Privacy legislation has always been a bit iffy about the distinction between data and information. Depending on how this ruling treats that issue it could have

Privacy legislation has always been a bit iffy about the distinction between data and information. Depending on how this ruling treats that issue it could have knock-on effects. Basically the issue here is that meta was almost certainly in possession of information on Max's sexual orientation and was using this information for advertising, but it's unclear if they had any data. Privacy wise it is great that even partial information counts, but practically almost any data about a person is tainted with fractions of bits of information about their sexual orientation (or political views, or almost any of the protected classes of information). Without resorting to information theory I don't really see any way forward that doesn't end up in endless court cases over how much information is too much. Then again we could just ban targeted advertising and avoid the whole issue in the first place. When differential privacy gets to a usable state we can worry about those instances where it would be nice to use some information for the public good without infringing privacy.