Why Anonymized Data Isn't

Ars has a review of recent research, and a summary of the history, in the field of reidentification — identifying people from anonymized data. Paul Ohm's recent paper is an elaboration of what Ohm terms a central reality of data collection: "Data can either be useful or perfectly anonymous but never both." "...in 2000, [researcher Latanya Sweeney] showed that 87 percent of all Americans could be uniquely identified using only three bits of information: ZIP code, birthdate, and sex. ... For almost every person on earth, there is at least one fact about them stored in a computer database that an adversary could use to blackmail, discriminate against, harass, or steal the identity of him or her. I mean more than mere embarrassment or inconvenience; I mean legally cognizable harm. ... Reidentification science disrupts the privacy policy landscape by undermining the faith that we have placed in anonymization."

Comments

Damn voyeurism is all it is

[Ethanol-fueled]

For almost every person on earth, there is at least one fact about them stored in a computer database that an adversary could use to blackmail, discriminate against, harass, or steal the identity of him or her. I mean more than mere embarrassment or inconvenience; I mean legally cognizable harm.

...And this is the first thing that the author(s) though of regarding data-mining? Okay, but how would this happen? Why go through all the trouble to gather all that data when you could just hire a P.I. or know (or bribe) a law-enforcement official or an ISP employee? It Reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy who bragged that he could get anybody's info because a very good friend of his worked at the DMV. There were a couple semi-profile firings at the State Department because some employees snooped through celebrities' records for no reason other than voyeurism..er..curiosity.

Those types, the ones with the direct access to the info, are the weakest link. They're only human. "Hey, Bob, there's this guy I really hate. Look up his IP logs and tell me what you see!"

It all boils down to voyeurism. People would rather bring others down before bring their own lives up. It's the nature of the beast! Pathetic.

Re:Damn voyeurism is all it is

[causality]

But the voyeurism slant isn't newsworthy.

Then how do you explain shows like Entertainment Tonight and all of these magazines and Web sites devoted entirely to completely useless celebrity trivia? Y'know, the ability to obsess over the personal life of someone you have never met and will never personally know, merely because they can sing or act, should be recognized as a pathology. Voyeurism only seems to partly explain it; much of it seems to come from an empty and unsatisfying life that leads to an attempt to live vicariously through some sort of idol which is perceived to be successful, in that sense that "most men lead lives of quiet desperation". However stupid and useless it may be, I can't deny that many do consider it newsworthy and much of "the news" includes such elements.

Re:Damn voyeurism is all it is

[causality]

Do you mean, you think you could've gotten an individual's medical records in MA for less than $20? Or maybe you can't see why someone would dig up an individual's medical records? (I can think of many... but then my employer was extorted by someone who'd stolen a bunch of medical-related data from them not that long ago.)

I think I hear a bit of "nobody would go to all that trouble" in your message. If in the early days of WiFi networks I described to you in tedius yet vague terms how to compromise WEP encryption, you probably would've thought the same thing. Today anyone who cares to can break WEP using readily available tools - it's really no bother at all if you're even slightly inclined to do it.

I've seen companies with contractual and regulatory obligations to protect data privacy make half-gestures to make it look like they're honoring privacy while still engaging in whatever easy-money scheme or shortcut they want. Shedding light on why those half-gestures don't work is a big deal.

That's the thing that I also think people don't understand. With good reason, I am not satisfied merely that someone probably wouldn't want to abuse my information. I am satisfied only when I know that they cannot do so.

I think the solution is to have the concept of "intellectual property" work both ways. Obviously your private information has value, otherwise advertisers and other companies wouldn't go to such great lenghts to obtain and use it. The problem is that they obtain it without your consent and without directly compensating you. For example, if I don't actively block web bugs, cookies, HTTP "ping", analytics tools, and other similar attempts, then that data will be gathered whether or not I like it.

The reason why I actively go out of my way to prevent companies from gathering data on me is simple. No one asked me if I wanted to be data-mined. I refuse to honor agreements in which I did not participate. Why anyone else would do so is a mystery to me.

