I would use this discussion to provide some 'small' edits to the document.
I would offer that to explain that the correlation of separate items of
information will be used by those who wish to circumvent the privacy desires
of a user fits within the document.
This is then justification for us
That works for me… it's compatible with further discussion that doesn't result
in changes to the draft's scope of contents.
R
Robin Wilton
Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
Internet Society
email: wil...@isoc.org
Phone: +44 705 005 2931
Twitter: @futureidentity
On 10 Aug 20
My 2c - as I said in my last message, I think the most the draft should do is
mention that data perturbation is an option, and give links to further
material. When we discuss anonymisation we don't go into detail about the
various methods that can be used to achieve it. We shouldn't with this ei
Hmm - but unacceptable to whom? There are definitely times when I am perfectly
comfortable self-asserting a false location. In fact, I'd go further and say
that in general, I have no use for location-based services…
To be honest, I think service providers often get the location-based services
ar
