Re: Election Data

["CLAY S" <clay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't see how there are different definitions of anonymous.  Either the data set includes information about the voter, or it doesn't.

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 19:37, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, seth vidal wrote:
>
> Sufficient anonymization would mean the data would end up being:
>
> AAA:BBBBBBBB:CCC
>
> Seriously, there's no good way to anonymize it enough w/o making it
> useless.
>

And the trick / trap of the thing is my definition of anonymous and
$RANDOM_PRIVACY_ADVOCATE's definition of anonymous might be completely
different and if we've already released the results without us notifying
them first then we've caused a problem.

Seth's got it right, lets not be one of those organizations who doesn't
handle their user info with care.

       -Mike

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

--
clay shentrup
phone: 206.801.0484

"Iraq? No, YOU rock!"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board