- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 04:48:43 -0700
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- CC: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
Fascinating! So if the Geolocation says "Boston" your algorithms, based on past behavior I presume, can pinpoint the location. All the best, Ashok On 8/8/2012 5:49 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 8 August 2012 15:37, Ashok Malhotra<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote: >> In the Geolocation work, one of the features that was discussed was an >> option that would >> provide an indistinct location such as the town or the county or perhaps >> even only the country. >> This adds fuzziness although not noise. If you add noise then, in the >> location case, you could end >> up with an incorrect location which may not be acceptable > Speaking as someone intimately involved in the research into location > "fuzzing", the geopriv working group came to an interesting set of > conclusions: > > First and foremost, don't bother. Every algorithm we developed could > be easily attacked or circumvented by someone who has more information > than the fuzzer. We had some good algorithms that would be really > effective at hiding the location of someone who is moving randomly > across salt flats, desert or ocean. For real-world applications those > same algorithms sucked. Human beings are just far too predictable. > > Now I don't know this for certain, but - intuitively - this same > conclusion most likely applies to other aspects of data minimization. > > --Martin
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 11:47:26 UTC