Pseudonymization already refers to reference by pseudonym.

Pseudonimization is bad terminology in that it's indistinct from the above, to the point that parent has already mixed the two up while in the process of recommending it. And it'd be worse verbally.

"Pseudo-anonymization" could work, but something like "breakable anonymization" or "partial anonymization" might be better in that it's more obvious to a reader and doesn't rely on familiarity with technical terminology to convey the idea.

I'd go with breakable, myself, since it's most to the point about why it's a problem.

Pseudo is etymologically correct, but that doesn't necessarily help us much when the goal is ratio and ease of understanding by a wide population of readers.

Partial could work in the sense that you did part of the job, which people would hopefully understand is a bit like having locked the back door for the night while leaving the front propped wide open.

And there are probably other good options. If I was writing about this topic often, I'd strongly consider brainstorming a few more and running a user test where I ask random people to explain each term, then go with what consistently gets results closest to what I'm trying to discuss.

'Pseudononymization' is how my brain read it. It's a fairly self-explanatory portmanteau with little chance of confusion on the root.

"Pseudonymization but with an extra syllable" sounds just as confusing as the other two. I wouldn't be sure which of those words I was looking at on first glance, which is what you'd need for it to be casually readable.

ESL here, what's wrong with pseudonymization as a derivative of pseudonym? I think it brings the point across. But if we want to stop beating around the bush, what about "nameless identification"?

>if we want to stop beating around the bush, what about "nameless identification"?

The difference is the other proposed alternatives more directly suggest risk is involved.

It's a nice ESL example because technically, I don't think you're suggestion is wrong. In practice I think few would infer its implications.

Its not partial. Its pseudo.

I would suggest "denonymization", implying that the "names" (i.e. identifiable information) were removed. As opposed to anonymous data, which presumably never had any to start with, like the example mentioned by the GP.

from an etymological perspective, this is kind of gross; you are grafting a latin-derived prefix onto a greek-derived stem. there's no direct Greek equivalent to the Latin "de", but you could consider "apo" or possibly "kata", both of which have similar meanings.

> I would suggest "denonymization"

Very very close to the existing "deanonymization" which is essentially the opposite.

True, maybe call it "redacted with a highlighting pen" as appears to get the same results.

Just joking, but how about 'nonymisation' or 'non-nonimysation'