When Writing, How Anonymous Can You Be, Really? 184
An anonymous reader writes "Do you still think your online writing is, basically, anonymous? Think again! Research has it people put much of their personal traits into their writing, and computers may just be able to pick them up. That's at least what a recently announced competition on author identification (Given a document, who wrote it?) and author profiling (Given a document, what are its author's age and gender?) wants to find out. Alas, re-using other people's writing is no solution either; there's also a competition on plagiarism detection (Given a document, is it an original?). Wanna revisit your recent rants?"
Yes, we know (Score:1, Informative)
As previously reported [slashdot.org] on Slashdot. Now, please identify me. Here's a hint: I have a 5 digit UID.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I got this one. You sir are Anonymous Coward, with UID 00666. Now, what prize do I get for this?
Re:Yes, we know (Score:5, Funny)
Why are you replying to yourself?
Wait. Why am I replying to myself again?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Warning: Infinite Loop. {Author} Identified: {Unidentified Author}.
Guess who I am! (Score:1, Funny)
>throw machine at 4chan /mlp/
>"Identify!"
>all posters sound the same
>machine concludes all posters are part of a highly advanced AI
>machine becomes depressed that it will never create anything wonderful like the spaghetti threads or
>kills itself
>mfw
Based on the above, who am I?
Re: (Score:3)
Moot? Is that you?
Re: (Score:3)
No its his third cousin "Inane".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>Based on the above, who am I?
Anonymous
Re: (Score:3)
>mfw
Based on the above, who am I?
I'm guessing a retard who doesn't understand that this abbreviation means "my face when".
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he don't have a face?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting this poor soul has a butt at both ends?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you suggesting this poor soul has a butt at both ends?
Yeah, like that's a rare condition in the world today.
Re: (Score:2)
But I had a suspicion some people think it means something else. For example an obvious one you could guess is "motherfucking win". And if you go to UrbanDictionary, you'll see that some people do think it means that (though they've been downvoted to hell). This guys usage would indicate otherwise, as there's no way to even imagine what his face might be like after his random story. At least with yours we know it's probably a facepalm.
Uh huh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Like facial recognition.... I am sure this works wonderfully when it only has 10 or 20 exemplars to compare against, but it fails miserably as it scales up. Good luck conclusively identifying an author when there are over a million profiles to potentially match with.
Re: (Score:3)
Like facial recognition.... I am sure this works wonderfully when it only has 10 or 20 exemplars to compare against, but it fails miserably as it scales up. Good luck conclusively identifying an author when there are over a million profiles to potentially match with.
Or like fingerprints that start giving off larger number of false-positives when compared against a large enough database of entries.
Consider this: they don't have to conclusively identify the original author. It will be good enough to find someone with similar writing (i.e. also a subversive) and charge them instead of the original perpetrator. And good luck proving that you didn't write that
Mmmm, a national database of writing samples collected from everyone in school... that sounds like fun.
Re: (Score:3)
I never thought not doing my homework would pay off so well :-).
There's definitely going to be false positives. I've seen other people's writing that was nearly word-for-word identical with my own, and there's no way they saw mine (nor I theirs) before writing it.
Re: (Score:3)
The larger the sample of a person's writings, the more accurate this thing will become, of course. The nature of the writings will also influence the accuracy. In school, even an essay is going to be very similar to other people's essays, as they are unlikely to contain a lot of original thought. Everyone is doing their best to feed the teacher the responses that they believe the teacher wants to be fed.
Now, if your ex girlfriend were to give these researchers everything that you ever wrote to her, there
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well put.
As a test, I just looked through my own posts on slashdot and selected a four word string I use pretty often that seemed somewhat unique, but not obviously so.
I combined that string (in quotes) with site:slashdot.org on Google. At least two of the results returned in the first page were me, made over the course of the last few weeks.
Now of course there are others that used that in their posts, but had someone picked that string from something I posted AC they'd know there was a good chance it was m
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is doing their best to feed the teacher the responses that they believe the teacher wants to be fed.
Interesting. In fact, I tried to screw the teacher with my original essays because I was smart enough both to do it and afford screwing the teacher. That activity, however, was limited to my native language and English.
