On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 01:49:02PM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > While there is such a thing as legal definitions of personally > identifiable information, is the idea that this division exists, i.e. > that information can be identified in a context-free way as implying > other information, while other information cannot, even plausible?
If I understand your question correctly, no. Case in point, using Netflix ratings to identify political preferences: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf > My information theoretic background is pretty close to nonexistent, > but my intuition says no. My ordinary rule is to be skeptical of any broad, or universal claims - that such-and-such is always, or never, the case. Such things are difficult to prove, though clearly falsifiable, something which physical sciences should have taught me, but which for some reason computer security still frequently surprises me with. The difficulty of proving such is usually what is meant by "proving a negative": negate(exist(A)) == universal(not(A)) As a matter of pedantry, "it is not the case that this room is painted black everywhere" is proven by a spot of white: negate(universal(A)) == exist(not(A)) Side channels, inference, and so on are deadly to theoretical arguments about logical impossibility in real systems. -- http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ Split a packed field and I am there; parse a line of text and you will find me.
pgpokMRd7GB00.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ langsec-discuss mailing list langsec-discuss@mail.langsec.org https://mail.langsec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/langsec-discuss
