"De-identified" data is trivially easy to re-identify, especially by google.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/a-face-is-expo...
"De-identified" data is trivially easy to re-identify, especially by google.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/a-face-is-expo...
Specially when you have a list of flights, people on board, issues, etc... The fact that they are specifically tellling people to not worry about that is also a red flag for me. They know what they'd worry about if they were the affected ones.
Sure, you can argue that its a bad deal, shouldn't be allowed period, etc. But that is a different argument than saying that there is no scrutiny.
Sounds like a case of “there’s not enough scrutiny unless the decision ends up agreeing with my position”
The argument is that the scrutiny is in practice not sufficient, as usual in these cases.
The argument generally doesn't demonstrate that. The argument generally goes:
1. Google could do it.
2. <This space is intentionally left blank>
3. Therefore, Google is doing it!
(Step 2 needs to be filled in a bit for it to be a good argument. Generally, analogies don't quite make the cut.)
Insufficient scrutiny would be more apt.