[mindri0t]

>but if encountered again, it will be known that it was previously seen

But when you see it again you have personally identified the individual have you not? Doesn’t that by definition mean it is identifiable if you are able to determine the identity later?

This is something that advertisers/supermarket points schemes etc used to do when they didn’t have consent to share personal data, hash it and align it with what they already had so effectively they shared the subsets of interest anyway. I remember at university when some guys from yahoo sponsored a hack event, they literally gave a guest lecture boasting about doing this with Sainsbury’s to squeeze through a legal loophole back in 2013.

[dylan604]

That's the fun of thought experiments, the rabbit hole just keeps going.

If your original delete request was followed so that everything they knew about you was deleted, they would not be able to relink everything that GUID linked to. It should be gone now. However, if that hashed value lives in a BANNED_ACCOUNTS table, then all they have to do is create the hash, check the table, disallow new account. You can even do it in good faith by not storing any of the new info rather than storing it and forcing a new delete request.