Author Unknown 139
| Author Unknown | |
| author | Don Foster |
| pages | 282 |
| publisher | Henry Holt |
| rating | 8/10 |
| reviewer | Jon Katz |
| ISBN | 0-8050-6357-9 |
| summary | uncovering-the-authors-of-anonymous texts |
With unattributed text, says word sleuth Don Foster -- an e-mail from a Hotmail address, the rantings of the Unabomber, or an anonymous letter to the editor -- it is increasingly possible to connect the voice with the creator of the document.
Most anonymous texts, from Elizabethan playscripts to libel on the Net, offer stylistic evidence that reveal a lot more than many scholars and detectives have previously realized. Words are our own intellectual DNA, writes Foster, a professor of English Lit at Vassar and perhaps the world's foremost word sleuth. Analyzed in the right way, they invariably will give us away.
Foster, the author of Author Unknown, has some solid credentials in this field. He solved a puzzle involving one of Shakespeare's sonnets that had stumped sleuths for centuries, identified the anonymous author of presidential tell-all Primary Colors (unmasking the journalist Joe Klein as the author), was enlisted by federal authorities in the hunt for the Unabomber, and was also asked to uncover the author of the celebrated Monica Lewinsky-Linda Tripp "talking points."
This is highly readable book, an intellectual who-dunnit of particular interest to people online who are continuously confronted with anonymous texts. And if you're hiding behind electronic anonymity, you don't want Don Foster on your case. The book tells juicy stories about some of the most sensational crimes and scandals of our time, but it's really about the human mind: the language, identity and the clues that individuals leave behind when they create text, digital or otherwise.
Criminals can ride or hide, Foster writes, but they can't disguise their words and language patterns. We are prisoners of our own language, writing from within a repertoire of certain thoughts and words and spellings.
Some words, Foster writes, are content specific. "Two documents about making salad from "dandelion greens" may have been written by the same person (in this example, Ted Kaczynski) or one writer may have borrowed from another; but if two documents about gardening mention the words "dandelion," "hoe", and "trellis," that may indicate not common authorship or indebtedness but only a shared topic."
Some of the most riveting parts of this book are the insights into Kaczysnki's character and intellect that Foster was able to piece together from a meticulous study of his letters and manifestos. Foster makes Kaczynski more comprehensible than anyone has managed to do, mostly by tracking down the influences, stories, books and writers that pop up again and again in his writings, beliefs and help explain an enduring mystery about his awful work: his choice of victims. We see how Kaczynski, holed up in various libraries, came across biographic references, academic writings or writings that triggered passions and interests (like the story of the Titanic, which obsessed him as a metaphor for failed technology and technological hubris, an obsession that cost lives).
Foster writes about how advanced Geographic Profiling used by police to track down serial criminals didn't work in the Unabomber case, since the offender's primary residence (Montana) and place of employment (none) couldn't have been pinpointed even with the help of advanced computer tracking software. But by locating Kaczynski's words and ideas, pseudonyms, even mailing addresses; by locating his books and magazines, reference works and principal intellectual influences, something could have been learned about the Unabomber's physical whereabouts, even down to the particular buildings in Utah and Northern California where Kaczynski was conducting his primary research, (including the probable dates of his most recent visits).
Foster writes that it was the famous Unabomber Manifesto, "Industrial Society and Its Future," completed and mailed in June 1995 that ultimately led the Unabomber Task Force to Kaczynski's Montana cabin. "I believe," he writes, "that the same wonderfully verbose document, partly written in California libraries, could have led agents to Ted Kaczynski even without David Kaczynski's invaluable assistance."
Foster was repeatedly led to archived stories from "Saturday Review" which Kaczynski read. The Unabomber borrowed heavily, says Foster, especially from the writings of Jacques Ellul. It was in February 1965 that American readers were first introduced to Ellul's "Technological Society" in that magazine. Kaczynski wrote his brother David that he was deeply impressed by Ellul's writings which closely mirrored his own beliefs. These ideas pop up all over Kaczynski's writings, letters and manifesto.
Author Unknown is a great read, timely and riveting, and with special relevance for cyberspace. "In a culture that encourages anonymous communication and the right to speak without responsibility for the content of the utterance, the spoken message and, eventually, language itself are depleted."
There may be a flip-side to Foster's new science. In the wrong hands, it could mean that the kind of free speech and safety sometimes associated with anonymity -- Anonymous Cowards on this site can be obnoxious, but they also pass on valuable information -- could be lost.
But thanks in part to Foster's ground-breaking research, speaking without responsibility may one day be tougher to do.
You can purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
Re:Anonymity (Score:1)
true, but generating an account on /. doesn't necessarily reveal your identity. Ie, how many Bruce Perens clones are there?
