UK Wants To Criminalize Re-Identification of Anonymized User Data (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader writes: European countries are currently implementing new data protection laws. Recently, despite leaving the European Union, the United Kingdom has expressed intent to implement the law called General Data Protection Regulation. As an extension, the UK wants to to ban re-identification (with a penalty of unlimited fines), the method of reversing anonymization, or pointing out the weakness of the used anonymisation process. One famous example was research re-identifying Netflix users from published datasets. By banning re-identification, UK follows the lead of Australia which is considering enacting similarly controversial law that can lead to making privacy research difficult or impossible. Privacy researchers express concerns about the effectiveness of the law that could even complicate security, a view shared by privacy advocates.

Comments

Disempowers the masses

[aberglas]

The extreme focus on privacy disempowers ordinary people from making their on inquiries. And strongly contrasts with the total access demanded by government. Combined with censorship of the web which has become a major form of communication, this shifts the balance of power away from the common man towards government bureaucrats.

Re:Disempowers the masses

[Anonymous Coward]

And anyway, it mostly just makes beneficial security research harder, while doing nothing to protect privacy (since criminals and governments will just do this anyway).

All they really want to do is punish ordinary people when they discover embarrassing things about politicians using public data. Everything else is just hot air.

Re: Disempowers the masses

[dunkelfalke]

The law is about all people who don't want unneeded intrusion in their lives. Americans don't get it and this is why they get dozens of robocalls a week. I get one a year in worst case.

What the what?

[Anonymous Coward]

. As an extension, the UK wants to to ban re-identification...or pointing out the weakness of the used anonymisation process.

There is this persistent undercurrent from governments that security researchers are the enemies. As if weaknesses don't exist until someone points them out. The apparent opinion is that we'd be safer if only people weren't free to point out the flaws in the system. The actual reality is the reverse.

Like ROT-13 is encryption

[Kjella]

The biggest problem I see with this is that it flips the responsibility over to the one who says the emperor has no clothes. While it is difficult to create truly anonymous data and it would be nice to stop large law-abiding companies from trying to break down any compartmentalization you've done, I fear the effect will be quite the opposite. Because now if you call anyone out on poor anonymization it must be because you've tried exactly what this law prohibits, so white hats will be silenced. The companies will get lazier, because it's cheaper. And the black hats will have a field day with it.

Re:Does the "UK" not realize this is their problem

[ckatko]

Guess you guys shouldn't have given up your guns, eh?

I'll never be able to figure out how liberals think gun ownership is pointless when you have a police force (actual US supreme court justice dissenting opinion in D.C. v Heller), but at the same time think the police force is inept and the bastion of racism and sexism.

Which is it? Can we depend on them or not? Why would you take all the guns away from people, and then give them to the people accused of shooting blacks for fun? Wouldn't it make more sense to give citizens the right to defend themselves--even from corrupt cops and corrupt "institutions"?