Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Can ID Anonymous Twitterers

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the 140-shady-characters dept.

Privacy 108

narramissic writes "In a paper set to be delivered at an upcoming security conference, University of Texas at Austin researchers showed how they were able to identify people who were on public social networks such as Twitter and Flickr by mapping out the connections surrounding their network of friends. From the ITworld article: 'Web site operators often share data about users with partners and advertisers after stripping it of any personally identifiable information such as names, addresses or birth dates. Arvind Narayanan and fellow researcher Vitaly Shmatikov found that by analyzing these 'anonymized' data sets, they could identify Flickr users who were also on Twitter about two-thirds of the time, depending on how much information they have to work with.'"

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350051)

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports
(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market." Calls Us policy a "way to hell"

Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says [bloomberg.com]
Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds [reuters.com]
The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass [dailybail.com]

China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar [bloomberg.com]

China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency [bbc.co.uk]

What are the reserve currencies? [wsj.net]

Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors [ml-implode.com]

Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people' [telegraph.co.uk]

Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats [examiner.com]

Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers [cnbc.com]

A False Choice [viewfromsi...valley.com]

Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers ajc.com [ajc.com]

Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands [alternet.org]

Socialising and Privatising [freeradical.co.nz]

Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses [politico.com]

Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply [researchrecap.com]

Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund [ft.com]

- Russia too: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read. [en.rian.ru]