Re:They found me! (Score:1)
Re:thats what the fish is for (Score:1)
Word misuse by the word-sleuth (Score:1)
For someone who is so clever about forensic linguistics, it is a bit surprising for Foster to rather blatently misuse words. It almost makes me doubt just how meritorious is his braggadocio.
In point of fact, if Ted Kaczynski could have been found even without his brother's assistance, David Kaczynski's help may have been valuable... but it was not invaluable.
Andrew Q. Morton's cusum technique (Score:1)
For more details, see Farringdon, Morton, Farringdon & Baker's book Analysing For Authorship, University of Wales Press 1996; ISBN: 0708313248 [amazon.co.uk].
Re:We must apply this to the trolls! (Score:1)
ToiletDuk
Protector of the Wastes
Re:No, I disagree.... (Score:1)
You say this is not so but look at most newsgroups.
Common end lusers do not bother using newsgroups not because a pretty interface could not be drawn around it through a slick GUI client or all the porn but because moderated www boards served their purposes of talking with other women going through a breast cancer experience without some complete b*st*rd jumping on and taunting them
with jokes about breasts cancer or both.
The whole idea of anonymous communication is a geek thing and the whole idea of the good stuff getting the exposure is not necessarily true. Search engines and portal sites are the only way to get around all the cruft and crud on the web and it becomes more and more annoying to list through the same 50 people saying exactly the same thing on Slashdot and getting modded up the exact same way instead of being listed as redundant.
Re:I disagree with this one bit: (Score:1)
Re:I've used techniques like this on usenet. (Score:1)
Re:F*cking awesome idea (Score:1)
Sounds double-plus-good.
Re:Unabomber's brother? (Score:1)
Re:I disagree with this one bit: (Score:1)
I didn't think you were wrong or right, I just thought that it was a funny parallel issue.
--
Re:I disagree with this one bit: (Score:1)
--
Re:Messages (Score:1)
Re:Big Deal (Score:1)
Re:VassAr!! (Score:1)
(Vassar '90 Alum)
Re:Pshaw! This one's easy! (Score:1)
-B
Re:Travesty generators - technological arms race (Score:1)
Re:Travesty generators - technological arms race (Score:1)
I've noticed on Slashdot, and other WWW forums, that occasionally someone posts a bunch of text from one of these filters, or something like The Postmodern Essay Generator [elsewhere.org]. I usually spot the computer-generated randomness in the text after the first paragraph, and then stop reading.
If you're hiding, no one will notice you, so why bother writing at all?
Re:easily hacked (Score:1)
If I were to learn French or Spanish, the patterns would be of the Berlitz language company, or the Barron's education company, or whatever, and would be bland from a stylistic point of view.
I'm not entirely sure b/c I read the Foster book a month ago but I believe he addresses this and would disagree with you. Foster would figure out, from your "bland" foreign language writings, how long you have studied the language, possibly where/how and for what reason (lots of commercial jargon in your Spanish? Or many references to Don Quioxte?), what regions/dialects of the language(s) you are familiar with, and to what extent, what language you grew up with, and many other factors.
Also, there is evidence in the recent world of literature that many authors (Conrad, Joyce, Nabokov, Beckett) working with foreign languages (Joyce appropriating them for English work, the others actually working in foreign languages) do maintain certain stylisitic and contentual similarities between their native and foreign language writings.
Re:Put him on the case (Score:1)
Anonymity through Fish (Score:1)
through BabelFish a couple of times...that'll
sort out their analysers!
Re:I suspect this is scientifically invalid (Score:1)
Anyway, apparently this guy submitted some rather controvercial opinion to some board (don't remember specifics) based upon his analysis of a Shakespearean text... and apparently the board (I think it had three members) replied with a long statement that basically amounted to "that's absurd." So this guy did a little research into the writing history of the three board members, analyzed the reply, and pinpointed which one of them wrote the response to his opinion.
In short, I pretty much see this guy as legit.
Jose M. Weeks
Re:thats what the fish is for (Score:1)
in his original manuscript and then the
editor changed it to DNA, surely text analysis
is as good as fingerprints, very high probability
but possibility for dup's. Is it really as
good as DNA?
Babelfish, my friend.... (Score:1)
Re:Pshaw! This one's easy! (Score:1)
Other tracking efforts? (Score:1)
--
Re:Anonymous Cowards are no longer safe. (Score:1)
--
A. Bullard
Re:Word misuse by the word-sleuth (Score:1)
Given that David's assistance clearly led to Ted's arrest sooner than "forensic linguistics" could have, quite probably saving lives in the process, I think this is a fine choice of adjectives. It certainly is not "blatent misuse".
Thanks for playing.
Re:Pshaw! This one's easy! (Score:1)
GIS: I do not speak for my society, and this mast does not educate the professional advice.
