[ravenstine]

It's not that most of them don't know what anonymization is or are confused about it.

Society is a tapestry of bullshit and low-level swindling is generally tolerated or quickly forgotten about. Thus, there's nothing to prod the unprincipled in charge to do the right thing. As long as something seems to be good(anonymized, in this cage), and problems can be hidden behind the corporate veil long enough, the unwritten rule is to half-ass security solutions because, well, security is boring and there's other things to devote company time and resources to(that will advance upper management).

Security measures, especially those that protect the users, don't make money. At best, they're insurance against the fallout that might occur when it's revealed that your company has been silently screwing people over. Like most human beings, businesses often put off serious consideration of the future in order to enjoy quick and immediate gain.

I wouldn't put it past most companies to screw up an approach like differential privacy. Not enough people actually care that much.

[dfxm12]

Security measures, especially those that protect the users, don't make money.

This is why the government has to make regulations with teeth in this space (of course, the government could be the "unprincipled in charge" you referred to).

[ravenstine]

> of course, the government could be the "unprincipled in charge" you referred to

Not specifically, but I suppose I wouldn't say that politicians are more or less principled than corporate executives. I know some would argue otherwise, but I'm too black pilled at this point to have faith in any "public servant".

Nevertheless, government regulation is probably the way to actually address these issues. Government may lock competence or will, but at least it provides us some leverage, little it may be.