I’m not sure I’m expressing this in clear terms. The same company is collecting data and anonymizing it. They have people dedicated to review which data a service is designed to store, to classify that data according to their privacy implications, and to anonymize all data they have in order to comply with all sorts of legislation.
If the data they are collecting isn’t anonymous, or could be deanonimized, they are liable to pay huge fines and suffer other painful legal consequences.
This is not about hypothetical scenarios where you can argue that tracking random brower fingerprints can pinpoint who you are. This is about a single company having to legally demonstrate they do not directly or indirectly abuse personally identifiable information, otherwise they have to pay a fortune in fines for no good reason.
I’m not sure how to express it any clearer: anonimized info, by definition and by design, does not and cannot lead to tracking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_re-identification
I’m not sure I’m expressing this in clear terms. The same company is collecting data and anonymizing it. They have people dedicated to review which data a service is designed to store, to classify that data according to their privacy implications, and to anonymize all data they have in order to comply with all sorts of legislation.
If the data they are collecting isn’t anonymous, or could be deanonimized, they are liable to pay huge fines and suffer other painful legal consequences.
This is not about hypothetical scenarios where you can argue that tracking random brower fingerprints can pinpoint who you are. This is about a single company having to legally demonstrate they do not directly or indirectly abuse personally identifiable information, otherwise they have to pay a fortune in fines for no good reason.