Re:Travesty generators - technological arms race (Score:1)
Now I'll start taking the suggestions more seriously.
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List (Score:1)
"Because the other guy did it" is not a relevant excuse for inappropriate behavior.
Just ask my kids. I don't let them use that lame excuse either.
Shakespeare (Score:1)
Katz uncritically repeats what I imagine is Foster's own, or his publishers' claim. In fact, Foster has tried to prove using linguistic methods that a flaky 1612 poem entitled "A Funeral Elegy" (it's not a sonnet) is by William Shakespeare. Many Shakespeare scholars violently disagree. Foster has certainly not "solved a centuries old mystery" to many people's satisfaction.
This is not a sig
HELO? U R 4 SPEKENG BANGLADESH? (Score:1)
If you're dedicated enough, you can fracture and steal other people's words to get across a completely new message. If you don't believe me, just ask William S. Burroughs...
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List (Score:1)
Next?
Maeryk.
(yes its OT.. I know..)
The distinctiveness of Jon Katz (Score:2)
"This is highly readable book, an intellectual who-dunnit of particular
This is the first line of the fifth paragraph of the article. Such attention to detail, such ability to edit his pieces, such grammar and style... Yes, America, this is uniquely Jon Katz.
Well, the lack of concrete proof ("well, one guy says so.. though you of course have to buy his book to know anything concrete...") and lack of real content (and Katz's opinions alone do not qualify as content) made this inevitably the work of Jon Katz anyway.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Re:Travesty generators - technological arms race (Score:2)
I would imagine that If you looked at my
Each of us has a style of writing. I don't think this is a bad thing. Each of us look at the world our own way, and write to match.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
An interesting experiment I tried... (Score:2)
My instructor was also the head of the Journalism Department. And he liked to give little "news conferences" where he would pretend to be a news source (which he almost was) and we would pretend to be reporters (which we almost were). We would ask questions and then write stories based on the pseudo-event.
As I was usually bored to tears, I developed a little game: I would see how much I could change his quotes without getting caught. I never changed the meaning of anything. But I was able to change the actual words almost all the time. Needless to say, this would have been highly unethical in a real-world scenario unless you knew a great deal about how the person being misquoted really talked (his or her style as it is analyzed in this book). An offended quotee might easily say, "I would never say it that way!" But I never got caught because, as a captive audience, students DO get a good chance to learn how their professors speak. I made him sound more like himself than even he did.
I'm sure this story has some relevance to the field of study this book addresses. But I'm not sure what it is.
It would be interesting to know if the author would find it easier or harder to spot faked style examples than the person being faked.
It would also be interesting to know how much of the distinguishing characteristics of a person's prose are stylistic in nature and how much is semantic. (Both seem to be implied by the review.)
It seems like there may be some implications for NPC AIs in CRPGs as well: If one could codify a wide variety of speaking styles, one could give each NPC a distinctive voice with much less design overhead.
BTW, I am the guy whose posts can easily be spotted by the elipses (...) which end most of my subject lines and begin most of my comments.
Re:Anonymity (Score:2)
Ha ha... (Score:2)
From now on I think I'll prefilter all of my anonymous online posts using:
Let's see how easy it is to track those posts down after that.
--
Where to find "text fingerprint" analysis tools? (Score:2)
--
Re:Anonymity (Score:2)
However, in our western society anonymity is not so much needed because we have a decent (not perfect) amount of legal protection. However, in countries like China where you can be locked up simply by attending a conference where certain things are said, anonymity is important. If the Chinese government will ever set up an echelon like network they will most certainly pay attention to this book and may be even use it to filter the online material against known offenders. Maybe they'll even use it as proof and take the occasional mistake for granted. Scary stuff indeed.
Luckily, this book also provides us with the means to anonimyze texts. By randomly inserting synonyms and replacing expressions with semantic equivalents you'd get untracable texts. You could even fake identity this way for instance by analyzing Mao's text (hint to chinese protesters
However this requires knowledge, so ignorance is not a bless here!
Re:Travesty generators - technological arms race (Score:2)
-B
Re:Just put it into babelfish (Score:2)
I had the same idea about how the method descibed in the book could be cicumvented by machine translation.
-----
Re:Pshaw! This one's easy! (Score:2)
However, I don't think this will inevitably fix things - the author here was talking about stylistic usages - such as quoting from sources, or common recurring words/themes - these won't be pulled out by Babelfish, though Babelfish may make it difficult to note certain patterns.
I agree with the method - I can usually recognize people online simply by word usage and punctuation usage. Punctuation is usually a total giveaway - for instance, I tend to use dashes a whole lot, and rarely (if ever) miss capitalization or comma usage (In real time chat, it becomes even easier, as you can tell roughly the speed at which someone types). You kindof "pick up" these habits after dealing with other people online quite a bit. This just takes that learned habit to a new level.
