3 ms·
Yes, and in the case of small N (which, like, is the case here), those are problematic to disclose!
by joshuamorton 4y ago
Yes, and in the case of small N (which, like, is the case here), those are problematic to disclose!
- giantg2 4y agoHow so? You'd have to figure out the N in a population of hundreds of thousands (the state's prison population) without any other variables to go on.
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoIt breaks down the N by location, which... what defines a location here? Is it a state? Is it a single prison? For a small N, narrow location is definitely a de-anonymization factor.
- giantg2 4y agoThere's no mention of any narrow locations. The numbers are at the state level per the request in the article.
- tsimionescu 4y agoHow would knowing "1 Transwoman is currently housed in a female prison on the territory of Washington state" in any way risk causing harm to that transwoman, or help you identify her in any way?
- prepend 4y agoIt doesn’t. I think GP is confusing small cell counts in micro data (a real problem) with small numbers in aggregate data (sometimes a problem). In this case, just a count and prison is not a privacy issue as someone would have to already know the individual is trans to identify them. And that’s the only information contained in the data release.