> > Gotcha. Reading that proposal it appears to be a proposal for a > methodology that will enable future proposals; where are the future > proposals?
Well, so the geo cube has to guess a bit at who would find it useful in the future. > It also says "in many countries, disease monitoring must be > carried out at the state or metro-area level" - which countries have > to be metro-level? Who are we risking the entire reader population > for, here? Is it one country, or ten, or? > > For what it's worth I love the idea of this kind of live stream. But I > want to make sure that how the various chunks are being prioritised, > and how critical they are to the outside world, is correlated - and is > correlated with the underlying data's sensitivity, at that. If we're > introducing risks by going down to city level and the actual use cases > for city level data are limited, let's not do that - but this proposal > doesn't provide thoughts on how limited those use cases are. It just > says that it's required in some countries. I agree with you, but I'm not sure the data is risky if it's k-anonymous. Most likely, just doing that will limit the countries for which metro level data is available.
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