Re:easily hacked (Score:2)
I'm afraid I don't agree. I use words like floppy, mp3, and lemon grass a lot more than either of my parents or brothers. I use geek in a non-pejorative way. etc... I also construct my sentences slightly differently, because I'm a child of the 80's not the 50's. So, my vocabulary and grammar is a mixture that results from many different influences.
I don't think learning a foreign language would help much, because in order to get past the 'Monkey is in the tree' stage, you will be reading newspapers and talking to other people. You will learn some of their ideosyncrasies and start using them. Mixed-up in your own, unique way, of course.
Related works (Score:2)
It involves a text compression system that must be trained with text (the more, the better). If you train the system with the works of N different authors and compress the text to be identified with each of the models, it usually gets compressed best with the model of the author that really wrote the text.
This of course requires a sample of the author's work to be available.
Re:No, I disagree.... (Score:2)
Forget the usual sky-is-falling conservative rant ("the right blah blah without responsibility for blah blah the content of blah blah are depleted"): the point is really that the expressive tools available to any individual's intellect and experience are limited, and this can be used to triangulate the speaker, if enough speech is available to do so. Of course, this isn't really a scientific process, and without a lot of sample text - as was available in the Unabomber case - it's not much more reliable than a police psychic. And of course, in the Unabomber case, the source really wanted his views and intellect known, so it would have been difficult for him to resist leaking out key details such as literary sources.
In the case of AC's degradation of message, this is more representative of the phenomenon that communities become more diffuse in their cultural focus as they get larger. Yeah, I like "underground" too, but at some point the reactionary dispair over the lack of Quality and Values (whether or not it is masquerading in hipster fashion) becomes a call to continue living in caves. Go ahead, caveman.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Beware of trivialities. :) (Score:2)
After all, that's what trivial means--that anyone can do it.
That's also ignoring the fact that Babelfish-like programs are available for free download. How do you propose to trace down exactly which program was used to do the language mangling when there are a few million laptops around with that sort of software on it?
Really, I would like to see if it's as trivial as you're making it out to be. Just post the IP address I filed the Fish request from (hint: it's not the same as the IP address I'm posting this from) and I'll concede that it's a trivial exercise.
Re:Big Deal (Score:2)
Voices From the Hellmouth
Rethinking Virtual Community
The New Geography
Embracing Insanity
Cyberdemocracy and the Public Sphere
Dark Hearts and the Net
Spirit of the Web
Is The Virtual Community A Myth?
--
Re:Pshaw! This one's easy! (Score:2)
1. Get as much writing samples from your victims as possible.
2. have the program find all the words spelled incorrectly and remember them.
3. You write whatever you want the victim to say.
4. Program parses it and then spells all the words you spell correctly the victim spells incorrectly, and vise versa.
Evil? Perhaps.
Noteable Usenet Trolls (Score:2)
However, what he posted was actually on topic, or close to it for most of the newsgroups. He was posting, in pieces, books that had lapsed into the public domain that were relevant to the newsgroup. If I had to guess, he was testing some autoposting software. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a testing of spamming software.
He was not hard to killfile though because he would stick to a particular e-mail address and subject (title, author and incrementing part number) for the duration of each book.
From just my description of his "work", I would bet that several people here can identify him, or at least his pseudonym if it was one, and a list of newsgroups he was seen in. Recognizing trolls when they change addresses has been a popular sport on Usenet for years. I'm looking forward to refining my techniques.
Re:easily hacked (Score:2)
I must disagree. This disallows for the possibility of linguistic innovation. Furthermore, or the course of many generations, it would make the linguistic styles of members of stable populations increasingly indistiguishable from each other.
I know that I speak my own idiolect. Large parts of it come from the people around me. Parts of it don't. Particular bits of wordplay have become in jokes for my friends and family. Each of us originated some of them. Each of us use a subset of them.
I have watched my own "voice" evolve over the years. I can attribute some of the changes to specific influences in my life. I have consciously borrowed from languages that I have learned and people I have met.
Some of my choices in wording also reflect outside influences: profession, location, hobbies, etc. But some are my own choice. This in no way invalidates the theory that stylistic data can identify an author. It would be difficult for me to completely enumerate every identifying characteristic of my writing and hide it effectively. However, some of it I consciously created or chose for myself.
As for learning another language, to a certain extent you are right. One common misconception about multilingual people is that there is a measurable degree of fluency in each language. The granularity is finer than that. I have friends from college who are quite fluent bilingually, but cannot discuss their professions in anything but English. It is the language in which they studied and now work. They don't have a technical vocabulary in their other languages.
Re:I disagree with this one bit: (Score:2)
I, as I assume you, used to think this was a Voltaire quote. Someone here pointed me to the fact that it was *not* Voltaire, but was Tallentyre who said it. I went and looked it up on the one quote database, and it said "usually attributed to Voltaire, but not appearing anywhere in his repertoire, actually said by Tallentyre".
