zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. Freak_+(OP)[view] [source] 2019-07-24 11:10:32
What accounts for that remaining 2‰ of uncertainty?
replies(3): >>air7+d3 >>bsanr2+U6 >>Cynddl+c7
2. air7+d3[view] [source] 2019-07-24 11:44:12
>>Freak_+(OP)
Good question. I'd also assume that re-identification chances would always be of the form 100/k (k being the integer number of people who fit the bill)
3. bsanr2+U6[view] [source] 2019-07-24 12:17:26
>>Freak_+(OP)
Perhaps the risk that some of the data the probability is based on is wrong, e.g., "She fits the bill except they only have 4 children and the 5th is an entry error, so it's not her."
4. Cynddl+c7[view] [source] 2019-07-24 12:19:16
>>Freak_+(OP)
Co-author here. We designed a statistical model, which is never 100% sure a re-identification is correct. There is, e.g., a non-null probability that two individuals in the US share 5, 10, or even 15 demographics attribute.
replies(1): >>mnky98+el
◧◩
5. mnky98+el[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-07-24 13:56:14
>>Cynddl+c7
Can you provide a link to your paper?
replies(1): >>Cynddl+KD
◧◩◪
6. Cynddl+KD[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-07-24 15:49:27
>>mnky98+el
The article is available here, in open access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10933-3
[go to top]