Privacy itself is a human right. So every country signing the universal declaration should be pursuing privacy for their citizens, which is not the case.

If the data collected are anonymous, what right to privacy is being infringed upon?

To me this means data like number of page views over time, etc. It's information that you get in the course of operating your service and that does not involve any personal data.

At the most basic your car does collect "anonymous driving data": It collects the distance travelled at the very least and most modern cars also work out an average MPG based on that.

"Privacy" needs to be defined here. In general the term relates to personal data. I have a right to be anonymous and left alone when I walk in the street, for instance, but others are still free to e.g. count me if they want to make statistics on how busy a street is.

The difference is there are actually formal guarantees wrt privacy - such as k anonymiy, l diversity, and differential privacy.

If you can PROVE anonymiy (to a certain extent), theres little privacy issue.

The problem is that, frankly, lots of people have no idea what they're doing (or are just lying about it) – claiming location data is anonymous (it doesn't take many data points over time to identify someone), or that datasets with names removed are anonymous (they're deidentified, and the remaining attributes might be enough to identify someone).

Of course people can claim that these dare "anonymous data" when there are not in fact so.

The poster seems to have privacy issues with anonymous data, so for the sake of the discussion we ought to consider actual anonymous data, and my question is therefore because to me the very definition of anonymous data means that there cannot be privacy issues. As such, the point the poster makes appears contradictory.

Where does the anonymous data come from? If anonymous data are considered as a disjoint and absolute point, then you're right. However, when considering the result of a set of transformations originating from an actual individual, we may have to question ourselves. Does the individual agree to be part of the process? Shouldn't we ask for his consent in the first place?

> If data collected are anonymous, what right to privacy is being infringed upon?

The data are collected. In their essence, they originate from the individual (in any way whatsoever). Doesn't the individual have an absolute right of the property upon these data?

> others are still free to e.g. count me if they want to make statistics on how busy a street is.

Is that something we are used to or something that should be questioned? Can I require not to be counted, to not exists in the statistics?

In a world (the web) where it is so easy to ask for consent, isn't that shameful not to do so? In contrast, within the street, one could argue that stopping pedestrians could be difficult.

It already is – in national constitutions, and both the EU and UN definitions of human rights.

The issue is with enforcement. Lots of today's data collection, sale and use is illegal (often patently so).

So what is the solution? In the absence of effective enforcement, do we have to resign ourselves? Or can we force the industry and its practices to change?

We can use tools that protect us (secure software, anti-tracking software...) and educate practitioners about privacy enhancing technologies and privacy engineering in general.

But there isn't any technological solution to the arms-race of offense and defense.

We need strong regulation, and effective enforcement as well.

It seems a pretty sad world to me. The sole fact that we are talking about offense and defense is harsh. An individual needs his fundamental rights to be respected, and at the same time, a service provider needs data to pursue improve his product. We should consider both to hope for a balance. IMHO, the problem with today's solutions is that the individual is set out of the equation because data are "considered" anonymous. We take for granted something that may at least deserve more attention. By promoting consent as a first-class citizen, we can reposition the individual at the center again.

> Would you accept your OS to collect anonymous usage data without your explicit consent?

Isn't that exactly what Windows 10 is doing?

AFAIK it is not the case anymore; you have to opt-in.

Seems there's still "required diagnostic data" [0].

See also "Minimum telemetry level" [1] under "Comparison of Windows 10 editions" on Wikipedia.

[0]: https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/data-collection-windows

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Comparison...

I think no.

What stops an individual from having a scrapbook of observations they made of people?

What stops a corporation or intelligence agency from doing the same so long as they don't advertise they are doing it?

Is there any right to transfer huge sums of money internationally anonymously when that is a channel for kleptocrats to steal?

Does the fact of being able to do something should justify the fact of doing it? Nothing stops an individual from having a scrapbook of observations they made of people. But is it compatible with these people's right to privacy?