- President Barak "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption, Rahm Emanuel (Radical authoritarian Statist whose father was part of the Murderous Civilian Killing Israeli Terrorist Organization known as IRGUN), Connected to Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat), Connected to Ayers, a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom, Preacher Jeremiah Wright, who is himself a black-elitist who wants all the people who largely "pay the freight" to suffer, 31 million on food stamps, more blacks are in prison and on food-stamps per capita than anyone else. The problem with Wright is simply this: the facts are "racist."
- Obama: Racist, AIPAC-bootlicker, Corrupted to the bone Chicago style and a Traitor to the US Constitution and a Liar whose real "legal" name could very well be Barry Sotero and an Indonesian citizen (The US does not allow plural citizenship) (If you care, not that it matters anymore under a Lawless Authoritarian Totalitarian Regime, you can see more here at an aggregator; obamacrimes.info [obamacrimes.info] )
  - Raytheon lobbyist in Pentagon, lots lobbyists getting exemptions even though he promised not to have them.
- Goldman Sachs insider second in command at Treasury. Bumbling tax cheat idiot in "command" of Treasury with 17 positions unfilled as of late March 2009.
- Cabinet has had several nominees and appointees with multiple tax fraud issues.
- Lied about having a new degree of accountability and a SUNSHINE period of new laws, he has signed bills with little or no review at whitehouse.gov as promised.
- Appointed a second amendment violating Rich-pardoning treasonist Eric Holder as AG, the top cop of the USA, a man who helped a fugitive evade justice.
- Has not put a dime in for a single new nuclear power plant but wants to help bridges and roads to promote more driving.
- Obama, Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel have a LOT to hide. They literally lived next to each other, Rahm had (until being Chairman Obama's Chief of staff) Blagojevich's old federal congressional seat. Blagojevich helped Chairman "The Teleprompter" Obama cheat his way to the Illinois senate by getting other candidates thrown off the ballot in Illinois. Why do you think Blagojevich was so mad? Obama DID owe him, big time. Rahm and Obama are using Blagojevich and trying to cut his head off to keep him away.
- Tony Rezko, Iraqi Arms Dealer Nahdmi Auchi, and of course Aiham Alsammarae. Chairman "The Teleprompter" Hussein Obama is so corrupted its a joke.
- Fools and "useful idiots" twist the pie charts by leaving welfare, workfare, interest on debt, social security, Medicare and Medicaid out and focusing only on non-whole "discretionary" pie charts.
2007 high level pie chart, Federal Budget, USA [wikimedia.org]
2009 Pie chart, detailed, Federal Budget, USA [wikimedia.org]
- Chairman Obama is drastically increasing spending and creating more entitlements that will make the US less competitive (especially against China, India, East Europe/Russia). This will be a huge disaster and change you can believe in will strap you and your grandkids with more debt. No taxation without representation? Obama is spending money for the next two-three generations and they can't even vote yet, or even have been born.
- An alternative to the dollar and a forex and a reserve currency came up at the last G20 meeting. The world will not take faith in Obama's liar-socialist spending and welfare state, why should the taxpayers (plebian citizen-slaves of a police state).
- The spending going on now vastly eclipses all previous spending. In fact, the massive trillion plus debts is a thing of the 80's onwards. Congress signs the checks, remember that Year after year, as egregious as the pentagon spending is, that the social spending is completely a waste of money and it is unfunded over the long term. Eisenhower built the interstates, the US could build a new power infrastructure with this money but instead is being pissed into creating more of an entitlement system that is STILL unfunded, and without massive poll-taxes and far more aggressive progressive taxes, could NEVER be funded.
- The budgeting being done today were recently reported by a non-partisan auditing commission will lead to about 10 TRILLION in new debt over the next 10 years. Obama is going to double the national debt while doing nothing to address the unfunded debt obligations of Social Security.
- Clinton appointed David Walker of the GAO, he quit, the unfunded debt obligations have rendered the USA insolvent according to accounting standards.
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion [usatoday.com]
US Public Debt Unfunded Debt Obligations [wikipedia.org]
- Most of the world population gets NOTHING from their governments, or a very bare minimum or services that benefit only the upper echelons of society. However, the liar Chairman Obama says we need his universal "state-hospital" rationed health care to be competitive. Bull. China and India give nothing, and they are the biggest threat to the American worker. By forcing healthcare and higher taxes, Americans will be less competitive.
- If you think 60% tax rates end to end (income, accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, excise tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capital gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, misc internet sales tax and many more taxes that I can't recall at the moment) will make the US competitive, along with compulsory programs to provide everyone with health care is going to make the US competitive in the age of India and China, you are a joke.
- As the US nationalizes (read: rations healthcare) to the least common denominator of affordability without regard to efficacy, people with money will simply look into medical tourism so those with money can go to medical parks in India and get real health care. Those who have lived in Canada or in the UK can tell you "free" healthcare is NOT a panacea. If you think this, you are again, a useful idiot. The NHS in the UK has given bad blood and Hepatitis and AIDS blood to people, and Jade Goody who just died was misdiagnosed twice resulting in her death (She was all cleared twice of cervical cancer which she just died of). The NHS in the UK is not able to be sued or held accountable. Neither will Chairman Obama's rationed health care service for America.
- Sorry to bust the socialist bubble-lie, but support of these types of policies will simply lower the standard of living in the USA, particularly for the middle class. At least at the end of the Eisenhower projects the USA got roads to show for the spending, and with this new spending, the USA could have built power plants that get the USA out of the middle east, but the age of government for the sake of government is upon us, and the useful idiots line up and believe empty promises.
The pentagon (and Bechtel, Kroll, Bluewater, Halliburton, etc) could get less than half of what they get today, but that will fix nothing fundamental in terms of government spending. It is simply not enough to make a difference when compared to the Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security entitlements.
See: YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy [youtube.com]
- If Obama thinks its ok to lie to 300 million people about being able to "take care of them" without even being honest about what that care would look like, then being an idiot and believing in Obama is for you.
- The head of the IRS and the head of the Treasury, Geithner, is a Tax Cheat
- Lied about no lobbyists - their numbers are growing.
- The US Government already have over 50% of the budget on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security. Socialists: Good job on that one, its working great. Solution to the current near-collapse-due-to-over-spending: add more unfunded entitlements!
- You Socialist-liars can break my spirit and my financial back to force me to "need" a federal government that is turning this country into a police state and turn it into a quasi-socialist lie, but I will, I must put up a fight. I have kids to educate and feed, and the stuff you sell (which is failing to various degrees everywhere else as implemented) is simply forcing a culture of failure on a once great, libertarian free country.
- I will not be complacent with your "change," and there will be a point where civil war will become an option. See how hard you can push before you get it. How much more than half can the truly productive workers in this country afford to pay. Keep pushing to find out how to start a civil war.
- The socialist-lie of a plan will not work, its not fundable, it WILL destroy the currency to fund it, and its really as simple as this: if this insanity is funded by borrowing from the US's economic and military adversaries then Obama and his socialist cabal is NOT fit to administrate society. Rome fell. Kings who mis-manged their treasuries all fell. Every example of unhinged spending leads to the same result: systemic collapse.
- Obama and his sycophantic lunatics would want to have a civil war to get Chairman Obama's way and force the socialist-lie system on my already tax paying law abiding ass. And as far as "no new taxes" for those under 250k, its a lie, the tax is called inflation, which is set to begin just about now that the Chinese wont want the USA's worthless treasuries to fund the socialist-lie fantasy (one that COMMUNIST China doesn't even try and sell to its people!)
- Chairman Obama's numbers don't add up. There is a $59 trillion dollar hole (UFDO) in social security alone. AIG $150 billion here, TARP $350 billion there. $800 billion for a highly dubious stimulus package. Another one on the way. $59 trillion hole in the balance sheet IGNORED. China saying they aren't going to buy treasuries, Clinton clamoring to find buyers now. $3.6 trillion dollar budget, potential military action on Mexico, Iran still a "terrorist state" at the behest of the AIPAC, spending up, dollar about to fall, inflation over time since Breton Woods extremely easy to document, yet, the socialist-liars question when the numbers (the Federal Government numbers) simply don't add up to the point where if the US-GOV was a company it would be insolvent.
  -How dare the taxpayers question what Chairman Obama's drastic spending increases are going to do to the purchasing power of our savings because Chairman Obama wants to recklessly spend and try to maintain and American empire AND guarantee a standard of living, and Chairman Obama doesn't even want to build a single nuclear power plant to do it? Chairman Obama must be a complete and total lunatic moron.
- Obama is either a negligent idiot or an unhinged maniac with delusional fantasies. Meanwhile, Chainman Obama's tax dodging Treasury Secretary has 17 unfilled positions, the Treasury Dept. isn't even functioning at this point.
- "General welfare" in the constitution was, according to the man who wrote it, Madison, meant to be extremely limited in scope. The federal government per the constitution doesn't even have the enumerated POWER to deal with economic messes. A lot of these "POWERS" were created while there is a crisis to dupe the public into accepting an un-constitutional authoritarian regime as the government and to usurp authority over the people.
- The USA is a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to eat a sheep. Also a constitutional republic isn't about using a barely-majority or a plurality to stuff your (un-fundable disastrous) crap down the disenfranchised other-half's throat.
- With Obama's authoritarian corrupted criminal (aiding and abetting a criminal in flight of prosecution, Rich case) Eric Holder in charge, we won't have our inalienable and enumerated rights to firearms much longer. For a constitutional law expert, Obama must have never read the federalist papers or he would simply hand himself as a traitor.
- The arbitrary expansion of "general welfare" is not only unconstitutional, it may very well lead to a serious conflict on the issue.
- Here is a debate on general welfare and how stuff like this came to pass, but was clearly no intended by the authors of the document of root law.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" (In reference to the general welfare clause)
So strongly did the founders believe that "general welfare" wouldn't be expanded as written:
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton indirectly confirmed Madison's point. (That the "general welfare" clause was "clearly" nota free pass for government)
Hamilton argued that a bill of rights, which many were clamoring for, would be not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Since the federal government was given only a few specific powers, there was no need to add prohibitions: it was implicitly prohibited by the listed powers. If a proposed law a relief act, for instance wasn't covered by any of these powers, it was unconstitutional.
"why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Hamilton goes on to argue that making Amendments (e.g., enumerating Free speech, press and assembly) and enumerating the 'right' would have the following effect:
(A bill of rights) "would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power that is, a power to regulate the press, short of actually shutting it down. "
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison [The US Supreme Court has found the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution to be much more elastic than did Mr. Madison. But as the "author of the Constitution," what does he know?]
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government , and to provide new Guards for their future security. ...--The Declaration of Independence
- Wrong, monetizing failures causes more. Japan showed us this for decades. But hey, Chairman Obama thinks you can fix a problem DECADES in the making with a quick fixer-upper, he is screwed in the head.
- The complaints are with the Federal government (in general) since Breton Woods. The Federal Government and Obama's minions STILL didn't listen to David Walker, a Clinton appointee and former head of the GAO. This isn't about political parties anymore morons!
- Show me a single federal budget that was less than the previous. If this $3.6T budget goes, its never coming back barring systemic collapse.
- The United States Federal Government, The United States Federal Reserve, and the banks which were enabled to continue down reckless paths by a quasi government agency known as the Federal Reserve whose actions are not subject to congress and whose members are unelected. This situation is untenable and unconstitutional.
- Every inflationary road taken in history ends in collapse. Keynesian policies are widely regarded as no longer workable.
- Inflation is a tax: What ignorant tax and spenders don't take into account here is the relative percentages of people's wealth (both net and gross) and the costs of owning and maintaining houses, cars, standards of living.
- Inflation via deficit spending is going to make it such that you will be paying a lot more by percentage of your income to maintain a given standard of living. Obama's arguments are so poorly thought out and seek to blame "Republicans" for the mess, its really simply laughable - the needs cleanup now, not worsening.
- You can't spend your way out of a hole if the creditors (e.g. China) start telling the USA they won't buy. It is that simple. Now America starts to have to collateralize the debt with assets. The USA will be selling off chunks of American assets to back the new debt. One day, it may even be necessary to sell Alaska back to Russia because no one will take greenbacks to prop up a failing version of a modern Rome.
- Ah, here we go with the Matthew Lesko arguments. [lesko.com]
Interest rates were on the rise before the government stepped in with free money for everyone (the fine print of course indicate massive strings attached).
Other economies, for example, India, have the central rates set to far more reasonable/realistic rates (at the moment ~ 8+%), which is still tends to be too low, but shows that if you need someone else capital you need to pay a premium for it, and given that capital is in short supply, it would stand to reason that a premium must be charged for it.
The problem is the unrealistic growth rates of mature economies don't allow for profiting via growth projections (rather than simply earning money). So the government steps in, turns on the free money spigot, gets the interest rates for savings down in the 1-2% range while diluting the value of the whole currency in order to prop up dying companies that ran the business like a Madhoff Ponzi scheme.
- The Republicans aren't solely responsible for the crisis as Obama's minions would have you believe, congress is (no particular congress), the Executive of the US government (no particular one) and the US Federal Reserve System are all at fault.
- Fundamentally, the government is trying to fix the prices of various things to "make it all work." This pulling on the invisible hand is a fools venture. It was predicted long ago the housing collapse (and those, such as myself, in the know, wished while realizing the housing collapse coming that we were wrong for everyone's sake - but the truth is the truth) . It may be that the Austrian (von Mises) economists will ultimately be proven right.
- We are a nation of partially educated whiney grabby idiots, and we got the government that represents this. The Chinese, India and other up and coming nations will show no mercy for this arrogant abuse of our status as the world's forex reserves.
- War and asset sales will continue to be the only option for this scheme until it is corrected at the core. And to say that the government has already averted a depression by doing what they did (most of the monies injected wont be "felt" for some time), is just arrogance and stupidity. Price fixing prolonged the Great Depression. Price-fixing (or attempting to) houses will do the same, but probably worse.
- Obama's minions simply don't care if the US is bankrupted and rendered insolvent, they just want a say in how its done, presumably to "feel safe." Rather selfish.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." AND "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (Possibly Richard Jackson)