So make each individual's private data their personal property. They can set whatever value they like, and if that value is more than a company thinks it is worth, the company is free to decline the sale. Most importantly, any attempt to just take that data will be theft, and anyone who does this can be prosecuted in a criminal court. I mean, think about it: why is it "marketing" when a company helps itself to my information against my will and "piracy" or "industrial espionage" if I helped myself to THEIR zeroes and ones against their will?

Mission Impossible

[im_thatoneguy]

I've pretty much given up any hope of being anonymous. It's just going to get exponentially more difficult as time goes on.

I had my credit card stolen once. It was stolen from the CC company. How is a business supposed to entrust me with thousands of dollars in credit if they don't know who I am? How is a credit card company supposed to function without a worldwide network which authorizes transactions.

If someone wants to find me they'll find me.

If someone wants to use my identity to frame me for a crime then they're just going to encounter a mountain of evidence from numerous sources which contradict their fabrication.

"My G1 was on a Starbucks Wifi at the time of the crime. I used my CC to purchase the drink. I received a text from a nearby tower. I posted a comment on breaking news story that is written in my style of writing. I was seen on 8 security cameras walking to the starbucks from my car. I used an automatic toll card 5 miles away from the coffee shop...." Good luck coming up with a large mountain of evidence to put me somewhere else.

Re:Duh.

[garcia]

Am I the only one who always gives their birthday as 01/01/1970 and their zip code as 20500?

I use 1/1/1979 (it's closer to my real age) and 90210 instead. I get a lot of crosseyed looks and many times the cashier (or whatever human I'm dealing with) will end up entering in a local zip code instead but people are no longer arguing w/me about what I choose to provide them when pressured for information (I always politely reply, "no thanks," when asked for that type of information but will give them false shit when they ask again and whine that they'll be fired).

Why would I give 'em the right numbers? They're lucky I even allow them to have rough demographic data.

Because the majority of people have absolutely no problems handing over any and all information they're prompted for up to and including their e-mail address, phone number or even SSN! Because most people don't even blink, those of us that don't feel like it should be anyone's business (like the scanning of IDs at liquor stores or bars to check age--there is a birthdate listed on IDs for a fucking reason people--not that they can scan my rare earth magnet swiped ID anyway) are looked at like assholes when we refuse to provide information that no one really needs anyway.

Re:20500

[natehoy]

Because everyone knows that EVERYONE in DC lies.

Couple of things..

[hansraj]

Potential nitpick, but here goes.

The summary (not surprisingly for a /. summary) omits a couple of details that give the reader a rather partial picture.

For one, Paul Ohm is an Assistant Professor of law, and although the summary makes it sounds like the linked article would be from a technical perspective, (mostly) it is not.

A quote like:

"Data can either be useful or perfectly anonymous but never both."

needs a bit of background about the qualification of the person making that claim. Why? Simply because it sounds like a rather technical remark. If some computer science researcher made this claim, I would tend to take it more on the face value, otherwise I would take it with a grain of salt.

Now obviously this statement was not meant to be taken quite literally because the notion of "useful" is not precise. I can get reasonably useful information like "most of the people in my country like to buy branded stuff" or "most people who rent videos of actor X regularly, also rent the videos of actor Y regularly" without needing the underlying data to contain *any* personally identifiable information. The fact that extra data is store is a different thing.

I personally believe that instead of claiming that some researcher has argued X, it can be more informative to actually say what kind of researcher it is who made a claim. Not because only researchers in a certain area can be trusted, but because a little bit of background puts the claims in right perspective.

Anonymous can be useful..

[EasyTarget]

Data can either be useful or perfectly anonymous but never both

What a load of bolaks....

Supposing you have a list of -just- birth dates for every citizen at the census. You -only- have only been given one piece of data per person, the date, nothing more. Just a huge list of dates, sorted chronologically.
1) The data has been totally anonymised.
2) You can do all kinds of meaningful analysis on the age demographics of the population. And make policy decisions based on that.

Fully anonymous data producing useful results.