3 ms·

This could be fine as long as there are very strong regulations against de-anonimizing the data (including jailtime for violators) and there was a regular rotat

by Tarq0n 6y ago

This could be fine as long as there are very strong regulations against de-anonimizing the data (including jailtime for violators) and there was a regular rotation of the keys used for anonimization. People's privacy usually isn't impacted until datasets are combined, compromising pseudonimity.

raxxorrax 6y ago
I think you should basically kick advertisers in the nuts for stuff like this. I doubt it would be legal in my country and if it was, I wouldn't mind doing something illegal to the billboard. Can always use new cameras anyway.
waihtis 6y ago
Does the de-anonymization serve any purpose at this stage? If the advertiser can successfully profile me based on what they can gather completely anon, I don't see why they need the further info. However, for any smaller player wishing to compete on the advertising side the cost of entry is now humongous because of intense up-front cost to setup capability that is in compliance. Et voila, corporations win in the end.
- ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
  I'm guessing de-anonymised is more valuable, as it can be linked with other datasets to create a more in-depth profile, then sold to parties interested in knowing everything about a particular person.
  - tremon 6y ago
    Yes, but that definition is circular: if the dataset is detailed enough that a particular person can be linked across multiple datasets (with X degree of confidence), it isn't anonymised. So what you're really saying is that a detailed dataset is more valuable, and shouldn't be considered anonymized. Or, more succinctly, "anonymized" should not be boolean, but is a quantitative property of the dataset.
    - Tarq0n 6y ago
      Anonymization is a bit of a misnomer here. This dataset is clearly pseudonymised. Most datasets at the level of the unit of observation are never truly anonymous, unless they barely contain any real information at all. However this can be sufficient to protect privacy as long as the dataset is never allowed to be combined with other information.
- Tarq0n 6y ago
  Assuming the anonymization holds up, they can profile a person, but not link it back to you. This determines whether the information can be used to invade your personal life, blackmail you etc. This is a critical distinction, whether privacy means not having information collected at all, or being protected from having your data used against you. Personally I believe there is a middle ground, but it needs stronger protections, due to the incentives always pointing to greater exploitation of our data.

by Tarq0n 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago

I think you should basically kick advertisers in the nuts for stuff like this. I doubt it would be legal in my country and if it was, I wouldn't mind doing something illegal to the billboard. Can always use new cameras anyway.

waihtis 6y ago

Does the de-anonymization serve any purpose at this stage? If the advertiser can successfully profile me based on what they can gather completely anon, I don't see why they need the further info. However, for any smaller player wishing to compete on the advertising side the cost of entry is now humongous because of intense up-front cost to setup capability that is in compliance. Et voila, corporations win in the end.

ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
I'm guessing de-anonymised is more valuable, as it can be linked with other datasets to create a more in-depth profile, then sold to parties interested in knowing everything about a particular person.
- tremon 6y ago
  Yes, but that definition is circular: if the dataset is detailed enough that a particular person can be linked across multiple datasets (with X degree of confidence), it isn't anonymised. So what you're really saying is that a detailed dataset is more valuable, and shouldn't be considered anonymized. Or, more succinctly, "anonymized" should not be boolean, but is a quantitative property of the dataset.
  - Tarq0n 6y ago
    Anonymization is a bit of a misnomer here. This dataset is clearly pseudonymised. Most datasets at the level of the unit of observation are never truly anonymous, unless they barely contain any real information at all. However this can be sufficient to protect privacy as long as the dataset is never allowed to be combined with other information.
Tarq0n 6y ago
Assuming the anonymization holds up, they can profile a person, but not link it back to you. This determines whether the information can be used to invade your personal life, blackmail you etc. This is a critical distinction, whether privacy means not having information collected at all, or being protected from having your data used against you. Personally I believe there is a middle ground, but it needs stronger protections, due to the incentives always pointing to greater exploitation of our data.