So nyahh.
*grin*
Maeryk
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List (Score:2)
No, I want to see some proof. Not one guy saying "he said she said". Sorry.. I dont buy that. When the "he said she said" was coming out over the last batch of elected crooks, we got "OH! that's anecdotal! No proof!" we got "Ohh.. you are just mean.. there is no *proof*.. those guys are just lying to make them look bad".
I see no reason not to apply the same judgement to this sudden revelation.
I am not a "Zealot", but I also dont believe that *ANYONE* in washington.. from bush down to the lowliest aide, doenst have *something* in their closet. What strikes me as humorous is that the guy threatening to filibuster against him DROWNED someone, and is now bitching about morals.
*sigh*
As for the election being decided by the Supreme Court.. nah.. they specifically ruled *not* to rule on that, and let it be decided by the state.. a noble thing, AFAIC.
This was almost a shameless theft by the Gore camp.. but the good guys won on this one.
Maeryk
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List (Score:2)
No, Frankly, I dont. It is one thing to accept uncoroborated evidence as fact, and yet another to doubt something that was duly testified to in court and investigated. You can be an idiot if you wish, and say "they are just as valid", but, well, the fool is you.
**As for the election being decided by the Supreme Court.. nah.. they specifically ruled *not*
to allow the State of Florida to finish do its count, thereby selecting Bush. The Supreme Court even said they made a mistake to stop the counts, but that because of their mistake it was too late so Bush would have to do. ***
can I distort your myopic world view for a moment?
1) the recount (the FIRST) recount was mandated by Florida state law. The second, third, ad nauseum were mandated only by Gores crack team of lawyers, to force the issue.
2) By the laws of the state of Florida, and the laws of the US, (electoral college) Bush won the election. All the civil rights lawsuits in the world wont help.
3) Gores claims (and clintons, as well) of "every vote a counted one" rang with hypocrisy even as they said them, as there were many other counties in Florida that were just as close, yet on Gore's side, which were *not* recounted, or even mentioned.
4) Gored DNC president RESIGNED because of this issue! Gore got *just* close enough to being a ridiculous whining little child over this entire thing, that Rendell was *removed* from his position when he stated it was time for Gore to give it up, it was Bush's game!
How can you, in good conscience, follow that and *still* claim the wrong man got in? you can have objections to bush, or be for Gore, but you cannot claim that the election was the cause..
I honestly believe that the biggest fear about Ashcroft is that he wont be a presidential ass-kisser like Reno was, and that he may actually have some sort of spine, ulike Reno. Course, with a republican regime, no-one will be able to do anything without it being under the microscope. I just have to wonder if it would have been any different if the Republican AG had intentionally gassed over a dozen children to death in a compound. Would he/her and his troops walk free? Somehow I dont think so.
Maeryk
Re:You mean this? (Score:2)
Yeah.. read it again.. "could have" is not the same as "did" and the "even without David's assistance" means that they are acknowledging that that *is* what caught him.
Thats what I said.. he never said *HE* caught him.. he said that language analysis (for wont of a better term) did.. IE his brother recognized his writing style.. which was basically the basis of the review/book anyway.
Maeryk
Re:Typical "expert", claiming fame after the fact (Score:2)
Read the article again.. and tell me where this guy says he had anything to do with the capture?
He is merely pointing out an example.
Maeryk
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List (Score:2)
**
Ashcroft is a man who believes in his convictions. APparently that is not acceptable to the people currently involved in thwarting him. There is *absolutely* no reason he should not be placed in that office.
How can you say "president select"? or are you one of the people who still hasnt realized that Bush was elected fully within the laws of the US and within the laws of the state of Florida? Wake up, smell the big oil.. the man was legally elected, and we will now come out of the 8 year nightmare that was clinton.
Speaking of hypocrisy, how can you hold Ashcroft on a moral pinion, when Clinton just A) pardoned everyone involved in whitewater and his fund-raising scandals, and b) pleaded guilty to perjury and took a plea bargain of 5 year loss of law liscence and 25K fine when did so?
Please.. dont be a hypocrite yourself.. I never said Ashcroft *didnt* do it, I said that compared to the quantity of scandal following Clinton, this is *nothing* and no reason to keep him from assuming the office.
Maeryk
Re:I disagree with this one bit: (Score:2)
Excellent point! And, on a related note, just because they post a link that backs up their belief, does not make it carved in stone.
The thing is, however, that *usually* you can track someone's posting history.. go look at the author.. then look up permutations of that name, and you can have a good idea of the validity of their claim.