- Everyone better realize that inflation will pay a major role in funding un-fundable fantasies, wiping the savers and the middle class out. The problem is, that other countries are growing tired of making our Federal Reserve notes worth something by buying our debt as treasuries. Obama's minions talk about spending, but in order to "get what YOU want" you will sell debt to potential economic and military adversaries? Real bright. What's really sad is that despite David Walker being an authority on these issues, people refuse to even watch him and listen to what he is saying.
- On the success of Canada and its form of Socialism: A huge country like Canada with massive amounts of uranium and tar sands and natural resources and a huge land mass with a scant 30 million people is an order of magnitude less of a problem to manage than a country with 10x its population, a serious leaky southern border, backfiring aggressive foreign policy, particularly with Iran, and the US is competing with countries like India and China whose middle classes are larger than the US's entire population. The top 5 students in every Indian and Chinese primary school out numbers all the kids in primary school in the US. Canada is a idyllic island, the USA is front and center in an all out economic and political clash of ideologies.
- Cap and trade (and pollution control for solving global problems) will never work unless the top 10 countries in the world (in terms of both GDP and manufacturing capacity and population) are on board. Period end. If the world doesn't quickly move to nuclear now and fusion shortly, it is OVER possibly not if every home on the planet gets a wind vane, but that seems unlikely to happen (since its possible now).
- Keynes calls it "the paradox of thrift" and suggested that policies forcing people not to save is a "good idea." The guy wanted people spending all the time, or if he didn't, he never conveyed that to his protégés well enough for them to not do what they are doing. Right now the plebeians in the US are actually stashing cash, and everyone from Obama to the media is trying to get people to spend spend spend. The best thing for the long term is for people to prepare for the coming hell, not set out with no reserves.
- I have seen Keynes invoked to justify nearly every bad move in the past decade, and its warming up to be a potential currency collapse, the collapse of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve notes, and a collapse of the NYSE. And then they invoke Keynes to suggest the best way out of the mess is to spend out of an already near-critically debt massed black hole.
- A house is run like a town is run like a country or business is run like a state is run like a government. If there are things the government is doing that would either force your home into bankruptcy or into jail via fraud charges, then the government and banks shouldn't be operating in that fashion. A certain degree of stretchy liquidity is in order, but in terms of percent of GDP, there is no way of justifying what they US has now.
- Iceland failed at 850 percent debt to GDP. The US is at 350 and rising. It is not a good thing at all.
- What is happening to the dollar as a forex standard. [youtube.com]
- March 19, 2009 C-SPAN - "Let's Quit Destroying Our Dollar!" [youtube.com]
- HR 1207 (A bill to make the Fed more accountable and to answer questions regarding the dollar policy) [loc.gov]

Title: Obama sidetracked by fiscal mess, but presses on [yahoo.com]
"Being heard above the din may prove difficult. Lawmakers are wrangling over taxing people who got big bonuses and worrying the president's budget could generate $9.3 trillion in red ink over the next decade."
- Kremlin to pitch new global currency [infowars.com]
Russia proposes creation of global super-reserve currency

Holy crap, even the Russians and Chinese get it. Strange days are here.

Who promised? (4, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350095)

Who ever promised this data would be anonymous? Do you really expect privacy when posting personal stuff on line, even if you don't sign your name in advance?

Re:Who promised? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350217)

Fine, who am I?

Re:Who promised? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350275)

or me?

Re:Who promised? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350301)

Clearly, you're both me.

Re:Who promised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27354045)

No, I'm Anonymous Coward!

.

.

.

.

.

(Please proceed with a dozen more posts in this fashion.)

Re:Who promised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27354543)

Imposter! This is identity theft !

Re:Who promised? (2, Informative)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350285)

David.

Lucky guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350557)

David who? Smarty pants....

Re:Lucky guess... (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351393)

David who? Smarty pants....

Maybe David the Goliath.

Re:Who promised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27353819)

why is this modded informative?

Re:Who promised? (1, Funny)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351169)

Fine, who am I?

But I know what dude I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude.

Re:Who promised? (1)

Thaddeaus (777809) | more than 5 years ago | (#27355211)

Duuuuuuude........

Re:Who promised? (5, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350235)

Who ever promised this data would be anonymous? Do you really expect privacy when posting personal stuff on line, even if you don't sign your name in advance?

1) People still assume that if don't sign their name on the internet then its anonymous. People need to be educated otherwise. Articles like this help.

