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!

Anonymous Cowards, Deanonymized

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the we-know-who-you-are dept.

Privacy 159

mbstone writes "Arvind Narayana writes: What if authors can be identified based on nothing but a comparison of the content they publish to other web content they have previously authored? Naryanan has a new paper to be presented at the 33rd IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy. Just as individual telegraphers could be identified by other telegraphers from their 'fists,' Naryanan posits that an author's habitual choices of words, such as, for example, the frequency with which the author uses 'since' as opposed to 'because,' can be processed through an algorithm to identify the author's writing. Fortunately, and for now, manually altering one's writing style is effective as a countermeasure." In this exploration the algorithm's first choice was correct 20% of the time, with the poster being in the top 20 guesses 35% of the time. Not amazing, but: "We find that we can improve precision from 20% to over 80% with only a halving of recall. In plain English, what these numbers mean is: the algorithm does not always attempt to identify an author, but when it does, it finds the right author 80% of the time. Overall, it identifies 10% (half of 20%) of authors correctly, i.e., 10,000 out of the 100,000 authors in our dataset. Strong as these numbers are, it is important to keep in mind that in a real-life deanonymization attack on a specific target, it is likely that confidence can be greatly improved through methods discussed above — topic, manual inspection, etc."

cancel ×

159 comments

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

First (4, Funny)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109365)

First! Analyze this anon comment, suckers!

Re:First (5, Funny)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109385)

Got you! Using the power of de-anonymisation, I have discovered there you are none other than...

Bicx! [slashdot.org]

This stuff really works.

Re:First (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109425)

Still, without other forms of authentication, it's just an educated guess.

Take a community like Slashdot, for example - I see somebody write an interesting or witty phrase, and add that phrase to my vocabulary, repeating it in another discussion later. Does that make me that person? Now imagine 20 or more people doing the same.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:First (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109453)

"Now imagine 20 or more people doing the same."

Then I wouldn't want to do any different.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109691)

Presently, picture in your head greater than twenty folks copying you.

--corngas-fooled

Re:First (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109795)

Yes but just like speech patterns folks got a habit of using similar phrases which I'm sure this picks up. For example I use folks where some would use people or persons, or if I think something is lame I often say it "Sucks the big wet titty" and often make reference to the south and southerners since that is my area. I'm sure if it went through every post of every place where I have the same UID (which is most of the places I hang out) it could then very easily either find my real name (Thanks to Yahoo comments using real first names and not UIDs) and any other places where I use a different UID quite trivially.

In the end we humans are creatures of habit, we easily fall into patterns and routines and if its one thing computers excel at its pattern matching so frankly this doesn't surprise me at all and given a little time to tweak it I wouldn't be surprised if they have 95%+ accuracy if given a large enough data set of a suspected poster. So you might pick up ONE of my phrases, hell maybe even two, but I seriously doubt you'd pick up enough of my mannerisms that this thing would mistake Ethanol Fueled for Hairyfeet or vice versa.

Re:First (2)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109829)

Bah!

Who needs software when we've got at least two dudes here who can identify hundreds of folks known as the Great Bonchime, or something like that....

cheers,

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109847)

That's assuming people's mannerisms don't sufficiently change when they believe they have anonimity as opposed to being identifiable to some degree. People who rant or are abusive while anonymous, for instance, might be taking on wholly different personas to the ones their friends and colleagues know simply because they know their actions won't get traced back and embarass them.

Re:First (5, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110161)

And easily-defeated. One of the projects of my senior class at university was the building of software to defeat that kind of detection. It was crafted primarily so dissidents in foreign countries could speak without fear, by analyzing the author's writing patterns, and offering solutions to shift the writing to a different style.

Re:First (0)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111527)

Now I have to find a reason to say "Sucks the big wet titty."

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39111655)

Well folks, this thread sucks the big wet titty, so I'm off to do some child molesting and using of Microsoft products.

Re:First (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109857)

I, for one, welcome our 20 anonymous overlords...

Re:First (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111071)

You mean formerly anonymous?

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109915)

Its one of the reasons I regularly introduce random mispellings and awkward grammer -- to confuse the bots trying to identify me.

