Election Data

[CLAY S]

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 at redhat.com> 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 at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
>



-- 
clay shentrup
phone: 206.801.0484

"Iraq? No, YOU rock!"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20080727/e5d9b864/attachment.html