4 ms·
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 knowi
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoAnonymization 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.