4 ms·
"De-identified" data is trivially easy to re-identify, especially by google. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/a-face-is-exposed-for-aol-searcher-n
by jordanb 2mo ago
"De-identified" data is trivially easy to re-identify, especially by google.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/a-face-is-exposed-for-aol-searcher-no-4417749.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/a-face-is-expo...
- limagnolia 2mo agoSure, you can argue that its a bad deal, shouldn't be allowed period, etc. But that is a different argument than saying that there is no scrutiny.
- girvo 2mo agoThe argument is that the scrutiny is in practice not sufficient, as usual in these cases.
- vkou 2mo agoThe argument generally doesn't demonstrate that. The argument generally goes: 1. Google could do it. 2. <This space is intentionally left blank> 3. Therefore, Google is doing it! (Step 2 needs to be filled in a bit for it to be a good argument. Generally, analogies don't quite make the cut.)
- mring33621 2mo agoYou are ignoring the value of previous experience: Please replace 'Google' with 'Profit-driven legal entity in the USA' and reread your argument. The parent is making an assumption, based on past experience, but is also Most Likely correct.
- andybak 2mo agoAt the risk of posting without adding anything substantive, I find this an exceedingly convincing argument.
- goalieca 2mo agoInsufficient scrutiny would be more apt.
- xp84 2mo agoSounds like a case of “there’s not enough scrutiny unless the decision ends up agreeing with my position”
- PowerElectronix 2mo agoSpecially when you have a list of flights, people on board, issues, etc... The fact that they are specifically tellling people to not worry about that is also a red flag for me. They know what they'd worry about if they were the affected ones.