Slashdot Log In
Author Unknown
from the --identity-and-anonymity- dept.
| Author Unknown | |
| author | Don Foster |
| pages | 282 |
| publisher | Henry Holt |
| rating | 8/10 |
| reviewer | Jon Katz |
| ISBN | 0-8050-6357-9 |
| summary | uncovering-the-authors-of-anonymous texts |
With unattributed text, says word sleuth Don Foster -- an e-mail from a Hotmail address, the rantings of the Unabomber, or an anonymous letter to the editor -- it is increasingly possible to connect the voice with the creator of the document.
Most anonymous texts, from Elizabethan playscripts to libel on the Net, offer stylistic evidence that reveal a lot more than many scholars and detectives have previously realized. Words are our own intellectual DNA, writes Foster, a professor of English Lit at Vassar and perhaps the world's foremost word sleuth. Analyzed in the right way, they invariably will give us away.
Foster, the author of Author Unknown, has some solid credentials in this field. He solved a puzzle involving one of Shakespeare's sonnets that had stumped sleuths for centuries, identified the anonymous author of presidential tell-all Primary Colors (unmasking the journalist Joe Klein as the author), was enlisted by federal authorities in the hunt for the Unabomber, and was also asked to uncover the author of the celebrated Monica Lewinsky-Linda Tripp "talking points."
This is highly readable book, an intellectual who-dunnit of particular interest to people online who are continuously confronted with anonymous texts. And if you're hiding behind electronic anonymity, you don't want Don Foster on your case. The book tells juicy stories about some of the most sensational crimes and scandals of our time, but it's really about the human mind: the language, identity and the clues that individuals leave behind when they create text, digital or otherwise.
Criminals can ride or hide, Foster writes, but they can't disguise their words and language patterns. We are prisoners of our own language, writing from within a repertoire of certain thoughts and words and spellings.
Some words, Foster writes, are content specific. "Two documents about making salad from "dandelion greens" may have been written by the same person (in this example, Ted Kaczynski) or one writer may have borrowed from another; but if two documents about gardening mention the words "dandelion," "hoe", and "trellis," that may indicate not common authorship or indebtedness but only a shared topic."
Some of the most riveting parts of this book are the insights into Kaczysnki's character and intellect that Foster was able to piece together from a meticulous study of his letters and manifestos. Foster makes Kaczynski more comprehensible than anyone has managed to do, mostly by tracking down the influences, stories, books and writers that pop up again and again in his writings, beliefs and help explain an enduring mystery about his awful work: his choice of victims. We see how Kaczynski, holed up in various libraries, came across biographic references, academic writings or writings that triggered passions and interests (like the story of the Titanic, which obsessed him as a metaphor for failed technology and technological hubris, an obsession that cost lives).
Foster writes about how advanced Geographic Profiling used by police to track down serial criminals didn't work in the Unabomber case, since the offender's primary residence (Montana) and place of employment (none) couldn't have been pinpointed even with the help of advanced computer tracking software. But by locating Kaczynski's words and ideas, pseudonyms, even mailing addresses; by locating his books and magazines, reference works and principal intellectual influences, something could have been learned about the Unabomber's physical whereabouts, even down to the particular buildings in Utah and Northern California where Kaczynski was conducting his primary research, (including the probable dates of his most recent visits).
Foster writes that it was the famous Unabomber Manifesto, "Industrial Society and Its Future," completed and mailed in June 1995 that ultimately led the Unabomber Task Force to Kaczynski's Montana cabin. "I believe," he writes, "that the same wonderfully verbose document, partly written in California libraries, could have led agents to Ted Kaczynski even without David Kaczynski's invaluable assistance."
Foster was repeatedly led to archived stories from "Saturday Review" which Kaczynski read. The Unabomber borrowed heavily, says Foster, especially from the writings of Jacques Ellul. It was in February 1965 that American readers were first introduced to Ellul's "Technological Society" in that magazine. Kaczynski wrote his brother David that he was deeply impressed by Ellul's writings which closely mirrored his own beliefs. These ideas pop up all over Kaczynski's writings, letters and manifesto.
Author Unknown is a great read, timely and riveting, and with special relevance for cyberspace. "In a culture that encourages anonymous communication and the right to speak without responsibility for the content of the utterance, the spoken message and, eventually, language itself are depleted."
