Why are you seemingly arguing that the only personally identifiable bits of information are those with a strict 1:1 relation to an individual? And what are you

Why are you seemingly arguing that the only personally identifiable bits of information are those with a strict 1:1 relation to an individual? And what are you trying to understand exactly? > About half of the U.S. population (132 million of 248 million or 53%) are likely to be uniquely identified by only {place, gender, date of birth}, where place is basically the city, town, or municipality in which the person resides. And even at the county level, {county, gender, date of birth} are likely to uniquely identify 18% of the U.S. population. In general, few characteristics are needed to uniquely identify a person. https://dataprivacylab.org/projects/identifiability/index.html https://dataprivacylab.org/projects/identifiability/index.ht... Another US example: > Mr. X lives in ZIP code 02138 and was born July 31, 1945. These facts about him were included in an anonymized medical record released to the public. Sounds like Mr. X is pretty anonymous, right? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/what-information-personally-identifiable https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/what-information-perso...