[e2e] was double blind, now reproduceable results

[Joe Touch]

RJ Atkinson wrote:

> 
> On May 26, 2004, at 11:52, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> Impossible is the case I was referring to. Certainly IF transforms are
>> possible then they should be used and the data made available. However,
>> some data sources aren't comfortable with these transforms, since there
>> may be data correlation that ends up compromising the transform.
>>
>> Notably those that correlate data to existing Internet routing tables -
>> if you found something that preserved not only prefixes but also the
>> aggregation, and published it, you'd have to publish the routing tables
>> similarly transformed. However, since the untransformed routing tables
>> are available publicly anyway, you've compromised your transform.
> 
>     Whether the transform is compromised would depend greatly on which
> particular routing tables one was working with.

Yes. Bob was saying that there exists. I'm claiming there are cases 
where there does not exist - i.e., not for all.

The issue is what to do with a paper published in the case I'm 
considering; we all know what to do when you CAN safely anonymize.

However, note that you don't always know when it's safe - just because 
_you_ can't correlate the info doesn't mean someone else can't.

Joe


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20040526/9fa818d7/signature.bin