There may be a flip-side to Foster's new science. In the wrong hands, it could mean that the kind of free speech and safety sometimes associated with anonymity -- Anonymous Cowards on this site can be obnoxious, but they also pass on valuable information -- could be lost.
But thanks in part to Foster's ground-breaking research, speaking without responsibility may one day be tougher to do.
You can purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
It only worked because Ted was not aware of it. (Score:3)
I have already been doing this for years. If I post something to the net under an invented identity, I change the sentence structure, spelling, style, tone, various lexical elements---you name it. I'm also careful not to make any cultural or intellectual references similar to ones that I might otherwise make.
I can easily write something that could not possible be attributed to me. The reason for this is obvious: writing is, or at least can be, deliberate, subject to endless revision and clever disguise. It only acts as a fingerprint when it's poured out without deliberation.
Only in real-time performance activities is it difficult to mask one's traits: speaking, walking, playing music and so forth. The low level elements of these activities are beyond conscious control, unlike writing, whose every element can be controlled by the writer.
you decide - the Unabomber, or Al Gore? (Score:3)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ken_cros
Ways to Evade this Technology (Score:3)
This suggests two ways to evade the technology. One is to apply some filter that makes everybody's work look the same. A crude example would be if everyone used the Zippy filter - that style may be so strong as to mask the differences among the original authors, as well as the similarities between original works by the same author. It is somewhat analogous to writing in block print to hide one's handwriting.
The second way is to make ones own work look different every time. In other words, make your own work have very little internal correlation. Again, a crude example would be if sometimes one wrote in Hemingway's style, then Steinbeck, then Maya Angelou, etc. This is analogous to cutting and pasting words and letters from magazines, "ransom-note" style, to hide one's handwriting.
The fascinating thing to me is that someone has come up with a way (perhaps crude so far) to statistically recognize writing style, something that we people are relatively good at already - the Unabomber's brother fingered him upon reading the manifesto, for example. The thing to remember is that it's only as good as his algorithms, which we smart hackers can surely outwit.
I think what makes this difficult to do manually is that our writing style is probably a fairly low-level characteristic, like our gait, handwriting, or voice. Just as those can be overridden with training, surely one's writing style can be as well.
I disagree with this one bit: (Score:3)
AC's are usually posting anonymously so they can be obnoxious. In the *rare* (to my eyes) occasion that they pass on something of value, it is a two-sided coin. On one side, it is valuable info, on the other side, it is plausibly false. It is *easy* to spout off when you are "hidden" on the net.
Anyone who thinks that they are "anonymous" on the net is direly mistaken. You can be tracked, and if you are annoying enough to the powers that be, you *will* be tracked.
it continually amazes me, however, that they can track down a cyber-pedophile, or the Una-bomber, but they are powerless to stop mass mailings from ISP]s that specifically dont allow them.
Anonymity is all well and good, I guess, but typically, I dont pay much attention to what they say. I am willing to stand by my words, as long as the context they were taken from is moved intact as well. (IE: dont take my quotes on GWAR to stand as my quotes on how I feel about female rights in this country. The two are about as diametrically opposed as possible, yet with huge search engines and Deja News out there, it is easy enough for someone to do just that.)
Maeryk
I suspect this is scientifically invalid (Score:3)
Lincoln biographer Stephen Oates almost had his career ruined by some morons at NIH who ran some Lincoln biographies through a computer and claimed Oates had plagiarized based on some similarities with a classic 1952 bio of Lincoln.
easily hacked (Score:3)
Learn a new language and make your irresponsible ravings in that. Language is acquired by age five, and those patterns that you have are identical with the patterns of your parents, older siblings, and the others who were around you speaking your native tongue.
If I were to learn French or Spanish, the patterns would be of the Berlitz language company, or the Barron's education company, or whatever, and would be bland from a stylistic point of view.
Anonymous authorship was a formidable force in kicking the British out of the colonies circa 1776.
Bukvich
Re:Big Brothers New Trick (Score:3)
Its by no means a quick and easy way to link an anonymous message to one of a million people, and I can't help but think that anyone (for example) posting AC to /. about the real interpretation of the constitution who thinks that he's worth it is probably suffering from a touch of narcicism.
