NSF Funds Data Anonymization Project

Trailrunner7 writes "A group of researchers from Purdue University has been awarded $1.5 million from the National Science Foundation to help fund an ongoing project that's investigating how well current techniques for anonymizing data are working and whether there's a need for better methods. The grant will help to further research from computer scientists and linguists, who are looking at ways in which people can still be identified through textual clues even after explicitly identifiable data has been removed. The Purdue anonymization project has been ongoing for some time, and also includes researchers from a number of other institutions, including Indiana University and the Kinsey Institute."

Testing Slashdots Methods for Anonymization

[Anonymous Coward]

It works!

Can I pick up my grant check now?

Re:Testing Slashdots Methods for Anonymization

[drunkennewfiemidget]

We wish you could, but we don't know who to write the cheque out to.

Re:

[countertrolling]

Cash

Re:

[teachknowlegy]

Write the check out to Anonymous Coward, duh! When someone produces the ID of the same name, they can have it. Name changes are cheap, aren't they?

Re:

[aapold]

If you cash it, you might get an NSF fee....

Re:

[stephanruby]

Sorry Rob,

With that number next to your "anonymous" name, #34103516, you might as well just have given us your full social security number.

Re:

[zkp]

There are many bits of information we can glean!

1. Your "anonymous" name, #34103516
2. Date and Time: (Tuesday, November 02 @ 6:04PM)
3. You were one of the first posts so you probably read Slashdot often. Also, you probably visit Slashdot regularly around 6:00 PM.
4. Writing Style: Short messages, funny
   
   So I could search for regular Slashdot users who tend to be active around 6:00 PM, post brief messages, and are often one of the first to comment. Narrow down that list to users who actually did log in on 1

Hmmm

[WrongSizeGlass]

I wonder if they could get a larger grant from Google or Facebook or the NSA or [insert large organization name here] to get a guaranteed result of "things are just fine, nothing to see here"?

Re:

[natehoy]

No, that would be wrong, of course. They'd never be able to accept a grant. It could never happen. Ever.

But only because, technically, it's called a bribe, not a grant. If you want to call it a grant, you have to put it in quotes, as in: "I wonder if they could get a larger "grant" from..."

Re:

[elrous0]

Now why would the NSA be interested in technology that could identify anonymous posters using "textual clues even after explicitly identifiable data has been removed"? That's just silly talk.

Re:

[poena.dare]

... in other words, meatloaf!

Re:

[Monkeedude1212]

And I don't see how can you have meaningful data if you removed all the information that would enable you to recreate the individual sample.

You can still segregrate them into groups even if you can't identify the individual sample - which is essentially what happens already. Data miners go and determine "People who like Penny Arcade also like Video games - so lets put an Ad for Fable 3 up on the main page" - whether that is Penny-Arcade's decision to get more click-revenue or whether they just let an adserver handle that obvious piece of info is irrelevant, you are still using relevant data with meaning to market to a large group of people inst

Did anybody else read....

[tacarat]

NSFW?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I read NSF Funds, and thought, why is slashdot doing a story on my wife?

Re:

[kmoser]

I read it as "NSFW" and thought the same thing: why is Slashdot doing a story on your wife?

How Benevolent Of The N.S.F. ( +3, Instrusive )

[Anonymous Coward]

"The grant will help to further research from computer scientists and linguists, who are looking at ways in which people can still be identified through textual clues even after explicitly identifiable data has been removed." SHOULD READ

"The grant will help to further research from computer scientists, linguists, AND the N.S.A. who are looking at ways in which people can still be identified through textual clues even after explicitly identifiable data has been removed."

Yours In Krasnoyarsk,
Kilgore T.

NSF

[Combatso]

Headline had me thinking the science grants were returned Non Sufficient Funds... thats a sign of a really bad economy.

Re:

[bhcompy]

Yea, seriously. It's the Non/In Sufficient Funds funds

Re:

[Combatso]

you mean everytime i drop an NSF and my bank charges me 20 dollars, that 20 dollars goes to fund Data Anonymization... but there is no way to know for sure, because they didn't catch the guys name who they gave my money to.

Re:

[Philomage]

Even after getting that it was about the National Science Foundation providing funding for a research grant, I was still reading (for a while) to see what it had to do with kiting cheques. :-/ "You can take the nerd out of the trailer park..."

Interesting Spin

[Anonymous Coward]

The research is actually into data mining, not some new forms of encryption/anonymization.

I'm sure the results will provide insight that may lead to better anonymization, but I bet framing the whole thing around the more popular side of that spectrum makes it sell better.

Good or bad?

[kwbauer]

So, is this a good development or a bad development? If the finding better ways to identify people leads to better ways to remove that information then it is better?

Or is it better because it will help us not remain anonymous when we donate to our favorite cause and that organization is in some way involved in US politics?

link to NSF grant

[Danathar]

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1012208 [nsf.gov]

above is direct link to award

Simple equation

[shoehornjob]

governemnt entity(CIA+NSA)* national security + keylogger or trojan = we ownz all your base (where base = data). Anonymiztion HAH.

Google translate?

[mveloso]

For better anonymization, you could run the data though google translate a few times. That'll guarantee that it's anonymized.