Well, that's my excuse anyway.

Re:First (3, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110491)

Imagine thousands of accounts doing the same thing then slashdot = stagnated.

Anyway why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

Wait a minute... ;)

Re:First (1)

Zaldarr (2469168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109409)

Sure Bicx.

Re:First (5, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109413)

This just begs a "reanonymize" browser plugin to alter one's writing style...

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109477)

iThesaurus perhaps?

Re:First (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109833)

But wouldn't that just butcher the flow? I mean a trivial way to do it would be to run it through a translator, say take your English, convert it to German, then have it converted back to English, and you'd have this Chingrish kinda speech that was kinda sorta similar to what you said but not. Would you really want your ideas that mangled? Hell why even post at all if nobody is gonna understand you clearly?

Re:First (2)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109871)

Hell why even post at all if nobody is gonna understand you clearly?

Well, this seems to work for about 1/2 the comments on slashdot! :D

Re:First (2)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110301)

Even when the post is coherent and clear, half the time the people replying don't seem to be able to read and understand it correctly either :).

Re:First (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109889)

It would butcher some flows and really help others.
We will all meet in the boring, anonymous middle of mediocre writing.

Re:butcher the flow (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110049)

Gem from a lost soul in my childhood:

""What was it when for you said there was maybe like a lot of there but there wasn't and you knew it?"

Re:First (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110283)

This conscionable pleads a "reanonymize" glancer connect-betwixt towards metamorphose anybody's transcribing idiosyncrasy...

There, RTFY (Reanonymized That For You)

Re:First (1)

saboola (655522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110295)

I been have use reanonymize awhile plugins. fantastic It's!

Re:First (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111113)

The Yoda mod?

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39111129)

Use a back and forth machine translation. Fix grammar and differences in meaning.

(Actual example above.)

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109435)

thats why i always obfuscate my writing with errors n stuff, totally different from what i would write otherwise.

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109807)

You are Mark Cuban.

Re:First (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110303)

First!

Analyze this anon comment, suckers!

Kristopeit, is that you?

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39111249)

First!

Analyze this anon comment, suckers!

Kristopeit, is that you?

NO! That feeb can cower in my shadow!
Your pathetic too.

Interesting book on the topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109373)

This book is a very interesting read on this very topic: http://www.amazon.com/Author-Trail-Don-Foster/dp/0805063579

Re:Interesting book on the topic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109399)

I found this lying on the floor, perhaps you need it? <a href="

Re:Interesting book on the topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109443)

Yeah, yeah. I tried to add a comment with the link [amazon.com] , but Slashdot's "cooldown time" prevented me from doing so.

Fark you Jane, you ignorant slut (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109397)

If I want to disguise my postings, its pretty easy to adopt different memes and idioms.

Frosty piss!

Re:Fark you Jane, you ignorant slut (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109501)

Would that be enough, however? I fear, though, that this might be the new handwriting analysis craze. Still, each person has quirks to their writing to some degree. For one, I think my usual quirk stands out quite well, yeah.

I exaggerated it for the sake of making it obvious. I wonder how well this system at picking up things like this. Meaning, if I started talking like this:

Yo dawg, the meta-battle between anons and the man is heating up. Cool story bro, but we need fight this now. Our privacy is in danger of being shot down like a clay pigeon at a shoot out, yeah?

Re:Fark you Jane, you ignorant slut (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110143)

Well if you think about it the REALLY scary question is not how well this works but whether the courts will accept it. Anybody remember bullet fingerprinting? That was where they supposedly could match a bullet to a specific batch so they could tell if a bullet came from a certain pack of shells or not? We all know now it was total bullshit and that variations even in the same lots could be pretty wide simply because the bullet manufacturers simply weren't that anal retentive about purity as long as the round went straight but that junk science put untold numbers of people in PMITA prison.