People talk alot about the importance of anonymous speech. It's certainly nice in some cases, but I think its importance has been overrated in this forum. If you want to make a difference out in the real world with something you're saying (without it being an anonymous threat of violence ala Teddy K.) you put your name on it. Just ask John Hancock.
Kahuna Burger
They found me! (Score:3)
since the offender's primary residence (Montana) and place of employment (none) couldn't have been pinpointed even with the help of advanced computer tracking software
I, for one live in Montana and have no job, yet I think that I must be able to be tracked down by sophisticated computer methods, since I am always getting offers for pre-approved credit cards and offers of pr0n.
Recent Radio Interview with Don Foster (Score:3)
__________________
Taco == Katz? (Score:3)
No, I disagree.... (Score:3)
"In a culture that encourages anonymous communication and the right to speak without responsibility for the content of the utterance, the spoken message and, eventually, language itself are depleted."
I think Slashdot is a prime example of how this is not the case, certainly, ACs may "deplete" the message, but the cream rises to the top. The interesting, insightful stuff on the Internet will be linked to, will get traffic. Pages by the eponymous B1FF will be lost amid the dross.
Of course, there always will be exceptions to this. But the internet is in itself self-regulatory - the good stuff gets more exposure. Dilution? Perhaps. Lost messages? I think not.
Troll or not, it's scary stuff... (Score:3)
Let's not forget that the FBI called paper clips found in his home "bomb making equipment" (and not "letter writting equipment"). Let's not forget that while his court-appointed lawyers were saying, "Yes, poor Ted IS guilty, but it's OK 'cause he's insane!!!, as Ted was trying to fire the bastards and plead innocent, but NOO! the judge says... Ted isn't competent to speak for yourself in court.... You CAN'T plead innocent. Shut up and sit there and take what you got coming.
There is plenty of evidence to show that Ted was railroaded. The message in Ted's case is that any intellectual that abandons technology and moves to the mountians must be a killer. Anyone who writes anti-capatilist literature is a terrorist.
Just like in the OKC thing. If you oppose what happened in Waco, you are guilty of OKC bombings.
Where's the critical thinking? Where is the skeptical inquiry?
Now the next $100,000 question... (Score:4)
I've used techniques like this on usenet. (Score:4)
Kill-filing this looney is impossible as his email address constantly mutates.
We must apply this to the trolls! (Score:4)
Once all the trolls have been identified, a crack team of Andover sponsored Army Rangers should break down their doors, grab the trolls, flog them with wet lasagna noodles, and send them packing to Belize, preferable Temptation Island, where they will be sentenced to death by oral sex.
Finally, Slashdot will be troll free!
Give the author a break (Score:4)
Regarding using BabelFish, or other tools, I don't think that's a good countermeasure, clearly no one could tell who wrote the article, nor would they care, since the final presentation would lack style, and readability. In arguing against translating works of literature, Mark Twain demonstrated the folly of such an enterprise by translating one of his short stories to French and then back to English. The resulting text lacked Twain's style, and was unreadable.
Which is longer and more rambling? (Score:5)
(a) The Unabomber Manifesto
(b) An average Jon Katz article
Pencils down!
Cheers,
Big Deal (Score:5)
--
Pshaw! This one's easy! (Score:5)
=====
On-line anonymity is simple. If you want to really upward screw efforts to identify itself by the specific language details just your masts by the fish execute a pair of the periods. Which comes out, is guaranteed, giving foster a first class klassenmigraene.
(English->French->German->English, for those who are interested.)
Travesty generators - technological arms race (Score:5)
Travesty generators have been around for some time, taking random sequences of letters and filtering them into the style of Shakespeare. This makes for something between Shakespeare-sh gibberish and amusing reading.
Imagine something like a travesty generator that can decompose your writing, sentence by sentence. Then, armed with a built-in thesaurus, grammatical rules, etc, it could re-cast your words into someone else's mold.
In other words, scan manifesto A, scan writings of author B, building rulebases of both. Convert manifesto A into style of author B.
I don't believe we have this, but I don't believe it's much of a stretch, either. Kind of a computerized equivalent of cutting the words and letters out of magazines and newspapers, then pasting them back into your own message.