> I’d even argue that collecting anonymous data is likely not possible unless using something like differential privacy.
I think this is undeniably true.
Aside from differential privacy (which is pretty weak sauce itself), the only way there can be "anonymous data" about people is if that data is aggregated and only the aggregation is kept. The collected raw data must be deleted.
The problem with that is that there's no way to know if a company is actually doing that. All we have to go by is what they say, and I think a strong argument can be made that we shouldn't believe what companies say just because they say it. Especially if those companies are the likes of Facebook.
So, as things currently stand, "anonymous data collection" is a misnomer and any time I see a company asserting they're doing such a thing, I think that company is lying. Or, maybe worse, deluding themselves.
I think this is undeniably true.
Aside from differential privacy (which is pretty weak sauce itself), the only way there can be "anonymous data" about people is if that data is aggregated and only the aggregation is kept. The collected raw data must be deleted.
The problem with that is that there's no way to know if a company is actually doing that. All we have to go by is what they say, and I think a strong argument can be made that we shouldn't believe what companies say just because they say it. Especially if those companies are the likes of Facebook.
So, as things currently stand, "anonymous data collection" is a misnomer and any time I see a company asserting they're doing such a thing, I think that company is lying. Or, maybe worse, deluding themselves.