|
-
What is the motivation for
a solution? For privacy, but who's
privacy?
- What is the motivation for problem
identification. Would anyone do this?
- A fair enough technique and idea, but not very
technical/programming/security oriented.
- Assumes each person has a single style,
which is shaky. If someone was going through all the trouble of
multiple pseudonymns (which are needed for the matching), wouldn't they
consciously avoid things like this, just as common sense?
Additionally, each person subconciously has a formal style and an
informal style, at least, with many other flavors and variants.
- First few
variables capture most of the variance, why bother with all of the extra
work?
- Experiment
possibly flawed. On the ng they grabbed from, people were not
attempting to be anonymous. Therefore, they were not taking any
precautions whatsoever (consciously or not) to avoid being repetitive,
and perhaps may have in fact been doing the opposite.
- Seem to fudge data slightly. Perhaps because of rough
draft, but just 2 experiments and then some hand waving "found that at
around 6500 words the results are almost as good as for 10000
words"
- Need to suspect people posting covertly, because technique
yields high number of false positives if no others are there.
- This could be used to analyze newsgroups to see if your
employees are posting there and wasting time.
- RFC's: aren't you guranteed the author? This isn't
exactly Shakespeare.
- Possible method for extension that we suggest (maybe instead
of RFC): Smiley analysis in chat rooms.
- What about non-native english speakers? (in reference
to misspellings section)
|
|
- We suspect there might be
very interested parties in the FBI/NSA.
- Also possibly useful for Industrial
Espionage
- Other than that, probably not much
mainstream useage, too much effort for joe casual user.
- Could there have been a way to automate this further?
This paper wasn't too technical, very common sense.
- Although the conclusions are fairly persuasive, especially
given the intuitions, we think it would be very easy to foil this
(extremely time-consuming) technique with a little thought.
- Overall lukewarm reception of
paper.
|