4 ms·

"It was based on anonymized tracking of cars" If it was anonymized, they could in theory release the data, right? However the article states "all the data gath

by mrb 14y ago

"It was based on anonymized tracking of cars" If it was anonymized, they could in theory release the data, right? However the article states "all the data gathered in the study will be kept confidential". Don't these 2 statements contradict each other? Why would they need to keep anonymous data confidential?

anigbrowl 14y ago
Because other parties could work out a person's identity from their regular point of origin/journey route, and thereby invade their privacy.
sp332 14y ago
It's surprisingly easy to de-anonymize an anonymized dataset. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/09/your-secrets-live-online-in-databases-of-ruin/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/09/your-secrets-live... Just because the researchers decided to keep their subject's privacy doesn't mean they should publish the data for any troll to play with.
gte910h 14y ago
It is nontrivial to make data so anonymous NO ONE can deanonymize it. It's considerably easier to make data anonymous in a way that people acting in good faith to not try to deanonymize it won't realize who is who
- peeters 14y ago
  It is nontrivial to make data so anonymous NO ONE can deanonymize it and still preserve the salient information.
rcthompson 14y ago
There's a limit to how much such data can be truly anonymized, especially when it can be combined with other data sources. Would you be ok with someone relating an "anonymized" database of fingerprints? Of sequenced human genomes? Of credit card transactions? Anonymization is tricky.
- danielweber 14y ago
  That's the problem AOL ran into when it released their anonymous web search data several years ago. I think their hearts were in the right place, but it turned out, even though AOL had no interest in attaching real names, that there were enough artifacts in there that other people could. Especially if it spilled hot soup on AOL.
russell 14y ago
The two statements are consistent. In order to do the analysis they need to keep track of the full paths that the individual drivers make. Given the paths, particularly over a period of time, it is easy to identify individuals, even if you dont have their names to begin with.
- mrb 14y ago
  Then it sounds like they have data tracking drivers even off the main roads: homes, driveways, small residential streets, parking lots, office buildings. IOW it sounds like they could have done a better job at anonymizing it by truncating driver paths that are off the main roads and highways to only keep data relevant to their study.
  - alttab 14y ago
    How do you know what data is relevant? Ey did the right thing by not sharing the data.
    - mrb 14y ago
      They study high traffic density, so by definition, irrelevant data is data where traffic is under a certain density, which would automatically exclude private areas (homes, driveways, etc).
      - mrb 14y ago
        Ah, unexplained downvotes on what I believe is a reasonable point I make... At the very least, if data cannot be made anonymous, and can so easily be associated to persons, then this is an argument that they should have never collected it without my consent in the first place. This would be an invasion of my privacy.
- zzleeper 14y ago
  Maybe they can delete the first 100m of every trip, so it would be harder to poinpoint locations w/out losing that much
Natsu 14y ago
I remember reading about a study where your commute was nearly good enough to completely out you, or something like that.
newman314 14y ago
Well since the researchers had to identify the culprits that were slowing down others, it's not truly anonymous. See other's comments about de-anon. I wonder how many of these "anonymous" drivers knew that their data was being used this way and would consent to doing so if they knew it. EDIT: Enh? Why the downvotes? Please explain if you are going to do so.
- jeltz 14y ago
  The research did not care about identifying the culprits more than by where their starts and destinations and at which times and speeds they travel. Knowing the identity is rather useless to the research.

by mrb 14y ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

Because other parties could work out a person's identity from their regular point of origin/journey route, and thereby invade their privacy.

sp332 14y ago

It's surprisingly easy to de-anonymize an anonymized dataset. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/09/your-secrets-live-online-in-databases-of-ruin/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/09/your-secrets-live... Just because the researchers decided to keep their subject's privacy doesn't mean they should publish the data for any troll to play with.

gte910h 14y ago

It is nontrivial to make data so anonymous NO ONE can deanonymize it. It's considerably easier to make data anonymous in a way that people acting in good faith to not try to deanonymize it won't realize who is who

peeters 14y ago
It is nontrivial to make data so anonymous NO ONE can deanonymize it and still preserve the salient information.

rcthompson 14y ago

There's a limit to how much such data can be truly anonymized, especially when it can be combined with other data sources. Would you be ok with someone relating an "anonymized" database of fingerprints? Of sequenced human genomes? Of credit card transactions? Anonymization is tricky.

danielweber 14y ago
That's the problem AOL ran into when it released their anonymous web search data several years ago. I think their hearts were in the right place, but it turned out, even though AOL had no interest in attaching real names, that there were enough artifacts in there that other people could. Especially if it spilled hot soup on AOL.

russell 14y ago

The two statements are consistent. In order to do the analysis they need to keep track of the full paths that the individual drivers make. Given the paths, particularly over a period of time, it is easy to identify individuals, even if you dont have their names to begin with.

mrb 14y ago
Then it sounds like they have data tracking drivers even off the main roads: homes, driveways, small residential streets, parking lots, office buildings. IOW it sounds like they could have done a better job at anonymizing it by truncating driver paths that are off the main roads and highways to only keep data relevant to their study.
- alttab 14y ago
  How do you know what data is relevant? Ey did the right thing by not sharing the data.
  - mrb 14y ago
    They study high traffic density, so by definition, irrelevant data is data where traffic is under a certain density, which would automatically exclude private areas (homes, driveways, etc).
    - mrb 14y ago
      Ah, unexplained downvotes on what I believe is a reasonable point I make... At the very least, if data cannot be made anonymous, and can so easily be associated to persons, then this is an argument that they should have never collected it without my consent in the first place. This would be an invasion of my privacy.
zzleeper 14y ago
Maybe they can delete the first 100m of every trip, so it would be harder to poinpoint locations w/out losing that much

Natsu 14y ago

I remember reading about a study where your commute was nearly good enough to completely out you, or something like that.

newman314 14y ago

Well since the researchers had to identify the culprits that were slowing down others, it's not truly anonymous. See other's comments about de-anon. I wonder how many of these "anonymous" drivers knew that their data was being used this way and would consent to doing so if they knew it. EDIT: Enh? Why the downvotes? Please explain if you are going to do so.

jeltz 14y ago
The research did not care about identifying the culprits more than by where their starts and destinations and at which times and speeds they travel. Knowing the identity is rather useless to the research.