Sounds like it’s anonymous to me :)
That’s how governments like to run things: https://community.qbix.com/t/transparency-in-government/234
None of this would make the site lose its primary function, which is by their own admission to do a background check on the landlord you’re about to sign an agreement with.
[0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=Aberdeen+St%2C+Chicago%2C+IL...
It only takes one. And if it’s been automated, you’ve just made it plain text but with extra steps.
Bcrypt has key stretching, brute-forcing every address in existence would cost a lot of CPU even for one city. How will the attacker get compensated for that?
I honestly don’t get why I even have to explain this. The original question was how anonymous it can get. Any practice that reduces the amount of personal information, or the ease to access it, helps, period. Dismissing one because it doesn’t offer perfect protection is like not using condoms because they are ineffective against mono. There is no reason not to implement them - that is, if the maintainer actually cares about privacy.
What it does solve is the problem of this data being visible to every landlord who types the address of their property into a vastly more popular search engine known as Google. They need not even know of this site, it gets served to them on a silver platter.
And if you think a robots.txt alone solves that, you’re mistaken. A robots.txt is just a recommendation. Web crawlers are not obligated to honor it. The only way to solve it is to make sure the private data isn’t even there in the first place.
Regardless, if the info did get leaked or the landlord did some basic investigation, or the property was just small enough that the data pool was small, what’s to keep the tenant from litigation by the landlord?
I’m thinking about all those review-sites for hospitality where a bad review starts a whole lot of grief for the reviewer.
How are they leaking the information to google? Our, if you’re unwilling to share the details, how much is revealed?
googletagmanager.com
Is that your point? That is, do you mean that the website uses google's ads, which can collect user data and google might identify the website's users based on that?
Which implies they store the information. If it was anonymous they wouldn't store identifying information.
> Yes! We will never give away any of your information.
For starters, they're leaking this information to Google.
After that, they're presumably subject to subpoenas. And they or an acquirer altering the agreement. And there's interpretations of "give away". And the inevitable data breaches.
I see no identification of who runs it, which doesn't seem consistent with their stated philosophy of "transparency and accountability", and might affect users' ability to hold them to their privacy assurances.