Are these medical records Anonymised ?, (birthday problem variant)

  • Thread starter Thread starter B0b-A
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Medical
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the anonymization of medical records in the UK, questioning whether such records can truly be considered anonymous when containing a person's date of birth, postcode, and gender. It highlights that while these details may seem insufficient for identification, the "birthday problem" analogy suggests that the risk of re-identification increases significantly with the size of the population. Security researcher Ross Anderson notes that with access to a birth date and a postcode, it becomes relatively easy to identify individuals, as there are often only a few dozen addresses per postcode. However, the conversation also points out that existing databases like the register of births and the electoral register do not provide complete information necessary for accurate identification. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the complexities and risks associated with the use of anonymized medical data.
B0b-A
Messages
155
Reaction score
32
Are these medical records Anonymised ?, (“birthday problem” variant)

Anonymised medical records are to be sold in the UK ... https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sell+NHS+medical+records+harvest

Are these medical records truly Anonymised ?

If a person’s date of birth, (year-month-day) , postcode (zip code), and gender is known
what are the odds that data could identify a specific person ?.

At first glance it looks like there may be sufficient information to identify a specific individual,
by using databases like register-of-births and the electoral-register.

But the calculation involves something similar to the anti-intuitive “birthday problem”,
where a anonymity increases rapidly with the group size if you only knew someone's birthday, (not date-of-birth).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In the birthday problem, the odds that there is at least one duplicate birthday between any 2 persons are much higher than you might expect, but here you want to have a duplicate for everyone.
 
wired.co.uk said:
As security researcher Ross Anderson points out, there are typically only a few dozen addresses in a post-code, so with access to a birth date (that may come from sources outside of HSCIC) it is fairly easy to make a correct personal identification for about 98 percent of people (the exceptions are twins, students, soldiers and prisoners).
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/04/care-data-nhs-healthcare
 
All this is hypothetical unless you can identify a database which does actually contain the current address and date-of-birth of a large proportion of UK residents.

Neither of the OP's suggestions do that. The register of births only shows where people were born, not where they currently live. The electoral register does not show the date of birth, the only age-related data is whether people are eligible to vote and eligible for jury service, and even that limited information may not be on the public copy of the database.

The national insurance number (similar to the US social security number) database, owned by the UK taxation authorities, would cover a large proportion of the population, but not children or people who have never been (legally) employed - but again that information is not publicly available.

Not that facts are of much interest to conspiracy theorists, of course!
 
AlephZero said:
... The register of births only shows where people were born, not where they currently live. The electoral register does not show the date of birth ...

If you know the date-of-birth and their current postcode then cross-referencing the register-of-births with the electoral-register could tell the names of people born on that date who have the same name as people who live in that postcode.

[ Apparently about 2000 births per day in the UK, and a comparable number of people living in a particular postcode]
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top