Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- > Differential privacy makes this trade-off explicit, and thus impossible to ignore.
I think he has it backwards here.
Techniques like differential privacy hide the fact that a trade-off exists, except for a small cadre of experts who live and breathe this stuff.
I don’t know enough to defend this decision, but it strikes me that if there is a real trade-off, not having access to these techniques will force people other than statisticians to confront the trade-off.
If data about the public is so dangerous that we must disguise the results, then perhaps its data we shouldn’t be collecting in the first place.
- > If data about the public is so dangerous that we must disguise the results, then perhaps its data we shouldn’t be collecting in the first place.
By this logic no one should ever collect your address for any reason ever. How do we function as a society if we can’t ever give PII in any context? Anonymization/security is critical and makes a lot of critical functions possible.
How could you receive your mail in a world where we never give out/collect info that is potentially hazardous?
by Forgeties79 - imho, one big reason why Data Science as a big org lost clout in tech companies was a tendency to treat DS as gatekeepers of data. Outsourcing the responsibility of stat thinking gave many DS a weird power trip; when one dude gets to decide the trade-offs first without anyone around them needing to understand properly.by hitekker
- Nope private data about people is published unintentionally regularly, Netflix history and medical records being some of the notable examples.
People are bad at making the tradeoff because they consistently underestimate the amount of information that is leaked. Forcing them to leak safe amounts of information is the right way.
Not sharing or collecting the data could in some cases be better but there is clear value in this data so the optimal amount to store and make public is not 0.
by shiandow - Can anyone explain to me the previous state and why it was desirable? I admittedly do not understand why people are getting riled up. I am not being difficult. I really don't understand the original state and the changed state here.
- Read up here for example: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/...by layer8
- Coming from a certain european country, you never know what answer on the census might get you into trouble.
"What is your religious affiliation". Seems perfectly innocuous, but turned out to be retroactively fatal if your answer could be attributed to you by a certain foreign occupier in the 1940s .
by Kim_Bruning - Asking about your religion on the census is against the law in the US:
no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg...
- "What is your religious affiliation" makes absolutely no sense in a census exercise. IMO.by Rygian
- They don't ask about religious affiliation on the census.
1. How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2020?
2. Were there any additional people staying here on April 1, 2020 that you did not include in Question 1?
3. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home?
4. What is your telephone number?
5. What is Person 1’s name?
6. What is Person 1’s sex?
7. What is Person 1’s age and what is Person 1’s date of birth?
8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
9. What is Person 1’s race?
Nothing really stops you from lying either.
by asdff - France used to make plenty of lists. We loved lists. Lists are good. Jews lists? Sure, it's maybe useful one day when we want to do something.
Boy were the Germans happy to find these.
The American obsession with asking for people their perceived origins (AAPI, AA, Latino, ...) is more than weird: it's downright dangerous. Don't fucking ask these questions, and never, ever write it down, especially not with names.
Thankfully, now they can just buy it from data brokers and let Palantir target, so that makes life easier for them
- Surely any such foreign occupier would just demand the unredacted data?by Bratmon
- At the Republican TX state convention this week, they proposed to add wording against differential privacy to their proposed platform via an amendment, justified with an example from someone supposedly involved with the census of how it was common-sense silly because one homeless guy under a bridge can become five via DP. I don't know if it passed, but that's the grassroots push behind things like this.by eriktrautman
- How do you know that's grassroots?by inigyou
- Having worked behind the scenes at a state convention (granted, not in Texas), there is no such thing as grassroots announcements/efforts at those things.by Loughla
- > Differential privacy makes this trade-off explicit, and thus impossible to ignore. Maybe banning it is a way of pretending that the problem doesn't exist, in the hope that it will go away?
Or it's saying that one of these conflicting goals is more valuable than the other, and so shouldn't be sacrificed for it.
by tbrownaw - The replies here arguing we should publish it all are wild in the worst kind of first-order thinking way.