It was fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, most of them were male, and those who weren't... could've fooled me.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider this: they don't have to conclusively identify the original author. It will be good enough to find someone with similar writing (i.e. also a subversive) and charge them instead of the original perpetrator
I doubt a major news network, would ever just blindly claim the wrong person did it.
that's not how it works (Score:2)
they use the analysis to identify a small range of who to watch to find certain confirmation they have the right guy
law enforcement tools are not limited only to 100% certain ones. the fuzzy ones are used to narrow down a list of targets, where law enforcement's limited manpower can be better spent to find certain confirmation
Re: (Score:2)
Or like fingerprints that start giving off larger number of false-positives when compared against a large enough database of entries.
The false positive is significant only when it is plausible.
Their partial prints may be a close match, but the 86 year old wheelchair-bound Vet in a hospice on Staten Island is probably not the killer who shot up a liquor store in Buffalo last week.
Re: (Score:2)
:>(
A national database of writing samples... it already exists for a large number of high school and for an even larger number of college students. It's called Turnitin.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnitin [wikipedia.org] and many students are required to submit their homework essays through their site. Some students have sued to not include/submit their work, and some have sued (with two examples of studen
Re: (Score:2)
The profiling competition only bins into 10s / 20s / 30s which seems extremely lame. Can't they at least try Myers Briggs category or something? Maybe that would be too patented/copyrighted....
Wake me when they make something monetizable (OK the categorize tool reports: highly educated, technically oriented, 30s, raised in the midwest, ultra low TV viewing quotient, classical education literature coeff extremely high, also a high sci fi reading coeff, verbal indications of extreme physical attractiveness
Re: (Score:2)
... it fails miserably as it scales up.
Text recognition was good enough to identify Ted Kaczynski [wikipedia.org]. One thing that helped in Ted's case was that they had a lot of text. His manifesto was 35,000 words.
Re: (Score:3)
Quoting from that WP page:
which led to his brother and his wife recognizing Kaczynski's style of writing and beliefs from the manifesto
It's a whole different thing to recognize a person's beliefs - if possibly in a more extreme form - than what they've written on an entirely different subject. Quite possibly they recognized specific examples, theories, arguments or conclusions he had used as well. I'd wager this was 99% content and 1% style which really clinched that it wasn't some other crazy nut bag with the same ideas. I recently ran into one online that had some rather unique conspiracy theories, if they start
Re: (Score:2)
It is comparatively easy to establish that Author A did NOT write a particular document, than to prove conclusively that he DID write that document. In the latter case, you can establish that he probably wrote it, with a high confidence level in your findings, but it's not conclusive proof. It probably is proof enough to get a warrant to examine his computer(s), in an attempt to get that conclusive proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Processes are not necessarily symmetrical or reversible. It's much easier to calculate a hash for a file than to concoct a file with a given hash.
Re: (Score:2)
Can it beat Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be interested to see if this program can do any better at analyzing my writing than Google does analyzing my search history.
Re:Can it beat Google? (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for updating your age and gender details in our databases.
Yours sincerely,
Google.
Re: (Score:3)
He's just trying to throw you off his scent. The first guess was right.
Re: (Score:3)
I second that. According to Google, I'm an old, obese dude in desperate needs for new abs and viagra. Go figure.
Re:Can it beat Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google thinks I'm a 20 year old male. I'm in my early thirties and a gal. I think visiting Slashdot so much throws off its algorithm, as does all the video game sites I hang out at.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of the algorithm. A writing sample is, of course, insufficient to detect your age and gender precisely.
There is a good chance that your writing style matches that expected of a male in their twenties, in which case the algorithm had done well. You may be a gal, but your interests and behavior is perhaps more similar to that of a male in their twenties, and for the purposes of predicting what to sell you or what to expect from you, that's actually more accurate than your actual stats.
Re: (Score:2)
No one interested in this tech cares what reproductive hardware you have - They care what you'll buy, simple as that.
Kudos for the good call!
Re: (Score:1)
Since this is Slashdot, I'm betting you actually are a 20 year old male.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: acronym (Score:2)
Re:Can it beat Google? (Score:4, Funny)
You'd think the searches for things like "gel nails" might tip them off
Nah, just makes it think you're emo.
Re: (Score:3)
Back in my youth, a friend consciously chose a handwriting style specifically to throw off so-called "handwriting" analysts. Of course, he chose to incorporate all the worst traits possible, meaning anyone looking at a sample of his writing would either immediately get the joke, or would back away slowly in fear for their life.
Funny to think that in the modern world, "handwriting" has become an a
Re: (Score:2)
astroturfers (Score:2, Funny)
This would have been a lot more fun about two months ago to detect paid political astroturfers.
The ultimate AI-ish application would be an astroturfer plugin for chrome probably called "AstroturfBlock". So the site is a "tech" site, the contents are pure politics, and the text analysis system indicates an unemployed liberal arts degree holder... Go ahead and block it.
