[abustamam]

I think this begs the question of what anonymous data means. Sure my visit to HN is "anonymous" in that it doesn't say "abustamam visited this site" but piece together all the other visits that have my "anonymous ID" then eventually it paints a pretty nice picture of who I am.

[rockskon]

Does it map to a single, identifiable person or something close enough that the distinction is meaningless?

Then it's not anonymous.

Simple as that.

[abustamam]

My point is that even completely anonymous data that conforms to what you just said can easily become de-anonymized when contextualized to other "anonymous" data.

[rockskon]

A marketer's definition of anonymized is worthless. It's a fantasy they want everyone else to believe in.

If it can be "de-anonymized" then it was never anonymous to begin with.

"De-anonymized" is quite literally an oxymoron.

[abustamam]

> A marketer's definition of anonymized is worthless. It's a fantasy they want everyone else to believe in.

I'm using your definition.

> Does it map to a single, identifiable person or something close enough that the distinction is meaningless?

Also

> If it can be "de-anonymized" then it was never anonymous to begin with.

Well sure, that's the point I was trying to make in my rhetorical question above. Individual pieces of data may be "anonymous" but put together with other anonymous data that can be traced to a single source and suddenly you can figure out quite easily who this person is. The data itself is still technically anonymous but it can be pieced together.

[thfuran]

Does that mean that no non-post-quantum encryption was ever actually encryption because in 20 years someone will be able to decrypt things?