> A marketer's definition of anonymized is worthless. It's a fantasy they want everyone else to believe in.
I'm using your definition.
> Does it map to a single, identifiable person or something close enough that the distinction is meaningless?
Also
> If it can be "de-anonymized" then it was never anonymous to begin with.
Well sure, that's the point I was trying to make in my rhetorical question above. Individual pieces of data may be "anonymous" but put together with other anonymous data that can be traced to a single source and suddenly you can figure out quite easily who this person is. The data itself is still technically anonymous but it can be pieced together.
I'm using your definition.
> Does it map to a single, identifiable person or something close enough that the distinction is meaningless?
Also
> If it can be "de-anonymized" then it was never anonymous to begin with.
Well sure, that's the point I was trying to make in my rhetorical question above. Individual pieces of data may be "anonymous" but put together with other anonymous data that can be traced to a single source and suddenly you can figure out quite easily who this person is. The data itself is still technically anonymous but it can be pieced together.