Re:astroturfers (Score:4, Insightful)
This would have been a lot more fun about two months ago to detect paid political astroturfers.
The ultimate AI-ish application would be an astroturfer plugin for chrome probably called "AstroturfBlock". So the site is a "tech" site, the contents are pure politics, and the text analysis system indicates an unemployed liberal arts degree holder... Go ahead and block it.
How is it going to detect whether people were paid to write something?
Re: (Score:3)
The ultimate AI-ish application would be an astroturfer plugin for chrome probably called "AstroturfBlock".
How is it going to detect whether people were paid to write something?
You also need a blacklist database of known astroturfers (well, their writing samples, you don't need their identity) for this system to work
Re: (Score:2)
There are usually key words they are paid to promote in their writings, for search purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it going to detect whether people were paid to write something?
Thanks for pointing out a minor bug in my project design. The answer, of course, is it doesn't matter. If a "tech" site is getting flooded with unemployed journalism grads posting stereotypical political talking points who cares if they're being paid or not, block the fools.
AstroturfBlock would be exactly like how I don't care if an ad account is in collections with the middlemen, or its a donation, or whatever, I just want adblock to block ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing out a minor bug in my project design. The answer, of course, is it doesn't matter. If a "tech" site is getting flooded with unemployed journalism grads posting stereotypical political talking points who cares if they're being paid or not, block the fools.
AstroturfBlock would be exactly like how I don't care if an ad account is in collections with the middlemen, or its a donation, or whatever, I just want adblock to block ads.
Okay, fair enough. The major bug, then, is that astroturf works because people buy it. Like all the fake shit *constantly* going around Facebook.
You're trying to solve the troll problem: blocking the troll is easy peasy, it's blocking all the assholes who feed the troll that's the problem.
Okay, granted, "deny: *.facebook.com", but there are a lot of false positives there.
I just don't try to be anonymous in writing (Score:5, Interesting)
One example are the company performance surveys, that are supposed to be anonymous. I cant answer questions like 'how do you think the company leadership is doing' without effectively giving away who I am - my opinion is based on my position, and thus is easily inferred.
Re: (Score:2)
I cant answer questions like 'how do you think the company leadership is doing' without effectively giving away who I am - my opinion is based on my position, and thus is easily inferred.
You _could_ try talking to people in different positions (and write from their perspective) to solve that problem :)
It could be that one of your underlings is already writing responses tailored to look like it is written by someone in your position in hierarchy.
Anonymous surveys are easily gamed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I think a more impressive piece of software than this one would be a program that can "understand" writing and deconstruct the meaning of the message to it's simplest form. If all anonymous writers used the same software, they would all have the same "style."
Obviously you would only use it for writing that needed to be anonymous, because a large part of writing is the personality you put into it.
Here's an example of software that seems to "understand" language, posted to /. in the past:
http://web.mit.e [mit.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Authors can use these tools too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, authors can use these tools too, and then iteratively change their texts until they cannot be correctly identified or profiled.
Just like spammers can check whether their e-mails ends up in spam filters before sending them.
It will be a never-ending cat and mouse game.
Re: (Score:2)
The only "authors" who would benefit from this would be undercover agents and trolls. What would be the point of mutating the way you write so that you can no longer be identified or linked as the author of what you wrote before?
An example to make my point clear. Suppose you're an Islamic fundamentalist ranting about US cultural imperialism. Using the tools you gradually change what you write, under a sequence of aliases, until soon you have the online opinions of a Neocon!
It would have been easier if you s
Re: (Score:2)
What would be the point of mutating the way you write so that you can no longer be identified ...
If you are writing characters for a story, you might want them all to have unique, easily identifiable speech patterns.
Also the traits that stand out and identify you most are probably really annoying.
You might want want to reduce them.
For example, you might want to not use the phrase "might want" nearly so much if it was brought to your attention.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a protestor in a repressive regime, like China? Wouldn't they rightfully want to be anonymous?
You basically argued "nothing to hide, nothing to fear."
Betteridge strikes again (Score:2, Funny)
When Writing, How Anonymous Can You Be, Really?
No.
Re: (Score:2)
When Writing, How Anonymous Can You Be, Really?
No.
No? As an answer to that rhetorical question? Answering "No" doesn't make any sense at all; did you read the question?
Re: (Score:2)
I just had a sudden thought. A brainwave!
