Ann: Appendix 4C - quarterly, page-15

@dcmmm

i think your other points are valid -but the FB data scandal will have cooled off that 3rd party data market massively. thats simply out of mgt hands.

no buyer would risk being exposed as having bought compromised data at this point - the pr risk would be huge

inevitably a middle ground will be found - re BUD i expect requirements will be for users to opt in to use parse related apps on agreement only anonymised aggregated data would ever be sold

the real risk though is about the fact you can never 10000% guarantee anaonymity. All data has to be linked to a unique identifier for it to be able to be connected.

once any cyber hack penetrates to that point i dont know how anonymity can ever be 100% guaranteed.

the world is being overzealous about this to a degree - this risk has always existed with all database kept info and has been breached many times before.

but as profiling, phishing etc and other uses of such data get more sophisticated - people will naturally get more sensitive

though FB thing was more media than real user blow up - who could be stupid enough to think they get to use a site for free without their data being filtered. its more the 3rd party extraction for 'nefarious means' that was an actual issue there

but lets face it - cambridge analytica was the exploitation of largely quite stupid people. ultimately nothing can protect anyone from their own stupidity.

as i said a few weeks back - in a weird way this is may end up being an advatage to BUD because of its focus on ioT not human related data. much lower threshold of sensitivity.

if fund managers cant get people data - 'thing' data will become much more soughtafter

may well find aggregated data sales for mass anonmyised Ohm related captures is very lucrative at some point - assuming thats salable under the service contract