Originally posted by ad hoc
View Post
But the rest of it, properly anonymised, that is the stuff that was made available. It's all about inference. If the phone of Anonymous User X is in one place 6 evenings out of 7 and another 4 day times out of 7, then I can say with a degree of confidence where user X lives and works. I can cross-reference that with IP data (which is becoming sensitive under GDPR) and find out who the ISP is and probably confirm the place of work. Cross-referencing that with the electoral roll probably gives me a name. From that I can get bits of credit history. And so on. I've got name, income level and place of work from two pieces of anonymous data that the user agreed to share. And the other data is just used to refine the findings.
Facebook got very good at making that anonymous data targetable for advertising. CA got very good at figuring out exactly who to target. Governments got very interested in all this stuff because instead of installing surveillance cameras on every corner, they had access to a massive treasure trove of human behaviour for free because we were giving it to them. Because everyone was getting rich, or in the case of politicians and secret services, high on their own supply, they forgot that this stuff can be used for nefarious purposes. Or just ignored it, whatever.
Every so often we get stuff where Governments are complaining about encryption. It isn't about having access to the actual content, but the metadata around that content which is most cases just as valuable. What you know about a document is often just as important as what is in the document.
Comment