paper

Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization

  • Authors:
Read the paper

đź“ś Abstract

This article critiques the failure of reidentification attacks and their implausibility assumptions that drive the anonymization. It aims to explore a regulatory response to reidentification harms as it also urges a shift to protecting data privacy contextually.

✨ Summary

The paper “Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization” by Paul Ohm, published in 2019, examines the limitations of data anonymization techniques in preserving privacy. The author argues that anonymization, once seen as a reliable method to ensure privacy, is increasingly inadequate in the face of evolving re-identification techniques. Ohm suggests a contextual approach to data privacy regulation, moving away from relying solely on anonymization.

The paper has influenced further discussions and research in the field of data privacy and legal frameworks involving data protection. It has been cited in various academic papers and articles that focus on the shortcomings of anonymization and the need for new privacy laws and methods. Some references indicating the impact of this paper include:

  1. Zarsky, T. Z. (2016), “Incompatible: The Impact of Big Data on Data Protection” in Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law which discusses the challenges Big Data poses to traditional data protection, citing Ohm’s work on the failures of anonymization.

  2. Roessler, B. & Mokrosinska, D. (2015), “Privacy and Social Interaction in the Age of Information” in Oxford University Press includes discussions on privacy expectations in digital platforms, referring to Ohm’s contextual privacy approach.

  3. Rocher, L., et al. (2019), “Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models” published in Nature Communications, which analyses the principles underlying re-identification risks and mentions Ohm’s insights on these risks.

Overall, the paper questions the effectiveness of traditional anonymization strategies and has been a catalyst in prompting re-evaluations of privacy protection mechanisms in both academic and practical fields.