2) While a lot of people are still grappling with #1 above, there are a lot of more sophisticated people who need to learn that even if they ARE behind 7 proxies, using tor, ssh, on a hacked wifi they are accessing via a pringles can-tenna from across state or even national lines... and then use that super anonymous connection to participate anonymously in 'social networking' sites like twitter, facebook, etc... even if they never reveal a single personal detail about themselves, their place within the social network itself can be reliably used to unmask them once they've had their anonymous account linked to real friends.

People REALLY need to be educated about this.

Re:Who promised? (1, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350305)

So, to be anonymous, I need to get behind 7 proxies, use tor and ssh on a hacked wifi that I'm accessing via a pringles can-tenn from across state or national lines and make sure that all of the social network connections I have are to similarly protected people (behind 7 proxies, use tor and ssh on a hacked wifi that they are accessing via a pringles can-tenn from across state or national lines).

;)

That said, I agree. =D

Re:Who promised? (1, Interesting)

mail2345 (1201389) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350343)

I'ld prefer chain wi-fi hacking.

Have a worm infect and propagate via weak passworded/WEP routers.

Re:Who promised? (2, Insightful)

Webious (1317179) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350463)

So, to be anonymous, I need to get behind 7 proxies, use tor and ssh on a hacked wifi...

RTFA - I think you missed the point:

Our de-anonymization algorithm is based purely on the network topology

Re:Who promised? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350543)

I think you missed the point actually.

or should I say... wooosh!

maybe try reading past the first 19 words before replying to a post?

Re:Who promised? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350707)

I read that and thought "19? did he just pull that out of his ass? 1 2 3... 19! He actually counted the number of words in the quoted text!"

Re:Who promised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27351825)

haha it's true... I really have nothing better to do than point out when people are wrong! On the internet!

Re:Who promised? (4, Interesting)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350513)

The important thing is that anyone or anything that links your "real persona" and your "anonymous persona" is a potential threat to your anonymity both through things they willingly or mistakenly do and through things they could be coerced or forced into doing.

It's all too easy to put lots of thought into making it bloody hard to trace your connection but then link your "anonymous persona" to your "real persona" through common friends, accidently logging into a site using the wrong account for the connection you are using, forgetting to flush cookies (and any similar tracing objects) when moving between your "nonanoymous connection" and your "anonymous connection" and so on.

Re:Who promised? (2, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#27353101)

Years back, I used my real name for all of my online activities. After my kids were born, though, I reconsidered using my real name and address. So when I started a blog, I made up an "anonymous" name. I'm under no illusion that it is 100% anonymous, but I do my best to keep my "real name identity" and my "blog identity" separate. I'm go "blog identity" on all of the sites I frequent, but I'm unwilling to disappear as "Jason Levine" and either a) pretend to be a newbie at the site for awhile or b) reveal to everyone that "Jason Levine" and "BLOG_ID" are one and the same. While I might make some mistakes that wind up linking the two, I'm not going to come out and do it on purpose. (A really creative type could locate my blog ID though. I'll even give a hint: it's through my wife's blog name.)

Re:Who promised? (1)

codekavi (459992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27353231)

Thanks, but we're not really that interested.

Re:Who promised? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27356951)

It's all too easy to put lots of thought into making it bloody hard to trace your connection but then link your "anonymous persona" to your "real persona" through common friends, accidently logging into a site using the wrong account for the connection you are using, forgetting to flush cookies (and any similar tracing objects) when moving between your "nonanoymous connection" and your "anonymous connection" and so on.

Yep. Preferably, you want a "sterile" computer for your anonymous activities; it should contain no real information about you (in fact, if you're really paranoid, it would be best if it were purchased anonymously) and should only be used for the anonymous activities, never anything in real life. If you want to keep your anonymous personas separate from each other, you need to go even further.

Personally I don't bother; when I want to be anonymous it's typically just to avoid having my name associated with something on a casual search; I know determined people could figure it out, but I don't care.

Re:Who promised? (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350539)

"all of the social network connections I have are to similarly protected people"

No, for you to remain anonymous, you must disavow all knowledge of anybody in your social network, for all 'accounts' or whatever, for all postings that you want to not be readily linked back to you. And they must not have any links to these accounts either (so the easiest way is to not tell them about these 'anonymous' accounts).

Re:Who promised? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27352939)

Exactly. This is what I do.

If you have a 'real' account and an 'anonymous' account, why do you need to have links to your friends with your anonymous account anyway, when you can just use your real account?

If you really need to have links to your friends from your anonymous account, then just have them create anonymous accounts too, and have links to those rather than their real account.

Re:Who promised? (5, Insightful)

ssintercept (843305) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350765)

how 'bout not using twitter, myspace, facebook, etc??

don't you use those services to be noticed?

Re:Who promised? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351083)

Whoosh and all that, but seriously - yes, you do, but I assume some people assume that if they don't put any personal details up, they can't be found... and forget that their 'friends' may have personal information, etc.

Re:Who promised? (2, Insightful)

ssintercept (843305) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351181)

whoosh yourself- as per the above article "researchers showed how they were able to identify people who were on public social networks such as Twitter".

so the first step on concealing your identity is to not use the public social networks.

Re:Who promised? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351575)

so the first step on concealing your identity is to not use the public social networks.

Bingo!!

Re:Who promised? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27353423)

how 'bout not using twitter, myspace, facebook, etc??

What do you think /. is?

Re:Who promised? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27355079)

A small Czechoslovakian Traffic Warden.

Re:Who promised? (1)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 5 years ago | (#27357547)

Kryten FTW
Good show lad :)

Re:Who promised? (1)

somanyrobots (1334451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27353555)

No, to be anonymous, you just need to not have any friends.

Re:Who promised? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27355057)

No. You need to do all of that, but not do anything which links you to your friends. Your super-anon account which you've never revealed details about is still vulnerable to a "six degrees of separation" type of attack.

- Super-anon guy has Bobby, Jim, and Sandra on his facebook friends and he's got Bobby, Jim, and Jessica on his MySpace
- Logically, Bobby and Jim must know each other, and therefore they both must know Super-anon guy.
- Bobby and Jim have a lot of pictures on Facebook with a guy tagged "Andy" who doesn't have a profile. All the other tagged people are on Facebook.
- Chances are, Andrew is Super-anon guy.

Re:Who promised? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350393)

2) While a lot of people are still grappling with #1 above, there are a lot of more sophisticated people who need to learn that even if they ARE behind 7 proxies, using tor, ssh, on a hacked wifi they are accessing via a pringles can-tenna from across state or even national lines... and then use that super anonymous connection to participate anonymously in 'social networking' sites like twitter, facebook, etc... even if they never reveal a single personal detail about themselves, their place within the social network itself can be reliably used to unmask them once they've had their anonymous account linked to real friends.

People REALLY need to be educated about this.

