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<[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________
ietf-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