Now what if the courts accept this as evidence? Some troll could copy pasta phrases from your actual posts and stitch them together to make them say something else and if they can trip this thing all this technobabble like bullet fingerprinting sells REAL well to juries who sit around watching CSI. Frankly after false flags like fast and furious I wouldn't even trust the feds not to decide to "frame the guilty man" or decide you must be the guy so make the evidence fit. Frankly this is why shows like CSI scare me, all this technobabble sells well to juries who frankly don't understand WTF this crap is, only that it looks high tech like something from CSI therefor it MUST be true.

Re:Fark you Jane, you ignorant slut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39111187)

Lord, what fools these mortals be!

What's in a name? A blinking idiot! That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

And thus I clothe my naked villany with odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ, and seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

Fuck U (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109429)

Analyze this

Thesaurus to the salvage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109437)

I merely function my observations by means of a thesaurus.

sup bro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109463)

Clinton Ebadi, take that for de-anonymisation ...

Not cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109487)

How bout y'all mind your own business instead of breaching the basic expectation of privacy?

Re:Not cool. (4, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109899)

What basic expectation of privacy is there on the internet? The misguided belief that there is privacy is a huge problem for society. If we all acted on the internet as if we had zero expectation of privacy there's a chance we might take security more seriously, or that people might actually be civil toward one another.

Re:Not cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39111259)

What basic expectation of privacy is there on the internet? The misguided belief that there is privacy is a huge problem for society. If we all acted on the internet as if we had zero expectation of privacy there's a chance we might take security more seriously, or that people might actually be civil toward one another.

When it comes to humanity, always bet on stupidity.

Re:Not cool. (1)

RCL (891376) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111523)

If we took security more seriously, there would be less freedom. And of those two, I prefer freedom (although not to the extreme: some basic security is also needed).

better way. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109497)

This is, of course, not really new.

A couple of years ago, there was some news (cannot find the link now) that some researchers tried this with a more statistical approach. As an implementation they used a compression algorithm.

I had a try with this on a forum. Somebody posted a long story anonymously, but I suspected the author. I gathered 10 posts from 5 authors, including the suspect. Then I cut the amount of text to equal length. Subsequently I added the anonymous text to each of the 10 samples and bzipped the resulting text.

The resulting zipped file was shortest in the case where I added the unknown text to the samples from the suspected author. The bzip algorithm apparently decided there was more similarity between the posts.

Although this was by no means a real scientific test, I turned out to be correct and was rather pleased with the result. Seems to me such an approach could also be useful for things. Why login on /. when it can just figure out who you are based on what you have just written?

To maintain anonimity you would just have to insert random shit into your posts.

Bonus points for the slashdotter who can deduce my identity based on the non-randomness of this post.

Re:better way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109703)

Ted Kaczynski?

Re:better way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109749)

Bonus points for the slashdotter who can deduce my identity based on the non-randomness of this post.

Well, I can say with 100% certainty that you're neither APK nor MK. Only two millions slashdotters to go.

If everyone here can remove one or two more slashdotters whose writting style he knows, we should be able to find who you are within a few ... hum ... years ?

I know, I know I picked the easy ones. sue me.

Re:better way. (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109879)

According to I Write Like [iwl.me] you're H.P. Lovecraft. Ha, take that!

Re:better way. (2)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111143)

I think they may need to work on that a bit. I just tested three samples of my writing, all in a similar style, and got three different authors.

Re:better way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39110077)

A couple of years ago, there was some news (cannot find the link now) that some researchers tried this with a more statistical approach

Somebody needs to go study some Paleontology if they think this is new. We've been doing it for quite some time in a variety of fields. Sure, they may have some kind of newly automated system, but serious Trolls learn their own patterns and shift them intentionally.

Or in other words, if you're really trying to hide, as opposed to being too lazy to register and sign in (like me), then you might want to actually disguise your literary style.

Re:deduce my identity (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110489)

I was going to guess either Tom Womack or Baldrson, but I'm out of time and I don't think I'm right.

Tool to improve your writing skills (4, Interesting)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109529)

If it can identity you based on your idiosyncrasies, I suppose that means writers could use software based on these techniques to identity the idiosyncrasies in their own writing. From there, they can learn new ways to express themselves and write in a more colorful and varied manner.

Heck, it can even be a tool that teaches you to think in a more varied manner.