Or read some spy novels from the cold war. Lots of spies are discovered by figuring out who had access to information and who their associates are.

Re:Who promised? (3, Insightful)

Rorschach1 (174480) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350437)

Then again, some of us are very well aware of it and just don't care so much. If I want to post thoughts to a blog that I don't want linked back to me (and I've done so in the past), I'll set up something entirely separate, with a name I've never used before, linked to a new gmail account.

Anyone with half a brain can figure out exactly who I am, where I live, and what I do for a living, starting from this post, in about 20 seconds. Medical conditions and sexual preference might take a little more work, but I'm sure some of it is out there.

Frankly, I don't care. I'm self-employed and don't worry about what an employer might think of me. My friends and family seem to like me well enough despite already knowing that stuff. So long as it's not information that's going to result in identity theft (account numbers and such), there's not much that's worth the effort to conceal.

Re:Who promised? (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351099)

Ditto.

I'm not self-employed, but similar holds true. I'm pretty sure you could identify me from just this online handle, based on posts from this and similar discussion boards.

Fact is, you won't learn much out about me that I wouldn't have told you to your face anyway. I'm on pretty friendly terms with my employer, and am close with my friends, and I doubt anything I've said online would be news to them.

And even if you can find out some more intrusive facts about me (medical history, salary, what have you) I might be annoyed, but it isn't anything that I'd lose any sleep over; it's not like it's a matter of national security...

You only have something to worry about if your online and real-life personae completely and utterly different. And that'd make you a big fat phony.

Re:Who promised? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351679)

Or, y'know, somebody who wants to make it to graduation and out of town before mommy and daddy find out that they aren't a heterosexual like jesus wants them to be...

There are plenty of good reasons that somebody, particularly somebody with limited social power in the real world, might want a separate persona online.

Re:Who promised? (1)

zen-theorist (930637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27356159)

Anyone with half a brain can figure out exactly who I am, where I live, and what I do for a living, starting from this post, in about 20 seconds. Medical conditions and sexual preference might take a little more work, but I'm sure some of it is out there.

With a handle like yours, they just need to look at the results of your test!

Re:Who promised? (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27356723)

You're obviously a sadistic masked vigilante with a thing against liberals.

Re:Who promised? (4, Interesting)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350817)

I agree, but I think it's an age and culture issue. These issues are new.

In 10 years, no one would expect that a Twitter account couldn't be connected to your FB account any more than they would think you could cheat on your partner by taking your partner-in-crime to a pub you and your date frequent. The principle is no different - if two social spheres overlap, you've given up your relative anonymity.

That's why Larry Craig tapped his toe in an airport bathroom in a stop-over airport - low likelihood of running into someone who might know him.

Re:Who promised? (2, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352105)

That's why Larry Craig tapped his toe in an airport bathroom in a stop-over airport - low likelihood of running into someone who might know him.

I thought it was just because he had a "wide stance".

Re:Who promised? (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351487)

Heh. To right. When I got TOR up and running, I was tempted to sign into a couple places, to look at my - uhh - "internet profile" being presented by browser, etc. Was reaching for the "submit" button, when I realized, "Hey, this is STOOOO-PID!" I'm no longer anonymous once I sign in ANYWHERE!

Re:Who promised? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352177)

Your still anonymous if all the profile data is fake. All the data associated with this Slashdot account is completely fictitious and in no way related to accounts hosted elsewhere that have nothing to do with tech blogs. Anytime I am presented with the option, or forced to provide, name and address data anywhere I use completely fictitious information. Everywhere. Also, different every time.

So, if somebody from Slashdot here either liked or hated me and was including me in their online social profiles it would not lead to one to conclude that a relationship exists anywhere else.

I think the only time I gave even partially accurate information was a bank. Even then, the address information was false, or was not my residential address. Obfuscation is a way of life for those that are determined to not be found no matter if all information was combined everywhere to do just that.

If anybody wants to be truly anonymous you have not only protect your lines of communication, but also be very aware of the information you are providing. It does no good to cover your tracks, only to then shoot up a signal flare.

Re:Who promised? (2, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352359)

How sure are you, of that idea? You must realize that your IP is recorded again, and again on the web. Do you use Flash, Java, or any other plugins that potentially give away identifying data? Does your browser leave any data that you are unaware of? What about your operating system? Microsoft has this thing (I forget the name, but almost everyone here knows what it is) where you can sign into one account, then automagically be signed into dozens if not hundreds of other sites/accounts. Google has something similar, if on a smaller scale. I can sign into GMail, and be recognized on YouTube, and MySpace, if I should care to make use of that "feature". Your practices are commendable, but you also need to make sure that you are using the technical tools available to reinforce your practices. We mustn't forget the many forms of malware available to the modern browser. Picking up any common trojan designed to exploit Windows, IE, OE, or WMP can guarantee that you are tracked everywhere, despite any practices or tools that you may employ.

Re:Who promised? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352721)

How sure are you, of that idea?

Pretty Damn Sure (tm)

You must realize that your IP is recorded again, and again on the web.

You mean the exit node's, proxy's, internet cafe's, etc. public IP address right? Yeah, I realize that. Any IP address that has been assigned to me by a corporation that ALSO possess my name, address, social security number, telephone number, etc. has never been recorded by the destination. I am sure that plenty of TOR nodes and proxy's have that IP address, but I am reasonably sure of the difficulty of obtaining that information. Which is why I usually like to connect for anything interesting through other machines that I control first on networks that I can be reasonably certain are not logging IP address information, or that I am connecting to with wireless.

Do you use Flash, Java, or any other plugins that potentially give away identifying data?

When I do, it is on a virtual machine that is locked down with no information inside of it and just as easily destroyed afterwards. As for preventing that machine from learning the public IP address it communicates on, that is pretty damn easy for me (difficult for the machine) since all traffic is routed through TOR, and not a TOR that is installed on it. TOR someplace else on the network. Those virtual machines have literally no other routes outside the network except for TOR. They cannot even communicate with the host.

Until somebody actually pulls of a hack in which their malware can be "Virtual machine aware" and compromise the hosts through the guests, I can be reasonably certain of the hosts safety.

Does your browser leave any data that you are unaware of?

Most likely. However, it is unlikely that survives when the entire virtual machine is destroyed upon exiting. Every new session has no access to any data that was recorded in a previous session. That includes all cookies, flash cookies, or anything else that I am simply unaware of.

What about your operating system?

I never use a host operating system to do much of anything, especially anything that connects to a remote network. All of that is virtual now and destroyed afterwards when appropriate. Of course any machine that is used for gaming has a more direct connection, but they are on a separate network and I am not so much concerned about Steam, XBOX Live, etc. I don't give any information on those networks which could be used to form conclusions about relationships outside of "entertainment networks".

