87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip} • Hacker News Board

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#11

Post by mbrubeck » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:41 PM UTC

Zakuzaa wrote: post #8

I don't find that number surprising. DOB along with zip is pretty good data. What I'd find amusing would be how much of the population is uniquely identifiable by browser+plugins+os+resolution.

The EFF has done some research on that question: https://panopticlick.eff.org/

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#12

Post by marshray » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:43 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #10

[deleted]

That's what makes it so paradoxical!

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#13

Post by Zimahl » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:44 PM UTC

Putting it to a non-scientific test, where I grew up is within the zip code of 98632. From the 2000 census there are 47,202 within that zip code. This is probably a good average city for America - not too big, not too small. Based on the fact that there are 366 possible (year excluded) birthdays (I'm including Feb. 29th) and only two genders, just about the best I can do for uniquely identifying people in that county is 1 in 64. Add in the year and what I would assume is an even population between the ages of 1 to 50 and that gets you closer to 1:1. Not bad.

A zip code with large populations probably are more around 50% than 87%, and obviously the reverse is true as well. I wonder what the population size for a zip code would have to be to be really close to 100%. Just throwing some numbers in a calculator I'd guess at 15-20k people would be damn close. So 10k is probably just about a unique identifier.

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#14

Post by ashmud » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:44 PM UTC

Zakuzaa wrote: post #8

I don't find that number surprising. DOB along with zip is pretty good data. What I'd find amusing would be how much of the population is uniquely identifiable by browser+plugins+os+resolution.

Panopticlick (EFF) tests browser uniqueness. https://panopticlick.eff.org/

Edit: Beaten like a dead horse.

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#15

Post by doctoboggan » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:47 PM UTC

kingkilr wrote: post #7

There were no other males, born on october 8th 1990, in Lakeview, Chicago. I'm a little flabbergasted, to be frank.

I too am having some problems digesting this. I think we are missing something.

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#16

Post by koenigdavidmj » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:48 PM UTC

Zimahl wrote: post #13

Putting it to a non-scientific test, where I grew up is within the zip code of 98632. From the 2000 census there are 47,202 within that zip code. This is probably a good average city for America - not too big, not too small. Based on the fact that there are 366 possible (year excluded) birthdays (I'm including Feb. 29th) and only two genders, just about the best I can do for uniquely identifying people in that county…

Longview probably just has the one zip code. Seattle has 59, for just over 10000 average per zip code, so we up here are probably a bit worse in a big city.

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#17

Post by simonw » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:49 PM UTC

Zimahl wrote: post #13

Putting it to a non-scientific test, where I grew up is within the zip code of 98632. From the 2000 census there are 47,202 within that zip code. This is probably a good average city for America - not too big, not too small. Based on the fact that there are 366 possible (year excluded) birthdays (I'm including Feb. 29th) and only two genders, just about the best I can do for uniquely identifying people in that county…

Your calculations would be very different if you included the year in the DOB.

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#18

Post by Zimahl » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:50 PM UTC

kingkilr wrote: post #7

There were no other males, born on october 8th 1990, in Lakeview, Chicago. I'm a little flabbergasted, to be frank.

October 8th is an odd date. Since it's my birthday as well (long before 1990 though) I have taken note that I run across very few with that birthday, let alone early October birthdays. Is it statistically a low-birth month? I'd love to know.

On a side note, Happy 21st Birthday in just over a month!

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#19

Post by sophacles » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:53 PM UTC

Zimahl wrote: post #13

Putting it to a non-scientific test, where I grew up is within the zip code of 98632. From the 2000 census there are 47,202 within that zip code. This is probably a good average city for America - not too big, not too small. Based on the fact that there are 366 possible (year excluded) birthdays (I'm including Feb. 29th) and only two genders, just about the best I can do for uniquely identifying people in that county…

If they have zip+4 info, this gets even easier.

Re: 87% of the U.S. Population are uniquely identified by {DOB, gender, zip}

#20

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 8:53 PM UTC

Zimahl wrote: post #13

Putting it to a non-scientific test, where I grew up is within the zip code of 98632. From the 2000 census there are 47,202 within that zip code. This is probably a good average city for America - not too big, not too small. Based on the fact that there are 366 possible (year excluded) birthdays (I'm including Feb. 29th) and only two genders, just about the best I can do for uniquely identifying people in that county…

[deleted]