I am going to start writing articles with headlines like "What is the average height of giraffes?" Answer: No. "How much do you plan to eat of the holidays?" Answer: No
I shall be rich!
Re: (Score:2)
I just had a sudden thought. A brainwave!
I am going to start writing articles with headlines like "What is the average height of giraffes?" Answer: No. "How much do you plan to eat of the holidays?" Answer: No
I shall be rich!
Can't wait for the German edition. "Should I vear lederhosen or bundhosen? NEIN! Vill ve invade Russia or Poland? NEIN! Do you prefer Strauss or Wagner? NEIN!"
Re:Betteridge strikes again (Score:4, Informative)
Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no
Whoosh.
C'nsidr'n haw speshal ma ria'n is.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Took me a while to figure out if that was just bad spelling or a chant to Cthulhu.
Re: (Score:2)
I had no problem reading it, since I have two daughters in their twenties. The GP has seldom if ever used a keyboard and does all his writing on a numberpad-only feature phone.
So the author of Hamlet can finally be identified? (Score:2)
I bet it's Shakspeare.
Re:So the author of Hamlet can finally be identifi (Score:4, Funny)
Kevin Bacon.
which way do you want it? (Score:2)
As a professional writer, I wish to be less anonymous. Hello, New Yorker?
As one of billions who are exposed, I doubt that I will attract any attention regardless of this technology. Perhaps they will figure out who really wrote Shakespeare's plays, but surely they will devote fewer resources to the rest of us.
We all do it, so why not an algorithm? (Score:5, Interesting)
We can all (I hope) recognise authors quotes whom we have some familiarity even if we haven't read the passage in question before. Terry Pratchet quotes for instance stand out a mile, Frank Herbert can be identified by the fact that he'll use the word 'subtle' at least twice a paragraph. Even here on /. certain posters styles identify them without having to read their UID, Girlintraining is an example (for me at least), hell I can spot her posts purely based on the responses to her posts for gods sake.
With the privacy arms race going on right now on the internet, identifying people based on what they write *and* their style, is not only the magic bullet for Big Brother, but quite acheivable given a big enough sample,
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting claim, since I know girlingtraining. I would be curious to see if you can identify alternate accounts girlintraining has used.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymity In The Digital Age... (Score:2)
Wanna revisit your recent rants? (Score:2)
Freedom of speech (Score:2)
are only afforded by the rich, connected and well-armed. For the others, be careful what you say, anywhere.
assimilation rape (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't stand how every slashdot story submission has to end with a pink flamingo smoke grenade. I'm guessing that sober "just the facts, ma'am" submissions still exist, but rarely make it through the selection hoop of our post-counting overlords.
I have several online pseudonyms which I make an effort to keep separate. I rarely post the same idea under more than one identity. If I post it here, it doesn't go there. I prefer to keep things separate so far as I can. I also have some background in computational linguistics. I've known for fifteen years that there is absolutely no way to win this battle long term. Only the most insipid comments will escape long-term annealing. If the word "gay" is the all season tire on your social media K-car, then your identity is safely concealed within the deep-wank weeds.
If every post you write contains colourful language or idiom such as "all-season tire of deep-wank camouflage" you're toast and you know it, clap your hands. Merely getting my possessives and plurals and possessive plurals right more often than not narrows the net substantially. I might pedantically write Harry S Truman without putting a dot after the S (Snopes: "Although the 'S' was not technically an abbreviation and therefore did not need to be followed by a period, Truman's full name was generally rendered as 'Harry S. Truman' during his lifetime ..."). I make use of colons, semicolons (these come and go), mdash appositives, and parenthetical side-notes--at least one of these in almost every paragraph I write. I post way more links than the average person. My thoughts meander. There is playful use of language with double readings. I subvert cliche to achieve double readings that enable me to circle away from my target, then loop back from an unexpected angle. My unit of thought is the paragraph more so than the sentence.
Even with all those signatures, originality in word selection is my neon tattoo. The corpus analysis algorithms likely don't do much (yet) with originality. Hard to characterize. For a while my anonymity might pass through the gun-metal algorithms unmelded by virtue of my writing being too bright and distinctive and easy to trace. But not for long. Even the fractal filigrees of originality will be coded eventually. (Pay no attention to the alliteration: an accident, not a stylistic signature.)
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
This is about respect. We all live a double life, pretty much all the time. We speak differently in front of our mothers (most of us) than with the lady-killing rough necks at the peanut bar or power tie horn-dogs at the chichi sushi bar.