Microsoft has this thing (I forget the name, but almost everyone here knows what it is) where you can sign into one account, then automagically be signed into dozens if not hundreds of other sites/accounts. Google has something similar, if on a smaller scale. I can sign into GMail, and be recognized on YouTube, and MySpace, if I should care to make use of that "feature".

Uhhhh, yeah riiiiiggght. I would never even think for one second of using a service like that. All of the Microsoft/Google accounts I have created contain completely separate information, are used for purposes that do not overlap with anything else (sometimes just one-time), and are created from different TOR exit nodes/Proxies.

I have my own database where I keep what exit node/proxy I used to connect to the site, all of the information I provided to the site, it's password, purpose, etc. Before I go anywhere I pull that database up and check it. As long as the database is secure and never falls into the wrong hands, I am pretty safe.

Your practices are commendable, but you also need to make sure that you are using the technical tools available to reinforce your practices. We mustn't forget the many forms of malware available to the modern browser. Picking up any common trojan designed to exploit Windows, IE, OE, or WMP can guarantee that you are tracked everywhere, despite any practices or tools that you may employ.

Exactly. It's NOT the thought that counts here. You have to be dedicated, methodical, and intelligent if you are going to actually pull of anonymity on the net. That is why at this point there is no excuse to not be using virtual throw-away systems to communicate with. No excuse, at least for those that have the basic skill sets required.

Unfortunately, there are still going to be quite a number of people that claim to be anonymous only to realize that they left gaping huge holes in their methods to achieve it. I get your point. Anonymity is not easy :)

Re:Who promised? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27353437)

I could subscribe to /. and search all your comments. Unless you have been very careful I should be able to learn a lot about you.

Re:Who promised? (2, Informative)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#27354081)

True, but that is not the same thing as what we are talking about in the article.

If you search my comments and find any postings with my real name, references to my place of work, real people, events, etc. then I do agree you could possibly do research in the real world to identify who I am. Sort of a 20 questions kind of deal.

Remember... that is identify , as in gain a positive identification of my real world identity to the point you could then actually find me. Learning about my likes, dislikes, religious or political affiliations, positions on various arguments is not the same as identifying me.

What the article is mentioning is that even though I am anonymous, there are enough of my own interactions with other non-anonymous people that my identity could be inferred by analyzing the data. Meaning that I am Mr.X, but Bob, Alice, Sally, Mary, and Steve all have information publicly available about somebody named Joe. Through process of elimination it is determined that it is highly likely I am the person Joe. Mr.X was still anonymous, his connections were still anonymous, but through analysis we have found it is highly likely that Mr.X is in fact Joe.

That does not apply to me as this identity has never communicated with anybody that knows my real identity. So I would agree, you could gain knowledge about my relationships with other /.'s, but they will not provide you with any knowledge of my identity, nor will my own posts.

I do invite you to research my posts should you want to. Feel free to let me know the results in this thread :)

Re:Who promised? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27355173)

I got to finding a piece of poetry from 2006 on living with insomnia [your-poetry.com] and got bored.

The "Sorta-Anonymous" principle. (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352079)

This & other tricks are possible, yes, but *harder*. I really don't have the creds to pull the tech side of your Point 2, but I have quietly worked to keep the other side down to a whisper, earning strange looks from friends who can't imagine why I Just Don't Wanna Share.

The Mayans got lucky. Their 2012 date is just accidentally shaping up to be the Data Implosion.

~tag: "Let's give everyone what used to be studio grade cameras in their phones, 12 types of mechanisms and reasons to aggregate and pummel cyberspace with pictures of everyone doing everything, while also creating a whole second group of users posting (presumed) anonymously, followed by 35 governments becoming Big Brothers, then losing control of the data!"

As you folks have said, when that tsunami hits the shore, Social Ethics as we know it goes to pieces.

Re:Who promised? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352111)

hey my internet aliases were damn anonymous, until Mozilla went and ruined it all but as i don't post much that i wouldn't say to peoples faces it doesn't really matter anyway.

Re:Who promised? Tsarkon Reports (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350279)

Well. Slashdot lies.

I used to get moderator points until I got $rtbl-ed. (RTBL = real time black list).

I have a high karma account in which I post "things that are likely to get moderated up." That way, when I have something insightful to say, and its compatible with the raging groupthinking censorship, I can get a spotlight.

However, I used to post anonymous things that may not be compatible with Slashbotting group-think.

Long story short: If you don't clear your cookies AND use a proxy, and you post anonymously in a bitch-slapped thread or get individually bitch-slapped by a moderator or your logged in username is associated with a bitch slapped or habitual troll IP you will never moderate again and be on $rtbl.

Now my high-karma account no longer can moderate, it can meta moderate but no longer moderate. This $rtbl is hardly real time. Its a permanent ban.

So here we are at slashdot. Where posting AC is flypaper: your real / logged in account WILL get $rtbl-ed if you start voicing things that piss off that crowd (which may in fact be true or genuinely insightful). You lose. You have no anonymous here, make sure you never use the browser you use to talk AC as you do to post logged in. Make sure you use some sort of a bounce or proxy if you think there is a good chance you will be a part of a bitch-slapped thread or make an AC post which the slashbotting public will moderate you down on.

Re:Who promised? Tsarkon Reports (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352117)

Obviously, you know almost nothing about anonymizing yourself. The admin (and oftentimes, moderators) of ANY site/board can go into his admin tools, and find out A: all the IP's from which you have logged into his site and B: all the posters who have logged in from each and every IP that poster has ever used With nothing more than those two sets of data, the admin/mod can make some pretty good guesses just who the heck you REALLY are. More, your browser sends information in ADDITION TO your IP - as well as Java, Flash, and other plugins. Google "TOR Bundle" Look it over, learn it's features, and you will BEGIN TO understand anonymous browsing. But, be aware - the features are ALL USELESS unless you understand them, and use them properly. IF, and/or WHEN you understand the features of that full bundle, THEN you MIGHT know how to trick /. and other sites into believing that you ain't you. But, only if you also acquire the discipline needed to use the tools properly. Meanwhile, stop your whining. No one appreciates you drooling on the floor, and the admins here know exactly who you are. They are laughing at yet another idiot post by a known idiot.

Re:Who promised? Tsarkon Reports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27353651)

Funny, We can get FPs and make the political statements We need to at will and can post at a far faster rate using HA proxies than even logged in users. And We suspect that if they could stop us from posting, they would.

Judging from your Johnny come lately Slashdot ID, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. We've gamed moderation on /. and k5 and other places to the point where We can hit the karma caps with ease. We know how to engineer people like you. For example, you just fed the "troll." Another is you just put a higher moderated post inline with mine. Another is that you don't understand Slashcode in the least, and if you don't know what RTBL is, you are just a fucking L-user.

