• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s an absolute indictment of the pervasive inadequacy of privacy laws that this information was able to be compiled in the first place.

    • Zip2@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t think they went around people’s houses and measured them all like some kind of sexual doomsday book.

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      24 hours ago

      City is not considered personally identification data. So no law applies to it. Anyone you buy your dildus from can sell data based on city and size. Just not your address and name.

      The sales numbers and distribution etc is considered their data not yours.

      • TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I think having exact numbers of who buys what (down to the city) is still too much information, but that’s just my 2 cents

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The word “who” is what is missing in this.

          Hence the data is not personally identifiable. And that word is exactly where the law draws its line.

          Pre Internet. It was just as easy to get numbers like this. You just needed to watch the stock in shops.