11–20 of 80 posts
I would certainly rather they erred on the side of privacy. If the data cannot be released without compromising privacy, I would rather it not be released at all.
The point is that there is no meaningful gain in privacy, and it comes at the cost of crippling important research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that there is no meaningful gain in privacy, and it comes at the cost of crippling important research.
Quoted post unavailable.
I would certainly rather they erred on the side of privacy. If the data cannot be released without compromising privacy, I would rather it not be released at all.
I would certainly rather they erred on the side of privacy. If the data cannot be released without compromising privacy, I would rather it not be released at all.
Definition of privacy derangement syndrome, right there. This is superficial "privacy" which affords no marginal improvement in your actual privacy but does concretely break the Census.
Also, why is the Census (or any collective action) more important than an individual's subjective view of privacy (or any private thought)?
I have similar hesitations about registering to vote in my state (North Carolina) because it makes voter record data available to “Any person upon request and for a fee. Free lists are provided upon request to political parties.” [1]. My name, address, etc. ended up on dozens of sketchy websites after registering to vote previously. Privacy conscious legislation can’t come soon enough. [1]: https://www.ncsl.org/resea…
I have similar hesitations about registering to vote in my state (North Carolina) because it makes voter record data available to “Any person upon request and for a fee. Free lists are provided upon request to political parties.” [1]. My name, address, etc. ended up on dozens of sketchy websites after registering to vote previously. Privacy conscious legislation can’t come soon enough. [1]: https://www.ncsl.org/resea…
Maybe it would make it ok to donate if you also found a likable person on the other side to give money to at the same time.
Being able to doxx with PII was shown to be able to be done in the suburbs, so this is more accurately phrased as "anyone in low-density suburbs and below are at-risk." If the author doesn't care about that, then just say it. There's many deanonymization attacks, and this is just one, but it showcases just how little is required with an actual dataset: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf
The authors basic argument can be summarized as, "Well, companies already list all your personal data, or just flat out abuse it. So, let the government also list your personal data so we can make congressional seats as accurate as possible." Congressional seats being affected by census data scrubbing is not good, it should be fixed, but open data to the public that can be enumerated and deanonymized isn't a good thing either.
If the census can't be anonymized, or is rolled back then I imagine we'll have to start warning people about participating in the census. The irony at that point is your census data also won't be accurate because of a lack of participation.
>Private companies are already scrutinizing your purchase patterns to determine that you are pregnant and then potentially getting in hot water for notifying relatives you haven’t actually informed. >Given that baseline reality, compromising the usefulness of Census data for the sake of minimal privacy gains seems really bad. The difference is that you can opt out of various companies collecting data. Can you opt out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definition of privacy derangement syndrome, right there. This is superficial "privacy" which affords no marginal improvement in your actual privacy but does concretely break the Census.
Where is that definition from? I couldn't find it in DSM-5. Also, why is the Census (or any collective action) more important than an individual's subjective view of privacy (or any private thought)?
The term defines itself. I assume you understand what is meant by Privacy Derangement Syndrome, something like: valuing privacy above all other virtues. For example, somebody who refuses to use a mobile phone due to iOS privacy concerns, and falls out of touch with family and friends.
But I don't even really appreciate this point even as a joke. The idea that every possible mental malady is constrained and gatekept by a single book seems entirely too rigid.
The subjective view of privacy has some value, I'll grant that, but so to does a municipality preparing to lay infrastructure to support a growing population. When it comes to tangible value, the census is one of the most well-known value-adding resources I can think of.
I almost never argue against privacy, and policies and measures protecting individual privacy. But the US census is value-adding for research, policy, and individual purposes, let there be no doubt.