5 ms·

I am not particularly looking for a debate today; but this seems to be a disagreement of terms when using the word "provable". Just because a polynomial time al

I am not particularly looking for a debate today; but this seems to be a disagreement of terms when using the word "provable". Just because a polynomial time algorithm can not be constructed to distinguish a single record does not mean private information can not be derived. I still would prefer a choice in the matter - a required small check box that says "record my data" or "do not record my data" XOR "erase my data". The term 'reasonably' has a very different meaning to me (assuming many unknowns in the future) over the long term. It is either that, or people should literally stop making such a hard line distinguishing person A from person B. If the data is going to be used to make an inference from the collective to the individual, and it doesn't matter whether my data is included or not, well, shrug and thumbs up. It really depends on the context of the application. Does it determine whether my imaginary future children get to go to college or not? The problem with data and private organizations is that we do not know what the data analysis is being used for, and as private citizens we do not have any control over how that data is mathematically reasoned about and qualitatively assessed aside from forging the data itself it (garbage in, garbage out).

j2kun 12y ago
They define what they mean by the word private, and then prove their mechanisms satisfy that definition. It's not a disagreement about the word "provable," it's that you don't agree that their definition of privacy is a good definition of privacy. That's fine, but your reason seems suspicious. If they could determine any information about you, then such an algorithm would fail if your data were not collected in the first place. Being able to derive private information implies the ability to distinguish. And I misspoke about polynomial time adversaries. Reading closer it looks like an information theoretic guarantee.
- cheatsheet 12y ago
  > That's fine, but your reason seems suspicious. I prefer to avoid living my life in a fishbowl. > provably private This does not have a mathematics definition. Private means not accessible to anyone aside from the owner. That is something that is provably private. > information theoretic guarantee This sounds like hand waving to get rid of actual concerns.
  - j2kun 12y ago
    Again, you are disagreeing with their chosen definition for a word you prefer to think of in a different way. Maybe you should study the issue instead of griping about how lame their version is. What does accessible mean? Who is the owner of a piece of data? For example, just because of our interaction here, I could probably get a pretty good estimate of your occupation, age, and gender. Is that "accessing" something? If so, does that mean speaking is enough to break privacy? Do you "own" your age and gender? If this conversation is enough for me to determine your age and gender, do you own this conversation?
    - cheatsheet 12y ago
      Definitions of words matter when people skim text as to determine how they communicate their opinions, form their opinions, and take action, including writing legislation. If I was actually typing out the opinions of my spouse word for word: whose age combined with my own is divisible by 3, how would that change your view?
      - j2kun 12y ago
        Of course definitions matter. My point is that your definition is not specific enough to be useful.
        cheatsheet 12y ago
        Yours is mathematically nonsensical. You either have discrete containers that denote privacy relations between information and parties or you do not have it at all. Privacy does not exist on a gradient on a computer. You can not calculate the percentage of how private something is. If it is marked 'private information' and that information is released to a party not under the user / group / role term that is supposed to have access to that category of information, then that information ceases to be private.
        Double_Cast 12y ago

j2kun 12y ago

They define what they mean by the word private, and then prove their mechanisms satisfy that definition. It's not a disagreement about the word "provable," it's that you don't agree that their definition of privacy is a good definition of privacy. That's fine, but your reason seems suspicious. If they could determine any information about you, then such an algorithm would fail if your data were not collected in the first place. Being able to derive private information implies the ability to distinguish. And I misspoke about polynomial time adversaries. Reading closer it looks like an information theoretic guarantee.

cheatsheet 12y ago
> That's fine, but your reason seems suspicious. I prefer to avoid living my life in a fishbowl. > provably private This does not have a mathematics definition. Private means not accessible to anyone aside from the owner. That is something that is provably private. > information theoretic guarantee This sounds like hand waving to get rid of actual concerns.
- j2kun 12y ago
  Again, you are disagreeing with their chosen definition for a word you prefer to think of in a different way. Maybe you should study the issue instead of griping about how lame their version is. What does accessible mean? Who is the owner of a piece of data? For example, just because of our interaction here, I could probably get a pretty good estimate of your occupation, age, and gender. Is that "accessing" something? If so, does that mean speaking is enough to break privacy? Do you "own" your age and gender? If this conversation is enough for me to determine your age and gender, do you own this conversation?
  - cheatsheet 12y ago
    Definitions of words matter when people skim text as to determine how they communicate their opinions, form their opinions, and take action, including writing legislation. If I was actually typing out the opinions of my spouse word for word: whose age combined with my own is divisible by 3, how would that change your view?
    - j2kun 12y ago
      Of course definitions matter. My point is that your definition is not specific enough to be useful.
      - cheatsheet 12y ago
        Yours is mathematically nonsensical. You either have discrete containers that denote privacy relations between information and parties or you do not have it at all. Privacy does not exist on a gradient on a computer. You can not calculate the percentage of how private something is. If it is marked 'private information' and that information is released to a party not under the user / group / role term that is supposed to have access to that category of information, then that information ceases to be private.
        Double_Cast 12y ago