Re:Tool to improve your writing skills (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109617)

If it can identify the idiosyncrasies in your writing, it can identify them in others'. I wonder if it can alter your "anonymous" controversial rant to look like that other.

Re:Tool to improve your writing skills (2)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110147)

I've seen it in my own writings on this forum, as of late. Currently I'm actually trying to 'stay away from' using such words as 'such' (damn!). I also try to reconsider transitions like 'also' and 'however', but obviously it doesn't always work out well. In particular, such notable words are especially awkward when used twice in a single paragraph, as well as a 'double qualifier'. Single quotes can also be to 'notable', as I tend to over use them as well and I've been told of my 'addiction' to commas, but I think that I'm ok with those.

Software can rewrite your texts (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110203)

If it's all automated, writers don't need to learn new ways to express themselves. Software can do that for them!

Re:Tool to improve your writing skills - exists (5, Interesting)

rarrar (671411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110557)

Schools already use programs like "White Smoke" and http://www.whitesmoke.com/ [whitesmoke.com] and "Style Writer" http://www.stylewriter-usa.com/ [stylewriter-usa.com] to identify grammar errors and stylistic errors, and suggest corrections. These programs are able to identify active and passive voice, clarity and readability of writing, ambiguous words, gender specific words, cliches, and more. I'm not sure the use of such software is such a great idea. I guess it's OK as long as a teacher reviews the results. Then again, if the teacher doesn't do as good a job as the program does...

I'm just too lazy to create a login account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109553)

But my humor is pretty unique so I guess you could track me through that.... but why?

ReAnonymoized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109557)

So now they will write an application that accepts text, runs it though a re-anonymizer that uses a thesaurus/dictionary/translator to scramble the authors habits and makes it impossible to detect. Or even better can determine the habits of some unsuspecting blogger and formats the messages that makes him look like the guilty party.

Its just another damn radar detector, detector, detector, detector.... detector!

Any stats on false positives?

Dumb question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109561)

But can someone explain what is meant by "halving of recall"? I can speculate on the Wikipedia link. I've tried searching via Google only to come back to the article mentioning it. But the phrase doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Do they mean to narrow down the potential correct answer by subsequent guesses? That is, eliminate half of the incorrect answers then proceed again?

Easily worked around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109593)

just mix up teh syntax and add extra words as chaff BABA BOOEY! BABA BOOEY! (click)

Unfortunately it doesn't.... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109603)

....work on those in government creating fake identities for spying and provoking things that help them justify their pointless jobs.

Looking at the percentages... Hmmmmm...

Not New? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109637)

Didn't the father of that girl who was the victim of that collar bomb hoax in Australia run a company which sells software [smh.com.au] which does stuff like this?

antonym (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109643)

I am Spartacus!

Re:antonym (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39111211)

What, Moses?

We are fucking lost!

Re:antonym (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111583)

I am Brian, and so is my wife.

thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109659)

thanks , for Good Article
http://engadget1.com/

Fist post! (0)

Raging Bool (782050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109675)

sorry, bad pun...
Couldn't resist it.

The irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109681)

Anonymous Cowards, Deanonymized. Posted by Unknown Lamer.

Discovered yet again (0)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109705)

How many times is this going to be 'discovered' and featured on the front page of Slashdot? It's old news. We get it. No need to publish another story on the topic, there's been one a quarter or so for years.

Software to change writing style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109713)

I'm currently working on filters to do serious substitutions on text. Sort of like the set of filters that is available for *nix systems (do a "man filters [pwet.fr] " for more info).
Except that instead of humorous substitutions, it would do things like changing Britishisms to Americanisms (e.g. "colour" -> "color"), mess with spelling and grammar (e.g. "grammar" -> grammer" and "who's" -> "whos") and similar. Now I guess I'll also have to add "since" -> "because" and "that" -> ", which" and others.

If you have opinions of similar substitutions, please add!

E.g.
Orig: I'm currently working on filters to do serious substitutions on text.
Pirate: I'm currently workin' on filterrrrs t' do serious substitutions on text.
NYC: I'm currently wawhkin' on filters tuh do serious substitushuns on text. Okay?

