CDR: Re: A helpful ruling on "anonymity"

[Ray Dillinger]

On 17 Oct 2000, Matt Curtin wrote:

>With all of the people running around claiming that data which are
>pseudonymous are actually anonymous, it's no wonder that there's so
>much confusion.
>
>http://www.consumerreports.org/Special/ConsumerInterest/Reports/0005pri1.htm
>
>Trying to point out the property of pseudonymity and to highlight the
>differences between privacy risks inherent to pseudonymous and
>anonymous data is a great way to get yourself labeled a pedant, 

Basically, whether it's math or crypto, there are some ideas that 
people just aren't going to "get" because they always lump unfamiliar 
things together if those things violate the same assumption.

In math, they used to look at me blankly when I explained that there
was more than one kind of infinity -- Or about transfinite numbers 
that *weren't* an infinity -- because they only know finite mathematics.  
Anything outside that realm is, well, infinity, and one infinity, 
as far as the sheeple are concerned, is as good as another. 

Likewise, people who only understand speech and business mediated 
by absolute identities are going to have trouble with the "subtle" 
difference between anonymity and pseudonymity.  It's a model 
where you are dealing with someone but don't know who they are,
and as far as the sheeple are concerned, one not-knowing is as 
good as another.  It violates the same assumption, therefore in 
popular view, it must be the same thing.

*sigh.*

			Bear