Firstly we have no idea how many of the 50 individuals data were public or not. All public data can be discounted since the state actor can just copy it.
Secondly, for the private data, the definition of ‘private’ is unspecified. It really just means not part of a published record. If propublica has access to it, then why couldn’t someone else?
I agree that if there were 150 separate sources with data not disclosed anywhere else, it would be impossible to guess.
But that’s just a made up scenario.
There could be many correct records that are public, and one or two that are private but available to (or even provided through another channel of) the state actor.
As long as the fake records are not part of the public or private data propublica already has, there would be no way to verify them.
This of course assumes that propublica’s list of records itself is kept securely.
I’m assuming good faith on ProPublica’s part, that a reasonable amount of the data was private and that it was truly private. If I didn’t trust them I wouldn’t read their reporting.
Firstly we have no idea how many of the 50 individuals data were public or not. All public data can be discounted since the state actor can just copy it.
Secondly, for the private data, the definition of ‘private’ is unspecified. It really just means not part of a published record. If propublica has access to it, then why couldn’t someone else?
I agree that if there were 150 separate sources with data not disclosed anywhere else, it would be impossible to guess.
But that’s just a made up scenario.
There could be many correct records that are public, and one or two that are private but available to (or even provided through another channel of) the state actor.
As long as the fake records are not part of the public or private data propublica already has, there would be no way to verify them.
This of course assumes that propublica’s list of records itself is kept securely.