2 ms·

I don't dispute your example, but I suspect there is a non-zero number of cases that would not be so extreme, so obviously identifiable. So, sure, no panacea,

I don't dispute your example, but I suspect there is a non-zero number of cases that would not be so extreme, so obviously identifiable. So, sure, no panacea, but .. why not for the cases where it would be a barrier?

blagie 1y ago
Because such cases don't really exist. Your text used an unusual double ellipsis (" .. " instead of "... "), uncommon (not rare) generative vocabulary ("panacea"), etc. Statistics on those allows for pretty good re-identification. Ditto for times you do things and work schedule. Etc. It's not "obviously identifiable," but a buffer overflow is not "obviously exploitable." Rather, it takes a very, very expert individual to write a script before everyone can exploit it. Ditto here.