> If you can't connect it to the user in any way, it's no longer personal information
Just because you can't connect it doesn't mean nobody else can.
Just because you can't connect it doesn't mean nobody else can.
... account should be taken of all objective factors, such as the costs of and the amount of time required for identification, taking into consideration the available technology at the time of the processing and technological developments.
The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable. ...
It's sufficient if one can't reasonably reconnect the data back to the user. It doesn't need to be NSA-proof.
I don't know how you have drawn that it shouldn't be NSA-proof from this text if it literally says "in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable."
... To determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used ...
The parallel history of cryptography is little more than a history of overconfidence re what counters were thought to be likely, and not. Do we really need to recapitulate that?
It's bcrypt hash is: '$2b$15$qUxzZ5ZF55lMuqiH9GMjQOHkNyee86qd2Vh2kQyF5P3U6JZJx9AEC'
I bet nobody could ever reverse this secure cryptographic hash to figure out what it could be... ;)