> I don't mind aggregate anonymized data where I'm "Patient b15-2gty
If you're ""Patient b15-2gty", then the data isn't aggregate. Aggregated data means that there are no individual data points at all, only aggregated ones, so there is no need for any sort of individual identifiers.
If there's any sort of individual identifier, then the data cannot be effective anonymized. If the data is aggregated, and the original records that were included in the aggregate figures is deleted, then I think that's adequately anonymized and I would have no problem with it.
Short of that, though, "anonymization" is a thing that doesn't actually exist.
I don't agree about anonymization; "true" anonymity is probably impossible in most areas of life, even for simple things like a walk in the forest as there's always something a significantly advanced sleuth can use.[1] There are no "true" one-way hashes either – you can always brute-force). It's about it being too infeasible to actually do that.
If you're ""Patient b15-2gty", then the data isn't aggregate. Aggregated data means that there are no individual data points at all, only aggregated ones, so there is no need for any sort of individual identifiers.
If there's any sort of individual identifier, then the data cannot be effective anonymized. If the data is aggregated, and the original records that were included in the aggregate figures is deleted, then I think that's adequately anonymized and I would have no problem with it.
Short of that, though, "anonymization" is a thing that doesn't actually exist.