zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. icedch+(OP)[view] [source] 2018-05-18 14:04:48
The solution is to keep a list of "things to exclude" if a backup is ever restored. This is reasonable. Rewriting old backups is not reasonable.
replies(1): >>badwol+jG
◧
2. badwol+jG[view] [source] 2018-05-18 19:15:59
>>icedch+(OP)
Would such a list not by nature consist of PII?
replies(1): >>icedch+fH
◧◩
3. icedch+fH[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 19:23:53
>>badwol+jG
Not necessarily. It might consist of user IDs (integers, UUIDs) or hashed values of something that can be mapped to the user...
replies(1): >>badwol+M31
◧◩◪
4. badwol+M31[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 23:01:16
>>icedch+fH
User ID's are considered PII though. If it can be mapped to the user, it's by definition identifying information
replies(1): >>icedch+f71
◧◩◪◨
5. icedch+f71[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 23:58:55
>>badwol+M31
Identifiers that have no meaning outside of your system are not PII.
replies(1): >>Boulth+q72
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. Boulth+q72[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-19 20:55:47
>>icedch+f71
Reading https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo... I would agree, of course if that identifier is not in some other database, that maps it to a person. If you have just ids in a backup and you remove the person-ID mapping this should be fine.
[go to top]