4 ms·
Yes they had to, in case the person giving the data had opted for being notified about some severe medical condition or other revelations that would show up dur
by MrDresden 5y ago
Yes they had to, in case the person giving the data had opted for being notified about some severe medical condition or other revelations that would show up during the analysis process. For those cases, these mappings were kept around, and did require going through the watchdog.
- Hendrikto 5y agoI think you misunderstood my point. There are ways of deanonymizing data, just by looking at the data alone. In fact, this is the standard assumption. This watchdog stuff is nice for the "good" actors, but irrelevant for adversaries.
- MrDresden 5y agoI did understand the point perfectly. The mechanism was there simply for the good actors to backtrace the data to the matching person, it's purpose was never to play a part in making the data more anonymous. If what you meant to say was the more clear statement that adversaries wouldn't need to do that then I'd have agreed with you. Everything else that was mentioned; the strict processes in determining what data could be stored, what it exposed about the user if anything, eliminating as much of the human input as possible and the post processing of the data before it left the measurement lab. These are the steps that achieved anonymity (as far as everyone believed had been achieved).