It’s a census: it just asks questions.
If you start publishing and weaponizing the data against people with various attributes, they’ll just lie or not answer. And then you are left with worse than nothing: bad data people try to act on.
by asolove - Yes.
Extremists or in general any fraction willing to engage in systematic discrimination, harassment, terrorizing or similar love highly detailed non anonymized census data.
Why?
Because it gives them the perfect layout for which areas to harass (areas likely to yield), which to brutalize (areas unlikely to yield or from especially "hated" people), which to best not touch which (areas with too much influence/money or likely to contain hidden sympathizers), which to systematically take apart through other means like building a highway through them (e.g. "hated" communities to strong/connected to brutalize). etc. etc.
All of this has a lot of history weather it's from right extremists like fascists or left extremists(1).
At which point the question is, if the data you collect is that abuseable. Should you even collect it? Is it even really needed?
(1): Like actual left extremists, the a lot of US sources have the habit to label people as left extremists which by EU standards sometimes aren't even left (but centrist) and very far away from extremism...
by dathinab - Any use to identify where government resources are best used, will have people thinking they should have gotten more and would have if they'd answered differently. Ie, that their answers were "weaponized" against them.by tbrownaw
- The real question is why anyone answers these questions in the first place? I just wait until a census worker shows up and tell them how many people live at my domicile. It's needed for proper electoral representation and absolutely nothing else.by sidewndr46
- This administration does ... not ... care ... about ... facts.by HumblyTossed
- This might be the point. As long as they think the people who end up under-counted are not people this government would like to have voting power for the House of Representatives.by ilyagr
- The easy solution is to just reduce the resolution and scope of the data to the degree it is absolutely necessary. The census exists to inform representation decisions. All other concerns are addons. You can have all the data on the county or voting district level and strip data as you increase your resolution, to the point you only keep population number at the neighborhood, block level.
Knowing the racial, ethnic and socioeconomic background of the residents of a single building block is only useful to discriminate against them.
- The US Government is the entity that weaponizes the data. The most obvious example is the Census Bureau compiling lists of people of Japanese descent to imprison during WWII. That's just the most obvious one that I know of without looking up more.
The real push for this now is to form lists of people to disenfranchise.
by bagels - You first gather the data while people don't know or care. Then you weaponize it later. It happened at least once not long ago in another country, seems not overreaction to be concerned about itby ShinyLeftPad
- Ban it from the dataset, add it to the analysis. You can choose your own flavor of noise.
I don't know what the political undertones are here, but at some level you need to have actual ground truth, including "this person/household declined".
Publishing raw data though? That seems like shooting yourself in the foot from a national security perspective, not to mention all the other reasons not to do it.
by jmole - > Ban it from the dataset, add it to the analysis. You can choose your own flavor of noise.
Not sure exactly what you're proposing, but if the noise is added independently to different people, you can just buy multiple copies to reduce it.
There are a lot of ways to do this wrong, which is why so much analysis has gone into differential privacy.
by thomasahle - > Ban it from the dataset, add it to the analysis. You can choose your own flavor of noise.
It is introduced in the public data, not the secret data.
by glitchc - i have such a hard time reconciling stuff like this:
> The census bureau decided to adopt differential privacy for the 2020 Census
and:
> The consequences will be dire for utility or for privacy, and possibly both. It's hard to understate this point: future statistical releases will either be useless compared to past ones, or they will be incredibly unsafe
so we took the census for centuries before this point, and it was “ok.” and for the last census only we added some privacy items. but if we remove just one of those filters, we are in “dire” circumstances? but there were no privacy features before. so we’re actually still much better off than we were for hundreds of years before this.
this makes it feel like an emotional overblown problem
by foolfoolz - > so we took the census for centuries before this point, and it was “ok.”
It wasn't ok - it's been shown that the data released could individually identify people in releases before the 2010 Census.
by nl