Florimond Houssiau
@fhoussiau.bsky.social
"we need to anonymize our data so we remove names"
"My [overworked] DPO approved [this new, untested data-processing technology] so it's fine"
it's ok it's just medical data what's the worst that could happen
"My [overworked] DPO approved [this new, untested data-processing technology] so it's fine"
it's ok it's just medical data what's the worst that could happen
May 15, 2025 at 2:30 PM
"we need to anonymize our data so we remove names"
"My [overworked] DPO approved [this new, untested data-processing technology] so it's fine"
it's ok it's just medical data what's the worst that could happen
"My [overworked] DPO approved [this new, untested data-processing technology] so it's fine"
it's ok it's just medical data what's the worst that could happen
My guess here is that it's a "research culture" mismatch, where the papers they reference for the closest-distance test were published in medical-adjacent journals, but I still find that unacceptable. Hopefully work like www.nature.com/articles/s41... can help redress this culture issue.
A scoping review of privacy and utility metrics in medical synthetic data - npj Digital Medicine
npj Digital Medicine - A scoping review of privacy and utility metrics in medical synthetic data
www.nature.com
March 26, 2025 at 3:41 PM
My guess here is that it's a "research culture" mismatch, where the papers they reference for the closest-distance test were published in medical-adjacent journals, but I still find that unacceptable. Hopefully work like www.nature.com/articles/s41... can help redress this culture issue.
and instead use a simplistic closest-distance test to evaluate privacy risks of their method -- a test that is well-known to underestimate the risk!
What's baffling here is that the authors are aware of SOTA privacy work (DP, Stadler et al.) but chose to ignore it and use a much weaker notion.
What's baffling here is that the authors are aware of SOTA privacy work (DP, Stadler et al.) but chose to ignore it and use a much weaker notion.
March 26, 2025 at 3:41 PM
and instead use a simplistic closest-distance test to evaluate privacy risks of their method -- a test that is well-known to underestimate the risk!
What's baffling here is that the authors are aware of SOTA privacy work (DP, Stadler et al.) but chose to ignore it and use a much weaker notion.
What's baffling here is that the authors are aware of SOTA privacy work (DP, Stadler et al.) but chose to ignore it and use a much weaker notion.
And the link to the paper in question: sites.computer.org/debull/A24ju...
sites.computer.org
February 3, 2025 at 4:04 PM
And the link to the paper in question: sites.computer.org/debull/A24ju...
On a more positive note, I guess that imitation (however automated it may be) is the sincerest form of flattery -- this is really cool work (not really by me! I only helped w/ the privacy part) by @cptanalatriste.bsky.social and others (whose bsky handle I don't know) 🙌
February 3, 2025 at 4:02 PM
On a more positive note, I guess that imitation (however automated it may be) is the sincerest form of flattery -- this is really cool work (not really by me! I only helped w/ the privacy part) by @cptanalatriste.bsky.social and others (whose bsky handle I don't know) 🙌
The figures and code listings have been copied as is. Truly unbelievable that such obvious plagiarism would be published in a conference organised by IEEE.
February 3, 2025 at 3:51 PM
The figures and code listings have been copied as is. Truly unbelievable that such obvious plagiarism would be published in a conference organised by IEEE.