Mike McNally writes:

Though I agree with some other contributors that iron-clad identification may require substantial amounts of material, I think Mr. Ghio's point is correct to the extent that a party can satisfy itself informally that a particular anonymous post is from some well-known identity. Though the evidence may be useless in a legal sense, that's not a problem in some contexts.

For example, if Bob Scum is posting anonymously some risky notes to a particular mailing list or newsgroup, it may be quite unfortunate for Bob if mere suspicion arises that the notes are from him. That suspicion need not be based on admissable-in-court evidence; if it's noted by someone that both Bob and the anonymous author routinely use the word "copacetic", things could heat up for poor Bob. If the risky notes involve some socially unacceptable topics like drug use or pornography, the fact that Bob can't actually be convicted is unimportant.

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. Curtis D. Frye cfrye@ciis.mitre.org "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they pay me and make you feel foolish."