On 5 June 2015 at 10:38, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> Gotcha. Reading that proposal it appears to be a proposal for a
>> methodology that will enable future proposals; where are the future
>> proposals?
>
>
> Well, so the geo cube has to guess a bit at who would find it useful in the
> future.
>
>>
>> It also says "in many countries, disease monitoring must be
>> carried out at the state or metro-area level" - which countries have
>> to be metro-level? Who are we risking the entire reader population
>> for, here? Is it one country, or ten, or?
>>
>> For what it's worth I love the idea of this kind of live stream. But I
>> want to make sure that how the various chunks are being prioritised,
>> and how critical they are to the outside world, is correlated - and is
>> correlated with the underlying data's sensitivity, at that. If we're
>> introducing risks by going down to city level and the actual use cases
>> for city level data are limited, let's not do that - but this proposal
>> doesn't provide thoughts on how limited those use cases are. It just
>> says that it's required in some countries.
>
>
> I agree with you, but I'm not sure the data is risky if it's k-anonymous.
> Most likely, just doing that will limit the countries for which metro level
> data is available.

I don't think it is if it is! As you said, though, we need to hammer
on it for a while to make absolutely sure it's okay, and using
lower-resolution data would not only make this easier but also reduce
the cost of getting people wrong (geolocating people to MA is less
dangerous than geolocating them to Arlington)

>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>



--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics