As others noted, it is de-identified in name only. There is clearly sufficient information to make this something like a ROT13 analogue.
> If de-identification is done right
There is the rub, indeed. As a general rule, I don't trust de-identification. People mostly seem to reason poorly about how datasets can be merged and this has repeatedly failed.
Worse, I have seen it proposed to shut people up about privacy in situations where the proposer knew full well it would fail. De-identification was merely a prop in a con.
I would suggest that, if sensitive de-identified data is to be used by government, it go through a public trial challenge round. Let's let the public give a shot at it, it would build confidence and help suppress a little conspiratorial nonsense too, something we could use right now.
They should put their money where their mouth is and release the de-identified info of the high ranking DEA personnel. If they're so confident it's de-identified, it shouldn't be a problem. If that's a problem for them, the rest of us should definitely not trust it.
> If de-identification is done right
There is the rub, indeed. As a general rule, I don't trust de-identification. People mostly seem to reason poorly about how datasets can be merged and this has repeatedly failed.
Worse, I have seen it proposed to shut people up about privacy in situations where the proposer knew full well it would fail. De-identification was merely a prop in a con.
I would suggest that, if sensitive de-identified data is to be used by government, it go through a public trial challenge round. Let's let the public give a shot at it, it would build confidence and help suppress a little conspiratorial nonsense too, something we could use right now.