3 ms·

It's not a false dichotomy: most of the time data collection and analysis does not preserve privacy. In all cases, you can't guarantee that. You also didn't re

It's not a false dichotomy: most of the time data collection and analysis does not preserve privacy. In all cases, you can't guarantee that. You also didn't respond to this: > Furthermore, even if a company was using differential privacy to anonymize data between the collection and the processing step, there is no way to prove that the data is being handled appropriately before and during the collection step. Also, there is no way for a company to prove that they continue to handle data appropriately over time. Any company using shroudbase can choose to stop using shroudbase at any time, or accidentally introduce a bug into their collection method, or start also saving the data in MySQL at collection time. Tools like that are useful to distribute data from trusted to non-trusted parties. You still have to trust the analytics and advertising companies doing the collection.

j2kun 12y ago
You also can't prove that someone won't poison your soup before, during, or after it was prepared from raw ingredients. But you don't claim either to avoid all soup or die. This is because you can give very good guarantees that if the correct process is followed then that won't happen. This is pretty much how we get by in all areas of life. Trust is a default and it has to be for society to function. If we can back up that trust by provably good protocols, then one must be malicious in order to break the system.
- oconnore 12y ago
  Your chef doesn't have a large monetary incentive to poison your soup. Would you eat the food if he did?
  - j2kun 12y ago
    They have large monetary incentives to cut corners when it comes to QA and picking a distributor. One big thing stopping them is oversight, which is perfectly reasonable to impose on data collection policies. But what do you need to do so? Proof that the imposed policies give a good guarantee.

j2kun 12y ago

You also can't prove that someone won't poison your soup before, during, or after it was prepared from raw ingredients. But you don't claim either to avoid all soup or die. This is because you can give very good guarantees that if the correct process is followed then that won't happen. This is pretty much how we get by in all areas of life. Trust is a default and it has to be for society to function. If we can back up that trust by provably good protocols, then one must be malicious in order to break the system.

oconnore 12y ago
Your chef doesn't have a large monetary incentive to poison your soup. Would you eat the food if he did?
- j2kun 12y ago
  They have large monetary incentives to cut corners when it comes to QA and picking a distributor. One big thing stopping them is oversight, which is perfectly reasonable to impose on data collection policies. But what do you need to do so? Proof that the imposed policies give a good guarantee.