On 5 June 2015 at 10:38, Dan Andreescu <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
I don't think it is if it is! As you said, though, we need to hammer on it for a while to make absolutely sure it's okay, and using lower-resolution data would not only make this easier but also reduce the cost of getting people wrong (geolocating people to MA is less dangerous than geolocating them to Arlington) > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