We can post shit and get a +5 moderation anytime. We can post on k5 (back when it mattered) and get a front page story. Its all how you present the information in such a way to get fucking morons like you to go along with it. Kind of like idiot Americans taking Obama seriously (or Bush for that matter). Just feed the babies with pureed baby food and you can sell any shit. The hardest part of thinking how to spoon feed the masses of idiots is to get way the fuck down on their mental plane. Its hard for those with real messaging or knowledge to do, but mastery of it pays of in spades (or with a spade as president, lol).

YHBT YHL HAND

Well. Slashdot lies.

I used to get moderator points until I got $rtbl-ed. (RTBL = real time black list).

I have a high karma account in which I post "things that are likely to get moderated up." That way, when I have something insightful to say, and its compatible with the raging groupthinking censorship, I can get a spotlight.

However, I used to post anonymous things that may not be compatible with Slashbotting group-think.

Long story short: If you don't clear your cookies AND use a proxy, and you post anonymously in a bitch-slapped thread or get individually bitch-slapped by a moderator or your logged in username is associated with a bitch slapped or habitual troll IP you will never moderate again and be on $rtbl.

Now my high-karma account no longer can moderate, it can meta moderate but no longer moderate. This $rtbl is hardly real time. Its a permanent ban.

So here we are at slashdot. Where posting AC is flypaper: your real / logged in account WILL get $rtbl-ed if you start voicing things that piss off that crowd (which may in fact be true or genuinely insightful). You lose. You have no anonymous here, make sure you never use the browser you use to talk AC as you do to post logged in. Make sure you use some sort of a bounce or proxy if you think there is a good chance you will be a part of a bitch-slapped thread or make an AC post which the slashbotting public will moderate you down on.

Re:Who promised? Tsarkon Reports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27354491)

good post

Re:Who promised? (5, Informative)

arvindn (542080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350745)

Hi. I'm one of the authors. Please read our FAQ [utexas.edu] . It answers that very question. In short, our de-anonymization algorithm applies to far more than public social networks like twitter, including some very sensitive ones.

Re:Who promised? (-1, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352137)

I just have one question. I don't want to jump to any conclusions, so I have to ask. Are you one of the guys they tell all the Aggie jokes about? :p

Re:Who promised? (1)

PotatoFiend (1330299) | more than 5 years ago | (#27353149)

FAIL. Aggies are from Texas A&M University, not the University of Texas.

Re:Who promised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27353637)

Why would someone tell AGGIE jokes about a researcher at UT?

Re:Who promised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27353793)

Hahahaahahahahahahha. What a fag:

Re:Who promised?
by PotatoFiend (1330299) on Thu Mar 26, '09 09:28 PM (#27353149)
FAIL. Aggies are from Texas A&M University, not the University of Texas.

Re:Who promised?
by Anonymous Coward on Thu Mar 26, '09 10:47 PM (#27353637)

Why would someone tell AGGIE jokes about a researcher at UT?

What adumb newbie fag, trying be all cool and googling stuff to look in-the-know, and then being fuckin wrong.

What a FAG

Re:Who promised? (1)

zen-theorist (930637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27356263)

Hi. I'm one of the authors.

Wow, clearly you are not bothered about linking your real and Slashdot personas.

I'm certain most /.ers guard their /. persona, given the blunt nature of the comments found here.

OT, has there been any research into looking up a person's sex/ethnicity by analysing his or her /. comments? It is already known that the species problem is hard [unc.edu] .

Rats... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27350281)

Now someone knows who I am...

Re:Rats... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27351299)

no they dont give a rats ass about you...
they are after me.

Tin foil! (4, Funny)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350317)

Must... cover... everything...

Re:Tin foil! (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350963)

Must... cover... everything...

Just don't cover the naughty parts.... it.. chafes.....

Or at least on the outside of the underwear.

Twits (4, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350377)

Slashdotters care about privacy. People on these social networking sites want their lives to be on show for everyone. I don't think people who twit every 5 minutes where they are and what they are doing are really to concerned about their privacy.

Re:Twits (5, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350419)

This.

However, I don't think a lot of people fully understand the negative side of placing your life online for all to see. They fail to realize that placing their discussion about smoking pot (or other dubious activity) on twitter might one day cause them a job.

Re:Twits (4, Funny)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351461)

They fail to realize that placing their discussion about smoking pot (or other dubious activity) on twitter might one day cause them a job.

That's right - The Netherlands are hiring again!

Re:Twits (1)

Jewfro_Macabbi (1000217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352129)

There's also the possible side effect that if people do post how they really live - we can one day over come silly prejudices and preconceived notions about human and social behavior. Ideas like pot smoking being "dubious" need to be challenged.

Re:Twits (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#27357665)

While I can agree that smoking pot is theoretically no different then having a drink (if not better according to some), there is one difference right now. It's illegal. If it should be or not is certainly up for debate (and it should not be), but what is not up for debate is that it is currently illegal.

Taking part in illegal activities is most certainly "dubious". Risking all that one risks to get high off an illegal substance certainly calls ones decision making skills into question.

Re:Twits (1)

Jewfro_Macabbi (1000217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27357885)

I reject your contention taking part in illegal activities must always be "dubious". By that argument Rosa Parks was a "dubious" law breaker. Laws are stricken down daily - sometimes they are just wrong. In 14 US states, it is perfectly legal for some people to use/possess cannabis for medical reasons. In several other states marijuana has been decriminalized by voter initiative. Until the law is challenged, how can it change? Having millions of Americans admit they engage in an activity, and yet remain active, productive members of society - is entirely the point. Someone has to take that risk. There have always been brave people willing to suffer the consequences so there might be change. Lucky that, for the rest of you.

Re:Twits (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#27358157)

There is a huge difference in someone challenging unjust laws and people who just break the law.

You get X number of people to gather on the steps of the Capitol and Toke up, that's noble and certainly lends itself towards the kind thing that Rosa Parks is linked to. Risking security for a protest of current laws is admirable. But there is nothing to show that any sizable portion of pot smokers are doing anything like that. What is happening far more consistently is that they are hiding their illegal activity and smoke to get high and not actively working to oust unjust laws.

So, you are right, not all illegal activity is "dubious". There are always exceptions to everything; the world is not black and white. However, the exceptions are just that, exceptions. Breakign the law to stage a protest of the law is an exception

Re:Twits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27351455)

Similarly, of course, I don't think people who think that everyone on Twitter posts their current whereabouts etc. every five minutes really have any idea of what the average user does or doesn't do or post there.

The same's even more true for other social networking sites, too. You could just as well chastise folks who've got blogs; but of course you're not going to, since you might actually be one of those yourself.

