2 ms·
A marketer's definition of anonymized is worthless. It's a fantasy they want everyone else to believe in. If it can be "de-anonymized" then it was never anonym
by rockskon 6mo ago
A marketer's definition of anonymized is worthless. It's a fantasy they want everyone else to believe in.
If it can be "de-anonymized" then it was never anonymous to begin with.
"De-anonymized" is quite literally an oxymoron.
- thfuran 6mo agoDoes that mean that no non-post-quantum encryption was ever actually encryption because in 20 years someone will be able to decrypt things?
- abustamam 6mo ago> A marketer's definition of anonymized is worthless. It's a fantasy they want everyone else to believe in. I'm using your definition. > Does it map to a single, identifiable person or something close enough that the distinction is meaningless? Also > If it can be "de-anonymized" then it was never anonymous to begin with. Well sure, that's the point I was trying to make in my rhetorical question above. Individual pieces of data may be "anonymous" but put together with other anonymous data that can be traced to a single source and suddenly you can figure out quite easily who this person is. The data itself is still technically anonymous but it can be pieced together.