I value anonymity because I don't wish to own everything I say on a literal level, stripped of context, devoid of my original conceit or persona.
I happen to regard linearity as a social construct. Humans are not inherently linear in cognition or constitution. We learn how to cultivate linear facades in our areas of competence (but not necessarily around the edges: this is why a competent accountant consults his astrologer Madam Threenipple). If you like the primary facade you have, and it suits all purposes, then I suppose you'll see the charm in proclaiming it from the RealName rafters.
If you're a Baptist homosexual (I've known a few), you might wish to string your public identity by separate ropes.
Or maybe you've just got things to work out. You're figuring things out on the fly and trying them on for size and you don't wish to fall prey to the Joseph McCarthy clean-nose auto-da-fe "have you ever". Implication: Anything you've ever said will be permanently recorded and will classify you irretrievably. This despite 0/1 statistics never passing T-scores. If the same person also has an NRA membership and has been a career employee of the Hoover Institute for two decades? Still a communist. Ten times more dangerous.
The kind of person most willing t
It can be done without software (Score:2)
Google translate (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are 4 simple rules (Score:2)
There are 4 simple rules that will help you to avoid this type of identification:
1. Be brief
2. Write seldom
3. Plagiarize!
4. Do not write in your mother tongue.
Not Really News (Score:2)
This isn't really news. I've been having discussions online since before AOL & Windows 3.1 existed, when the hot things were email lists and Usenet.
Trolls were around even then and once they would get booted off or blocked they would don new aliases, which fooled nobody.
Their style of writing gave them away.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your exact version of chrome combined with the exact version of various plugins you used (flash, pdf readers, add blcokers etc) can all be reported to the server and when combined they lead to a lot of bits of entropy. Tor won't help you get around that.
Re:That's pretty easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Tor comes prepackaged with a browser with privacy settings enabled by default. The server shouldn't be able to differentiate you from any other user of the stock Tor bundle.
That's for the TOR bundle if used as they recommend, but the article is about identifying authors by what they write, them not about idintifying by technical means. On Slashdot not RTFA could be used as an identifying metric but on the other hand it's a rather wide net.
Re:That's pretty easy (Score:5, Interesting)
I have Dupytren Contacture. It foreshortens the tendon on my ring fingers of both hands. The result is that when I typing fast I make common repeatable mistakes in typing as well as common typographical errors due to muscle memory. The use of certain vocabulary fixes who you are to those who may be watching, illuminating social exposure, education or intelligence. There are simply so many ways to measure the content a person generates. In a world that growing abhors common anonymity, but reserves that right only for those with the wealth and power to build high walls, we need to ask whether or not we are willing to limit our self expression to remain quietly safe.
I for one would rather be known as a trouble maker, than not known at all for what it is that I feel moved to say.
Give me liberty or give me death is still the moral high ground.
Re: (Score:3)
>
I for one would rather be known as a trouble maker, than not known at all for what it is that I feel moved to say.
Have to agree with you there, however I imagine there are people out there for whom this style of tool would be a terrifying prospect, depends where you stand I guess.
Re:That's pretty easy (Score:4, Interesting)
n a world that growing abhors common anonymity...
I'm not even sure of this anymore. I'm beginning to think the death of anonymity is inevitable due to nothing but technology; ubiquitous networking, computing power, and near infinite storage. Even without the government, and unregulated corporate behaviors (how else do you stop data farming?), the ability would still be there, and someone would harness it.
I'm not supporting killing the ability to be anonymous, or supporting the actions of people who would exploit it. I just think that it is going to get increasingly hard to maintain it. Soon we'll see anonymity like we see encryption, not a concrete, perfect, thing, but a matter of degrees. There will be no true anoniminity, but only how much time and resources it would take to unmask people. This, probably, is already true. A determined person, with expensive resources, could probably find almost anyone.
Hell, a couple months ago I got curious about a childhood friend, someone I haven't seen or talked to in over 20 years. It took about 15 minutes of half-hearted idle searching before I figured out where he lived, how much his house cost, and when he bought it (including a recent Google map of it, and a builders layout, where he worked, his rough income, the car he drives, his wife's name, where her parents live, that his mother recently died, and his father is in a retirement home, etc... I gave up after 15 minutes because I got a bit creeped out. I'm not a PI, I didn't buy any tools for this, I only used Google. I can't even imagine what I would have found if I spent more time, and effort, and money on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, a couple months ago I got curious about a childhood friend, someone I haven't seen or talked to in over 20 years. It took about 15 minutes of half-hearted idle searching before I figured out where he lived...