Much better to just ascribe a positive trait to a group like Slashdotters that - surprise surprise! - happens to include you, while denying the same trait in anyone else. And given that the moderators are Slashdotters as well, naturally, you even get karma for your intellectual wanking.

Seriously. TFA is actually interesting, but I bet you not only didn't read that but in fact didn't really RTFS, either; all you saw was something about Twitter, and that was all you needed to take a snipe and try and inflate your own ego, too.

Now go RTFA and come back when you can act like an adult and when you've got something that's *actually* interesting, informative or insightful (or funny, for that matter) to contribute to the discussion.

Re:Twits (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351589)

If you could read my very short post I actually lumped in social networking sites. I do have one and I don't blog. It is a nice way to keep in touch with friend.

Obviously, I know that everyone doesn't do it every 5 minutes. It is just an exaggeration...but despite that, the fact stands that most people on these sites care little about privacy.

I do think Twitter is stupid. It has some very limited useful purposes (like the guy who used Twitter to notify people he was jailed in a foreign country), but for the most part it is just people writing mundane things about their live and thinking other people care. THOSE are the people with over-inflated egos.

That being said, there are a lot of people who like getting in to other people's business. This tends to be females more than males. I think they have every right to do it and enjoy it. I don't want them to tear down Twitter. But I have every right to think it is stupid and not participate.

Re:Twits (1)

jctownend (1516651) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351503)

Twitter seems to be going to critical mass lately. I expect the stampede won't be slowed down much by privacy concerns.

Re:Twits (1)

Chees0rz (1194661) | more than 5 years ago | (#27353251)

Slashdotters care about privacy. People on these social networking sites want their lives to be on show for everyone. I don't think people who twit every 5 minutes where they are and what they are doing are really to concerned about their privacy.

All we need to do is find a slashdotter who 'tweets' every 5 minutes and you'll implode, a black hole will take your place, and the universe will collapse.

I think I just found a new hobby. Making gross generalizations? No, that's your job- I'll start using twitter.

You mean like willyhill? (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350405)

Willyhill managed to ID fourteen Twitter accounts [slashdot.org] . Or is this something completely different?

Re:You mean like willyhill? (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351535)

Willyhill managed to ID fourteen Twitter accounts [slashdot.org] . Or is this something completely different?

I think twitter has really gotten to you.

Social network can-o-worms (4, Insightful)

xixax (44677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350603)

Are there really any surprises here? Social networks behave a lot like the Internet, with many routes pointing to your front door.

For example, use whatever falese names you want. Your email address makes a dandy primary key squirreled away in all your friends mailboxes, just waiting for Facebook to Hoover it up and join the dots.

Your privacy and anonymity is defined by the aggregate social stupidity of your friends.

Xix.

Re:Social network can-o-worms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27357467)

Your privacy and anonymity is defined by the aggregate social stupidity of your friends.

Xix.

I think this could actually make it into the list of "RULES OF THE INTARWEZ!"

This is new technology to me (3, Funny)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350659)

I understand networks and how you can get somebody's IP and translate it to a location or identify them with algorithms that analyze sentence structure or even use some TCP packet tricks.
The thing that confuses me is the acronym "FRIEND", I have looked in all my technical references and I can't find that tool.

Re:This is new technology to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27355061)

So you don't know about friendship and inheritance [cplusplus.com]

Please read our FAQ (5, Insightful)

arvindn (542080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350671)

We have an FAQ about this paper [utexas.edu] . It answers many of the misconceptions expressed in the comments here. In particular, our algorithm applies to much more than public social networks like twitter and flickr. A variety of networks including the phone call network are being shared behind your back in anonymous form, and our de-anonymization techniques apply just as much. You'll probably agree that people expect more privacy there. See my blog [33bits.org] for a variety of demonstrations and thought-experiments of de-anonymization.

Please do not go and work for google (2, Insightful)

tqft (619476) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351365)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/26/seth-finkelstein-google-advertising [guardian.co.uk]
"Google recently took another step along the path of surveillance as a service, launching what it called "interest-based advertising", and which everyone else calls "behavioural targeting". These are systems that collect extensive personal data, for marketing purposes. To best understand the issues,"

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001422.html [sethf.com]

I once upon a time worked for a statistics agency and even without names and addresses it is surprisingly easy to identify people in anonymous data, even anonymised unit record data can be deconstructed to some degree. Depending on what you want to achieve don't even need to identify them.

Marrying up these datasets and ideas would be gruesome.

Re:Please read our FAQ (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352275)

A variety of networks including the phone call network

Old news actually. Techniques for identifying networks of friends and co-workers have been applied to call records for years. And that info is for sale.

A friend of mine in the security biz told me that when Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame, link analysis probably revealed the identities of several hundred CIA employees.

Re:Please read our FAQ (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 5 years ago | (#27356819)

Where can I get access to these "anonymized", sensitive data sources?

I can ID anyone using Twitter (2, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#27350987)

as someone whose every thought I have no interest in reading.

Re:I can ID anyone using Twitter (1)

The Fun Guy (21791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351689)

RT

or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27351347)

you could not post anonymously!

This is a standard timing attack (1)

netcrusher88 (743318) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351629)

The application to twitter anonymous accounts is creative, but otherwise it's a standard timing attack. If user A is active while anonymous data B is passed, user A has a higher chance of having generated data B than the rest of the population.

Looks like there's some number-crunching using timing of past tweets and whatnot to see if the user is likely to be on, too. I like that.

Or it could be I'm completely misreading it.

Re:This is a standard timing attack (1)

PotatoFiend (1330299) | more than 5 years ago | (#27353899)

Or it could be I'm completely misreading it.

Or it could be you haven't read it at all. This has nothing to do with timing analysis. It's based on graph isomorphism, i.e. the structure of social network graphs.

Haha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27351697)

You'll never ID me! You buggers'll never guess my name by just reading my anonymous Slashdot posts!

Go on, just try: am I The Queen? Wrong. Prince Phillip? Wrong. Barack Obama? Wrong. Diana, Princess of Wales (deceased)? Of course not! Kim John-Il's hamster? Nope.

Here's another clue, in the form of some of my recent tweets:
Who's having a dump?
Just did a really big poo, will put picture up on Photobucket.
Anyone followed those Yoda doll instructions on Slashdot yet? Wow!

Anvil of Stars (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27351781)

Maybe it was a tar baby.

66% accuracy? (1)

Paco103 (758133) | more than 5 years ago | (#27352887)

I wonder what the accuracy would be if you just scanned for posts referencing new pictures at flickr?

fir57 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27353533)

You deserve it! (1)

eBayDoug (764290) | more than 5 years ago | (#27353935)

If you put your real info on the internets you are stupid.

OH NO!!! (1)

interested pyro (1499899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27355643)

must....... tell...... everyone...... using....... twitter!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>