4 ms·

Published study for those who want it. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6221/536.full.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6221/536.full.pdf

• chubot 12y ago
  So basically it's saying that removing the names and addresses isn't sufficient to anonymize a data set. Didn't we already know that 10 years ago? They are saying you just need to know 4 times and places that a person has been, and you have a 90% chance of identifying their entire history via the user_id in the data set. And if you know the price of a transaction they made, the probability goes up. Is that very surprising?
  • DanBC 12y ago
    It's a bit surprising that they get such accuracy from so little information. The obvious case is a lot of information can identify people with greater than chance probibility.
    • chubot 12y ago
      But it requires the attacker to know a lot of information in the first place: 4 time/date pairs. In other words, if you already know a lot of information about a person, you can get even more information from the "anonymous" data set. Why is that surprising?
  • forgottenpass 12y ago
    So basically it's saying that removing the names and addresses isn't sufficient to anonymize a data set. Didn't we already know that 10 years ago? Yes, but businesses that trade in aggressive data tracking and/or analysis have been quite successful at downplaying the meaningfulness of their data in the common person's eyes. Anyone who doesn't understand working on the datasets has to rely on the press, and they've largely listened to the fox standing next to the henhouse. Why wouldn't they? He's got a nice suit and a mastery of language that makes nay-sayers look like conspiracy theorists.