Public scrutiny exists here just as anywhere.. and if someone with a nick *very* close to someone elses has posted two posts, whereas the other has hundreds, and karma of 40, it should be a clue as to what is going on there.
maeryk
Research journals (Score:2)
It's not useless either. Knowing the reviewer really helps in writing a rebutal that will get your paper accepted.
Re:I suspect this is scientifically invalid (Score:2)
Writing style or voice is a pretty common and obvious thing, very much like musical style and voice. I heard two bars of a song in a store the other day, and immediately knew it was Mark Knopfler, although I'd never heard the album before. Read Vonnegut and then the "sunscreen" monologue; and figure out why people believed that it was his writing, or wasn't. (It wasn't, and didn't really sound like him, but rather someone entirely different who was influenced by him)
Whether or not you can disguise your writing voice depends on how well you understand _what_ you're trying to disguise. Is it vocabulary, experiences, sentence/paragraph structure, or something else?
It's not infallible, but it's definitely got some pretty rigorous (and effective) methodologies.
Identity (Score:2)
Based on years with USENET, IRC and MUDs, I'd say that sorting out "voices" from "mere" text is something that a lot of us have been doing on line for a long time.
As a MUD admin, I was often able to tell when someone "other" than the owner of a character was using it. Female admins were a lot better than me at it, actually. Once you start to put together a mental "image" of who this disembodied voice is, it is amazing how quickly someone else assuming the role "clashes" with the picture that formed in your mind.
The science here comes in being able to just yank other text and categorize it, and scale that power up enormously. Thus, people like our author here have stunningly impressive powers over those that they do not know personally.
However, don't believe that if your boss reads something you wrote, he might not add 1 and 1 to get two. When it is familiar with things, the human mind is a powerful associative tool. Do you really think you could fool your mother? Or brother? The Unabomber, as smart as he was, couldn't. He did get by the experts for a long time though.
Re:Travesty generators - technological arms race (Score:2)
--
Re:I've used techniques like this on usenet. (Score:2)
On alt atheism, we have a guy who goes one step further by faking posts from group regulars. They are the kind of vile racist and misogynistic crap we normally don't get arround there, with inocuos titles and the name of someone you usually respect. (my newsreader doesn't give enough info on the thread heading to tell the difference.) Its really obnoxious. its like someone spreading dog shit around your favorite park so you're too busy looking out not to step in it to enjoy what you came there for.
The funniest thing is that, like above, he has the most easily recognizable posting style on the planet, yet continuously claims that it is this other guy doing it. Then he fakes emails from the other guy, still using the same posting style. Its pathetic, and he's not fooling anyone, but that doesn't stop me from stepping in his little troll piles when I'm trying to relax with some usenet reading.
This all started out (on alt.atheism, at least) with him sending a death threat to one of our regulars because of her posting in another group. (which, of course, he claims was really sent by this other guy). real loser.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List (OT) (Score:2)
(from the nice folks at the Onion, [theonion.com] who always seem to say it best.)
Bush: 'Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over.' [theonion.com]
(from the article)
Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."
"Soon, with John Ashcroft's help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."
Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."
--
Who should be president (Score:2)
The only thing that really matters, the only thing, is who got the most votes in FL. The votes should all have been properly counted. Spesific legal loopholes or whatnot don't matter.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
F*cking awesome idea (Score:2)
Another good idea would be a code anonymizer. It would reformat and rename variables, Restructure logic to simplest form etc.
Re:I suspect this is scientifically invalid (Score:2)
IMHO, he grinds his axes too loudly to be bullshitting. The first hundred pages or so have more iterations of "X said I was a fraud; here's why X was wrong; yeah, suck it, X" than I've ever heard from a supposed psychic.
Re:I disagree with this one bit: (Score:2)
One of the things not yet mentioned in the discussion is the quantity of writing necessary to do any real sort of comparison. For example, it would be difficult to identify me by my writings only, because I post so infrequently. If I posted more often, and wanted to remain pseudo-anonymous, I simply create new accounts. If each account has similarly few postings, it would be very difficult to sift through the hundreds of thousands of slashdot accounts to find the few accounts that are all most likely mine.
Even when people use account names, they're still pseudonyms that would be pretty difficult to link to real names by using writing styles, unless writings under both real name and pseudonym are prolific.
Dave
Haiku (Score:2)
People will know my writing
From its form, syntax
link to the Manifesto (Score:2)
here is the manifesto:
http://www.wwfreepress.com/unaba.html
Anonymous Cowards are no longer safe. (Score:2)
You hear that, all of you Anonymous Cowards? We'll hire Don Foster to track you down!!!
Um, no, we don't know; where can we find them? (Score:2)
Um, no, we don't know the techniques. Not really. At least I don't, not from the Katz article -- though he's probably raised our awareness of what can/is being done. And yes, I'll remember to get this book and read it myself, but still I can't help but wonder:
Where can I learn more about the techniques described here? Are there software packages (open source, even) out there that do this kind of text analysis? Texts on how to do it yourself? Publications describing word-pattern detection algorithms?