Re:Software to change writing style (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111545)

Arright la, I warant eh Scouse filta by tomorra.

In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109727)

Enemies of socialism found out because of/since hadoop analysis of Slashdot post!

change your posting style.. (4, Interesting)

ardiri (245358) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109775)

if your stupid enough to not change your posting style when trolling, your own bad.

mod do`wn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109799)

Call Anonymous cowards (0)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109817)

is not the best way to keep a stable system / bandwidth, recently

Nothing new really (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109827)

Even going back to the day when forums on the internet were email lists, there would always be some immature person who was a regular who switched aliases.

It would be so obvious from their pattern of writing that their new alias would seem as effective as a disguise as merely putting dark glasses on.

even better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109851)

OMG it can identify 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 too!

Defend yourself ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109861)

... use a thesaurus.

writing style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109877)

So we should all post anonomously to this thread and see if we can be identified?

Sounds like a challenge.

Anybody know who I am?

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39109969)

What's interesting is that you'd want to. First we loath Google and other companies for treating security trivially then we start developing algorithms for rooting out the anonymous. It goes to show that we're all for something until we find a disagreement with it. As soon as an AC says something we disagree with and if we do so to a certain level of passion, we'll cede the moral high ground for the rich, creamy goodness of revenge.

It's called Sex Panther (0)

somarilnos (2532726) | more than 2 years ago | (#39109995)

60% of the time, it works every time.

been done already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39110111)

i seem to remember a story about a team of chinese researchers that did this about year ago.

I don't always... (0)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110217)

I don't always attempt to identify an author, but when I do, I find the right author 80% of the time.

meh (2)

ewrong (1053160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110267)

Je pense que cela peut être facilement évité.

Re:meh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39111043)

Meh, doesn't work that well, because not everybody can speak Spanish.

Re:meh (3, Funny)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111321)

Apparently not everyone can hablar francés, either.

Re:meh (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111483)

Meh, doesn't work that well, because not everybody can speak Spanish.

Apparently not everyone can hablar francés, either.

Zooooooom!

(German for "Wooooosh!")

Re:meh (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111461)

Google speaks Spanish for me.

20% only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39110447)

Considering a random association will be 50% accurate (right or wrong), the algorithm is doing a lot worse than a coin flip.

Can it be used in Xbox games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39110477)

That's gay.

HB Gary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39110481)

I may be wrong but isn't that why the dude at that big government security firm got fired and generally got discredited.
Anon did one on him as i remember.

For the frivolous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39110623)

I do not mind. The most important reason that I post as an AC is that I find it to much of an effort to maintain hundreds of accounts to be able to post on frivolous websites like /.

This is why (4, Funny)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39110713)

This is why I practice non-redundancy. Redundancy is too redundant, so constantly repeating words and/or redundant phrases becomes a redundant factor in helping people to determine who you are on the internet when you post as an anonymous coward redundantly.

Remember, kids, practice redundant privacy measures to ensure you will never be exposed.

k... (1)

Iniamyen (2440798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111077)

Sometimes I wish I had multiple personality disorder YOU'LL NEVER EXPOSE ME YOU BASTAGES

So... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111327)

...are those with multiple personalities immune to this sort of detection? :P

floxinoxinihilipilification (3, Funny)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111475)

Damn! I'll have to stop using floxinoxinihilipilification so much in my anonymous posts or people will know it's me!

Using the logic proposed in the article- can we assume that all the anonymous cowards using "the other f word" are all Samuel L Jackson?

Re:floccinoxinihilipilification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39111659)

Oswald, anyone criticising you is practicing floccinoccinihilipilification. You are so wonderfull in every way. If only everyone were like you. .. the observant will notice a difference in spelling. ... the more observant will wonder if that were deliberate.

E Dat Rit% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39111515)

Difs ho boy ne a rel jb lk klen n toulets dtn NuYk.

Fists? (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39111517)

Just as individual telegraphers could be identified by other telegraphers from their 'fists,'

...anonymous posters can be identified by their Frists? [google.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?