Curtis D. Frye <cfrye@ciis.mitre.org> wrote:
True, though the probability that two individuals would (over)use a particular word or phrase is high enough where "heating things up" would be unjustified, especially if spoofing were involved. Consider the reverse of the analytical process -- I want everyone to believe I'm Joe X, so I do a text analysis of his messages, write my own, analyze my message in comparison with Joe's, and modify it until the (or an) engine's algorithms spit out a score indicating that I'm Joe. Spoofing deluxe!
I don't mean to say that informal analysis doesn't have its place, but we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions and potentially "heating things up" for innocent individuals or "convicting" them in the Court of Net.Opinion absent sufficient proof. I would agree that these analyses might form the basis for a reasonable suspicion that a particular individual is resposnible for bothersome anonymous posts, providing grounds for sysadmin notification.
You can use electronic equipment to disguise your voice on the phone too, it's just not particularily easy or convienient to do. Nobody's saying that this would be convicting evidence, it's like testifying that you recognized the voice of a caller on the phone. (Altho electronic analysis of anonymous callers voices have been used as evidence in court.)