131–140 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re welcome to give all your money away first, then worry about taking others.
You a temporarily embarrassed billionaire? Paying their fair share in taxes (corporate and otherwise) is far from "taking all their money away".
but lets be real, they pay shillbots
e.g. 50% or more internet traffic is now bot: https://cpl.thalesgroup.com/about-us/newsroom/2025-imperva-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your sentence reads weird, like if you're missing some key words or context.
"Differential privacy" is the technology they are referring to. Their English is fine, you're the one missing something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to emphasize that coarsening is not just theoretically non-private, a number of attacks that lead to leaking personally identifiable data were demonstrated on the 2010 census. So it's not really a he-said/she-said situation.
That's not what I said or implied it is. I said there has been criticism of using differential privacy and linked to it. I also mentioned the reconstruction attacks on coarsening. Those two things can be true at the same time.
1 https://apnews.com/article/2020-census-bureau-redistricting-...
Can anyone explain me why the Heritage foundation targeted these statistical techniques? What's the political motive behind it?
The 2020 Census had a number of issues and many of them ended up giving the Democrats more seats in the House than they should have. Oh, and the Census results were due at the White House in December 2016, but somehow they didn't reach the WH until January 21, 2017. Was Differential Privacy specifically involved? I don't think so, but I think it's being lumped into the mix and being blamed for the other issues.
Also... the first census results typically come out in the same year, e.g. December 2020, not 2016? More detailed demographer data take a bit longer. COVID was really the cause for delayed releases.
> On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce issued a directive (DAO 216-26) > DAO-216-26 bans differential privacy and other modern (and not so modern) techniques. It restricts disclosure avoidance techniques to “coarsening,” > DAO-216-26 forbids “noise infusion”, described as “methods that involve modifying a dataset by adding random values, or noise.” > By forbidding noise infusion, the directive bans the dis…
Coursening is not as elegant as differential privacy. But using coursening is not a "privacy emergency", it is a very-slightly-less-accurate census. And no one knows what the actual economic impacts of this level of accuracy difference are. I would love to see the more elegant techniques used, and also have the intuition that this is bad policy, but I don't see the "emergency" here. Labeling it as such just histrioni…
Can anyone explain me why the Heritage foundation targeted these statistical techniques? What's the political motive behind it?
Can anyone explain me why the Heritage foundation targeted these statistical techniques? What's the political motive behind it?
The 2020 Census had a number of issues and many of them ended up giving the Democrats more seats in the House than they should have. Oh, and the Census results were due at the White House in December 2016, but somehow they didn't reach the WH until January 21, 2017. Was Differential Privacy specifically involved? I don't think so, but I think it's being lumped into the mix and being blamed for the other issues.
Do you have any source on that. For a census issue to have an actual impact in an election outcome, it must either be:
- a lucky issue (flipping a very close race from one side to the other)
- a very big issue
Both can happen occasionally, but I have a hard time imagining “many of them” occurring in the same election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a very low opinion of the current US administration, which might be a blindspot when they do something both horrible and not caveman-like in its sophistication. I’m genuinely surprised they would look into differential privacy (again: this sounds judgmental, but I’m just trying to confess my prejudice). I’m more surprised that they were able to look into it and come to the conclusion that they should get rid o…
From the second linked article, this could be a motive: > People who were using Census data to actually reconstruct records could no longer do so. Demographers admitted that this was common practice. It's also an open secret that this was done by political operatives as part of gerrymandering efforts. https://desfontain.es/blog/banning-noise.html
I think they are using any data source, private and public to compile enemy lists. We will see them use it to manipulate the mid term elections. Isnt it wise at this point to assume that extend of malignance and long term plannig?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're heavily downvoted, and while this admin is absolutely autocratic far beyond anything we've ever seen, and democracy is eroding rapidly: privacy has backslid under every administration. Obama had nearly a decade to revert the patriot act, along with other nefarious shit introduced after 9/11 like PRISM, but did nothing to touch it. America has been creeping towards a surveillance state for decades, regardless o…
couldn’t give two shits about being downvoted but of course tells you all you need to know about what HN has become :)
Ofc not. Your statement is bs and deserves all the downvotes. You should take a closer look at the democrats in-fightig, maybe even participate in it, and tell again if a grass roots movement would ne equally bad. To me, this just sounds like you post-hoc rationalizing the idiocy you once voted for. Kamala wouldnt have been worse, same applies to McCain or even Pence.