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!

Comments

top

Researchers Can ID Anonymous Twitterers

arvindn Re:Who promised? (108 comments)

Hi. I'm one of the authors. Please read our FAQ. 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.

more than 4 years ago
top

Researchers Can ID Anonymous Twitterers

arvindn Please read our FAQ (108 comments)

We have an FAQ about this paper. 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 for a variety of demonstrations and thought-experiments of de-anonymization.

more than 4 years ago
top

Anonymity of Netflix Prize Dataset Broken

arvindn Re:What are you rating in IMDB vs Netflix (164 comments)

Yes, such differences in meaning exist.

However, when you're talking about dozens of movies, all you need is a correlation. Our algorithm is powerful enough to tolerate a large amount of noise. If you read the paper, we were able to match up users between imdb and netflix with a very high level of confidence, in the sense that the best match was 15-30 standard deviations away from the second best match. In statistics terms, that's a insanely close match.

--Arvind Narayanan

more than 6 years ago

Submissions

arvindn hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

top

The section stories column is stupid

arvindn arvindn writes  |  more than 11 years ago From what I've seen, the section stories column on the right of the main page seems to show a section selected at random, and this selection is changed once every few minutes. This is stupid. Some sections are far more active than others, but all get the same amount of time on the front page. And lets face it, most of us click the section stories only if they appear in this column, not bothering to check out each section page.

The science section is the most active. Its last 10 stories span only 2.5 days. OTOH, the apache section rarely has anything posted to it, its 10th most recent story being posted over 6 months ago! This means that an apache story continues to get front page time 6 months after it is posted.

A much better thing to do would be to use that section which has the most recent story posted to it. If that would result in the section column not changing often enough, it should be trivial to collect stats to find the relative freq of the sections and change the section column as often as desired but with each section getting exposure proportional to its activity.

What do you think of this idea? How does one bring such a thing to the editors' attention anyway? Just mail CmdrTaco?

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?