(And where are all the karma whores who usually post these links, now that I need you?)
--
Re:Pshaw! This one's easy! (Score:2)
The difficulty with this approach of masking one's identity is that you lose the ability to make a powerful, respectable argument. Words are weapons only when the author is able to hone his or her work to a razor-sharp edge; running a text through The Fish is the rough equivalent of bashing the weapon against a rock several times.
The first example was reverse-translated through Babelfish using English --> German --> English. The second is the original.
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Vasser!! (Score:2)
Lisa: (depressed) At this rate I'm going to end up at Vasser...
Homer: (angrily) Young lady, I've had it about up to here with all this Vassar bashing!!
Anonymity (Score:2)
Just picture Slashdot with out the ACs. It would be no great loss would it?
Furthermore, I think people should, if they want to express an opinion say so in public - otherwise they can't really believe it.
Anonymous promulgation of opinions is cowardly and dangerous.
Re:Travesty generators - technological arms race (Score:2)
Down tracking bad creator of translations possible will be? Them grammar teaching so manual VCR not be not comprehending and similar sounding as Yoda?
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
From Katz's review:
So yes, David Kaczynski suspected that his brother was the Unabomber after reading excerpts from the manifesto and he tipped off the authorities and this led to the Ted man. Foster's claim, as I read it, is that he (or someone) could have traced the writings to Ted even if David hadn't made the connection.It only worked because Ted was not aware of it. (Score:3)
I have already been doing this for years. If I post something to the net under an invented identity, I change the sentence structure, spelling, style, tone, various lexical elements---you name it. I'm also careful not to make any cultural or intellectual references similar to ones that I might otherwise make.
I can easily write something that could not possible be attributed to me. The reason for this is obvious: writing is, or at least can be, deliberate, subject to endless revision and clever disguise. It only acts as a fingerprint when it's poured out without deliberation.
Only in real-time performance activities is it difficult to mask one's traits: speaking, walking, playing music and so forth. The low level elements of these activities are beyond conscious control, unlike writing, whose every element can be controlled by the writer.
you decide - the Unabomber, or Al Gore? (Score:3)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ken_cros
Ways to Evade this Technology (Score:3)
This suggests two ways to evade the technology. One is to apply some filter that makes everybody's work look the same. A crude example would be if everyone used the Zippy filter - that style may be so strong as to mask the differences among the original authors, as well as the similarities between original works by the same author. It is somewhat analogous to writing in block print to hide one's handwriting.
The second way is to make ones own work look different every time. In other words, make your own work have very little internal correlation. Again, a crude example would be if sometimes one wrote in Hemingway's style, then Steinbeck, then Maya Angelou, etc. This is analogous to cutting and pasting words and letters from magazines, "ransom-note" style, to hide one's handwriting.
The fascinating thing to me is that someone has come up with a way (perhaps crude so far) to statistically recognize writing style, something that we people are relatively good at already - the Unabomber's brother fingered him upon reading the manifesto, for example. The thing to remember is that it's only as good as his algorithms, which we smart hackers can surely outwit.
I think what makes this difficult to do manually is that our writing style is probably a fairly low-level characteristic, like our gait, handwriting, or voice. Just as those can be overridden with training, surely one's writing style can be as well.
I disagree with this one bit: (Score:3)
AC's are usually posting anonymously so they can be obnoxious. In the *rare* (to my eyes) occasion that they pass on something of value, it is a two-sided coin. On one side, it is valuable info, on the other side, it is plausibly false. It is *easy* to spout off when you are "hidden" on the net.
Anyone who thinks that they are "anonymous" on the net is direly mistaken. You can be tracked, and if you are annoying enough to the powers that be, you *will* be tracked.
it continually amazes me, however, that they can track down a cyber-pedophile, or the Una-bomber, but they are powerless to stop mass mailings from ISP]s that specifically dont allow them.
Anonymity is all well and good, I guess, but typically, I dont pay much attention to what they say. I am willing to stand by my words, as long as the context they were taken from is moved intact as well. (IE: dont take my quotes on GWAR to stand as my quotes on how I feel about female rights in this country. The two are about as diametrically opposed as possible, yet with huge search engines and Deja News out there, it is easy enough for someone to do just that.)
Maeryk
I suspect this is scientifically invalid (Score:3)
Lincoln biographer Stephen Oates almost had his career ruined by some morons at NIH who ran some Lincoln biographies through a computer and claimed Oates had plagiarized based on some similarities with a classic 1952 bio of Lincoln.
easily hacked (Score:3)
Learn a new language and make your irresponsible ravings in that. Language is acquired by age five, and those patterns that you have are identical with the patterns of your parents, older siblings, and the others who were around you speaking your native tongue.