You got lucky. There's a person I've been trying to find for a couple of years, finally gave up. If they're named Galron Metamucil you'll have no trouble finding him, but if he's Andrew Jackson, well, good luck finding the right one.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew a bit about him before hand, and found his Facebook page (protected and neglected), so I could figure out that he was still in state, at least at some point in the more recent past. He did have a somewhat unique surname, with a unique spelling, so I could narrow it down a bit. I did have to tear through several people though, since even a unique surname, isn't. Mine is rather uncommon as well, but thanks to the internet, it seems very common now. On the first page of a search, there is 6 people w
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, I can understand what you're saying about how powerful Google is and how difficult it is to be truly anonymous now. How much information you can glean about someone is scary. I have a friend who fell in love with a girl he met casually. he only knew her name but with google he was able to find out so much and it wasn't long before he was following her on facebook, on pinterest etc. While it was fairly innocent, I mean, he wasn't doing anything bad (he wasn't stalking her), it was illuminating and frightening to see what it's like now. When I was a kid things were nothing like this. Things continue to evolve in unexpected directions.
This is another thing... People are much less adverse to sharing now, at least in the younger generations. When I was young, and the Web new and full of pretty much no-one but nerds, everyone I knew strove of pseudo-anonymity, and tried to keep a divide between their "real world" self, and their "online" self. Now, psychologically, it seems that that divide has lifted, and the internet is as real as your actual life (until things go wrong, obviously), so people are much freer with sharing their person
Re:That's pretty easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people would just use something like Tor (or Tor and another VPN/proxy service).
Erm... the transport doesn't matter if you're analyzing message composition.
Wasn't this part of what that Barr guy was doing to try to figure out who members of Anonymous were? I think I read recently that he turned out to be right about the one that ran to Canada.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most people would just use something like Tor (or Tor and another VPN/proxy service).
Erm... the transport doesn't matter if you're analyzing message composition.
Right, it's not about the identity - it's about matching different pieces of text as written by the same author
Once the texts are matched, your identity is compromised as long as ONE of the texts is coming from a known identified source (email, etc.)
Re:That's pretty easy (Score:5, Informative)
Yep - that was part of Barr's stock in trade. He compared posts made by anon members in various venues, then traced some of those members to identify them. An IRC server was critical to Barr's process, as I recall. Or, more accurately, the IRC server was critical in this particular instance, as it maintained logs that some of the other servers did not.
No -- he got the guy's name from WHOIS (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing that Barr did correctly was look up WHOIS info on the People's Liberation Front's website after an Anonymous guy claimed to be "Supreme Commander" of the PLF... When Barr confronted him, the guy claimed it was a joke, so Barr pointed to an innocent man [salon.com] instead. (Ars Tech article on the 'correct' Commander X [arstechnica.com].) Otherwise, Barr's tactics -- including analyzing what the people wrote -- gave him completely wrong answers [salon.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Traceability, ie, masking your IP address, has almost nothing to do with the article. Just damned near nothing.
You can find a few dozens of my posts here on slashdot. You might browse to another site, where someone has posted, using my identification. Based on my thought processes, my writing style, my use of punctuation, etc, you can COMPARE the documents, and decide with a pretty high probability that either, A: I am the same author or B: I am not the same Runaway1956 that posted that other document.
Th
RTFA (Score:2)
Which is pointless if your actual writing can give you away. No amount of Tor/VPN or whatever, will do anything useful if your actual writing itself can lead back to you. If I use every anonymity trick in the book, the gig is still up the second I say "Hi, I'm Bob Smith, of 6424 N. 22nd Street, Akron OH".
Sure, you could make a magical anonymous internet, but it defeats the purpose of trying to disseminate whatever your writing to an audience, unless your only going for a very small, select audience of pe
Re: (Score:2)
AKA Spartacus, or AKA John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt? If the later, that is my name too.
Re: (Score:2)
Face recognition software can recognize individuals out of a huge pool of millions using statistical classifiers. It is also possible to identify a person's handwriting with similar methods.
I bet it is possible to use a classifier to find the author assuming that it has been trained with a long enough text written by him and the unidentified text has enough length.
It has nothing to do with your internet link. It uses the traits you leave in your text.
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell a girl's age based on her trim.
Do they change cant or pitch as they age?
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be that hard to write a script that would randomly swap your words with ones from a thesaurus run through Berkeley's FrameNet [berkeley.edu].
nevertheless conjecture it prevail comprehensible?
(but would it be understandable?)