> is it really true that collecting only anonymous, stateless data has the same value as stateful, identifiable data If you place more value on knowledge of t

> is it really true that collecting only anonymous, stateless data has the same value as stateful, identifiable data If you place more value on knowledge of the collective rather than the specifics of the individual (which is arguably a good way for governance and stewardship bodies to operate) then I feel like it might be true. to me, the perk of this totally non-specific data is that it can theoretically be public, and so there's less incentive to advocate for scary information asymmetry in private hands (neither corp nor gov). Yes, there's asymmetry in who can derive insight from public aggregate data, but in theory access can be ubiquitous, and that's less than the towering asymmetry (of access) that currently exists with our understandable lip service to personal privacy