[kube-system]

Privacy protects some things from the state, which is why the western world has the concepts of warrants and such.

But the concept certainly doesn't mean that a business is going to help you cover your tracks in regards to data you've already shared. (in this case, the recovery email address)

If you give out your personal information, commit a crime, and ask that person to help you hide, you're not asking for anonymity, you're asking for an accomplice.

[_heimdall]

I think that is the GP's point. Privacy means the data is reasonably hidden, though it still exists somewhere in a readable state. Anonymity means the information of who did what really doesn't exist anywhere.

In the case of governments, private data is only hidden until the government decides that it needs to look for it (or ask for it). Anonymity means the data isn't there, regardless of whether the government decides it needs to, and has legal justification to, demand access to the data.

Anyone providing anonymity is only an accomplice if they know your intent. Simply not collecting data doesn't make you an accomplice, not collecting data with the intent of hiding someone else's illegal behavior does.

[agile-gift0262]

I slightly disagree with your distinction. Privacy is about minimising the amount of data collected that's visible to anyone but you. Your data stays with you and/or only you can see your data, therefore, private. Anonymity isn't about the amount of data collected, but that the data collected or accessible by others can't be linked to you.

[_heimdall]

I could have been more clear there. I was specifically thinking about data that can identify you, not just data in general.

If I'm the only one in possession with data I don't really consider it data collection at all, at least in the context of privacy and anonymity. Other than that I agree with your clarifications here though.

[kube-system]

It is, I am agreeing.

The bottom line is that if you told someone who you are, you're not anonymous.