ID of anonymous posters via word analysis?
All the talk recently about multiple fake identities reminded me of a research project I read about a few years ago. A team set out to ascertain if Shakespeare was really one person, or actually several people. The researchers analyzed the frequency distribution of words found in the works of Shakespeare, and compared them to the other writers of the day. I don't recall the results of the project, but that kind of research would have implications for anonymous postings. It is not too difficult to see how certain spelling errors, word frequency (how often do you say 'I':-) choice of wording, and the working vocabulary of an individual could allow you to identify an anonymous poster. This would be particularly easy if the individual also posted under their real name. I suspect that the government has done research on this topic. It would be useful to identify which terrorist made which (written) threat. This brings up the subject of how one can post without leaving an "ASCII fingerprint". I suspect the use of a spelling checker and grammatical checker would help. Perhaps running your text through a language converter, (say English to French) then back would remove many identifying characteristics. Jim Pinson Galapagos Islands PGP key available by finger jpinson@fcdarwin.org.ec
I remember reading some time ago that the Nazis had a method of trapping communists that went like this: They'd put the suspect in room and carry on a conversation with him (all males, as I remember). Then, after several hours of conversation about any and all kinds of subjects, they would tote up the number of times that the suspect used the word "concrete" -- evidently a favorite left-wing buzzword in the '30s. If the "concrete" cropped up frequently .... off to camp went the suspect. I think that identification by buzzwords, habitual misspellings, etc. could be used to identify anonymous posters. Sentence structure is also revealing. Le style, c'est l'homme, said Voltaire. Of course, it all comes down to how much time and effort you want to put into proving, say, that SBoxx=LDetweiler. And the method is fallible. I've seen some pretty wacky schemes "proving," by word or grammatical analysis, that Shakespeare's works were written by Francis Bacon, Chris Marlowe, Queen Elizabeth, etc. It's very easy to be misled by your desire to prove something you're already convinced of for other reasons.
participants (2)
-
Arthur Chandler -
jpinson@fcdarwin.org.ec