If I were to learn French or Spanish, the patterns would be of the Berlitz language company, or the Barron's education company, or whatever, and would be bland from a stylistic point of view.
Anonymous authorship was a formidable force in kicking the British out of the colonies circa 1776.
Bukvich
Re:Big Brothers New Trick (Score:3)
Its by no means a quick and easy way to link an anonymous message to one of a million people, and I can't help but think that anyone (for example) posting AC to /. about the real interpretation of the constitution who thinks that he's worth it is probably suffering from a touch of narcicism.
People talk alot about the importance of anonymous speech. It's certainly nice in some cases, but I think its importance has been overrated in this forum. If you want to make a difference out in the real world with something you're saying (without it being an anonymous threat of violence ala Teddy K.) you put your name on it. Just ask John Hancock.
Kahuna Burger
They found me! (Score:3)
since the offender's primary residence (Montana) and place of employment (none) couldn't have been pinpointed even with the help of advanced computer tracking software
I, for one live in Montana and have no job, yet I think that I must be able to be tracked down by sophisticated computer methods, since I am always getting offers for pre-approved credit cards and offers of pr0n.
Recent Radio Interview with Don Foster (Score:3)
__________________
Taco == Katz? (Score:3)
No, I disagree.... (Score:3)
"In a culture that encourages anonymous communication and the right to speak without responsibility for the content of the utterance, the spoken message and, eventually, language itself are depleted."
I think Slashdot is a prime example of how this is not the case, certainly, ACs may "deplete" the message, but the cream rises to the top. The interesting, insightful stuff on the Internet will be linked to, will get traffic. Pages by the eponymous B1FF will be lost amid the dross.
Of course, there always will be exceptions to this. But the internet is in itself self-regulatory - the good stuff gets more exposure. Dilution? Perhaps. Lost messages? I think not.
Troll or not, it's scary stuff... (Score:3)
Let's not forget that the FBI called paper clips found in his home "bomb making equipment" (and not "letter writting equipment"). Let's not forget that while his court-appointed lawyers were saying, "Yes, poor Ted IS guilty, but it's OK 'cause he's insane!!!, as Ted was trying to fire the bastards and plead innocent, but NOO! the judge says... Ted isn't competent to speak for yourself in court.... You CAN'T plead innocent. Shut up and sit there and take what you got coming.
There is plenty of evidence to show that Ted was railroaded. The message in Ted's case is that any intellectual that abandons technology and moves to the mountians must be a killer. Anyone who writes anti-capatilist literature is a terrorist.
Just like in the OKC thing. If you oppose what happened in Waco, you are guilty of OKC bombings.
Where's the critical thinking? Where is the skeptical inquiry?
Now the next $100,000 question... (Score:4)
I've used techniques like this on usenet. (Score:4)
Kill-filing this looney is impossible as his email address constantly mutates.
We must apply this to the trolls! (Score:4)
Once all the trolls have been identified, a crack team of Andover sponsored Army Rangers should break down their doors, grab the trolls, flog them with wet lasagna noodles, and send them packing to Belize, preferable Temptation Island, where they will be sentenced to death by oral sex.
Finally, Slashdot will be troll free!
Give the author a break (Score:4)
Regarding using BabelFish, or other tools, I don't think that's a good countermeasure, clearly no one could tell who wrote the article, nor would they care, since the final presentation would lack style, and readability. In arguing against translating works of literature, Mark Twain demonstrated the folly of such an enterprise by translating one of his short stories to French and then back to English. The resulting text lacked Twain's style, and was unreadable.
Which is longer and more rambling? (Score:5)
(a) The Unabomber Manifesto
(b) An average Jon Katz article
Pencils down!
Cheers,
Big Deal (Score:5)
--
Pshaw! This one's easy! (Score:5)
=====
On-line anonymity is simple. If you want to really upward screw efforts to identify itself by the specific language details just your masts by the fish execute a pair of the periods. Which comes out, is guaranteed, giving foster a first class klassenmigraene.
(English->French->German->English, for those who are interested.)
Travesty generators - technological arms race (Score:5)
Travesty generators have been around for some time, taking random sequences of letters and filtering them into the style of Shakespeare. This makes for something between Shakespeare-sh gibberish and amusing reading.
Imagine something like a travesty generator that can decompose your writing, sentence by sentence. Then, armed with a built-in thesaurus, grammatical rules, etc, it could re-cast your words into someone else's mold.
In other words, scan manifesto A, scan writings of author B, building rulebases of both. Convert manifesto A into style of author B.
I don't believe we have this, but I don't believe it's much of a stretch, either. Kind of a computerized equivalent of cutting the words and letters out of magazines and newspapers, then pasting them back into your own message.