Birbla

Discussion summary

Debates around privacy measures like differential privacy in the 2020 census highlight concerns about data security and transparency. Some discuss political engagement strategies, election process reforms, and voting systems. There is also mention of advocacy efforts and potential policy changes.

What the discussion says

  • Differential privacy was used in the 2020 census, raising privacy concerns.
  • Calling legislators may have limited impact; activism and voting reforms are suggested.
  • Contacting local MPs can be effective, as shared by an Australian user.
  • Ranked choice voting could address the two-party system issue.
  • Parental leave polls show high support, indicating potential for policy change.
“The 2020 census used differential privacy, raising privacy concerns.”
— oneTokeoverthe
“Calling your legislators might not be effective, activism and voting reforms are needed.”
— jmyeet

Comments

Hacker News

The article presents two possible methods to protect privacy in a dataset. It then attacks a theoretical weakness in a contrived scenario in the old method, which intends to incline us to choose the other, newer solution. The article does not describe in detail the newer solution beyond its name. I have have questions that the article doesn't cover in enough detail: 1) Has the coarsening failed in the way described in the article in practice which leaked information? 2) How does the 'other' solution we're expected to desire work? 3) What is an example of the difference in level of detail offered by the newer solution that was not possible when the data needed to be coarsened in practice?

by jhhh

Can anyone explain me why the Heritage foundation targeted these statistical techniques? What's the political motive behind it?

by stymaar

> If followed, this order will destroy the Commerce public data our nation relies on for important decisions, such as where to build necessary services for our community’s well-being

So this is not about privacy. Scott sounds like a computer scientist forced (by the American ecosystem) to become a bombastic talker.

by zkmon

What is the political goal behind this directive? I assume there is some completely non-subtle purpose, but I can't tell what it is.

by bo1024

> On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce issued a directive (DAO 216-26)

> DAO-216-26 bans differential privacy and other modern (and not so modern) techniques. It restricts disclosure avoidance techniques to “coarsening,”

> DAO-216-26 forbids “noise infusion”, described as “methods that involve modifying a dataset by adding random values, or noise.”

> By forbidding noise infusion, the directive bans the disclosure avoidance techniques at the core of dozens of data releases over the last three decades.

> Civil servants will do their best to comply with this order while still following the laws that require them to protect the confidentiality of respondents’ data. To balance these competing mandates, they may seek to produce less data or coarsen data so much that it is unusable. Or they might be pushed by political actors to publish data that can be easily unmasked...

This current administration is cursed.

by wxw

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48517377

    It's too bad this has become political.

    I do differential privacy work for GDPR compliance and it's an interesting technology.

    by nl
  • The article presents two possible methods to protect privacy in a dataset. It then attacks a theoretical weakness in a contrived scenario in the old method, which intends to incline us to choose the other, newer solution. The article does not describe in detail the newer solution beyond its name. I have have questions that the article doesn't cover in enough detail: 1) Has the coarsening failed in the way described in the article in practice which leaked information? 2) How does the 'other' solution we're expected to desire work? 3) What is an example of the difference in level of detail offered by the newer solution that was not possible when the data needed to be coarsened in practice?
    by jhhh
  • Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48517377
    by greyface-
  • Can anyone explain me why the Heritage foundation targeted these statistical techniques? What's the political motive behind it?
    by stymaar
  • > If followed, this order will destroy the Commerce public data our nation relies on for important decisions, such as where to build necessary services for our community’s well-being

    So this is not about privacy. Scott sounds like a computer scientist forced (by the American ecosystem) to become a bombastic talker.

    by zkmon
  • What is the political goal behind this directive? I assume there is some completely non-subtle purpose, but I can't tell what it is.
    by bo1024
  • This post's call to action is talking to your legislators, but it's missing a link to do so. Find yours here: https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
    by qrush
  • > On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce issued a directive (DAO 216-26)

    > DAO-216-26 bans differential privacy and other modern (and not so modern) techniques. It restricts disclosure avoidance techniques to “coarsening,”

    > DAO-216-26 forbids “noise infusion”, described as “methods that involve modifying a dataset by adding random values, or noise.”

    > By forbidding noise infusion, the directive bans the disclosure avoidance techniques at the core of dozens of data releases over the last three decades.

    > Civil servants will do their best to comply with this order while still following the laws that require them to protect the confidentiality of respondents’ data. To balance these competing mandates, they may seek to produce less data or coarsen data so much that it is unusable. Or they might be pushed by political actors to publish data that can be easily unmasked...

    This current administration is cursed.

    by wxw