud about for them. They're compensating for their own inadequacy - they don't understand how something as basic as a smart phone works, so act as if that's a virtue. This lack of knowledge clearly extends to policy too: "The UK came 34th out of the 34 members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) for spending on transport equipment. Illustrating the meagre spending in recent years on the latest technology and industrial kit by UK firms, the study also found Britain ranks near the bottom – 20th out of 21 countries for which data is available – in spending on IT systems and 23rd out of 27 countries for investment in other types of machinery. The UK is better at constructing new homes and office blocks, but even in these sectors, the UK is still well below the OECD average. The only area where the UK is ahead of the OECD average is in intellectual property, ranking 13th of 34 countries. In total, UK capital investment was 16.6% of GDP in 2014, matching Italy’s spending as a proportion of national incomes, while the average across all OECD countries was 20.8%. Germany fell just below the average with a figure of 20%, but France edged higher to register spending equal to 21.8% of GDP. Only Greece and Portugal invested less than the UK, leaving it to rank 33rd out of 35 countries." [0] It's an absolute embarrassment. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/16/uk-investment-tech-transport-tuc-autumn-statement https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/16/uk-investme...