The linked article is making the point that the judge is claiming that they are preserving privacy with this order because they believe in de-anonymization of t

The linked article is making the point that the judge is claiming that they are preserving privacy with this order because they believe in de-anonymization of the data set. The judge appears to have no understanding of how re-identification works and the history here. So while it's an interesting question about whether privacy exists, the point here is that it doesn't exist, but the judge is saying it does.