131–140 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a large enough set to test against and a specific person you are looking for, this is totally doable currently.
Of course it's doable. The question is how reliable the results are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do change over time, I used to write "ha" after every sentence for some reason
You know, i had a particularly cringy period in which i put "la" at the end of sentences.
But on a serious note, what did "la" mean in your context? I've never seen this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He met with moot ("he is sensitive, be gentile", search on jmail), and within a few days the /pol/ board got created, starting a culture war in the US, leading to Trump getting elected president. Absolutely nuts.
be gentile We're just not going to talk about that one I suppose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some of the released documents included images of victims, which where redacted. So it's not necessarily malicious removals
If we're assuming they didn't leave victims unredacted on purpose
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on their technical capability, yes. I mean even in this thread you got what are essentially one-liners to do it. Definitely less hassle then doing it irl
I know I'm not the brightest bulb by any measure, but do some people really take less than at least a few minutes to come up with one-liners for problems as novel as graphical transformations to PDFs? Maybe if the presumed techie hacker / federal worker took it as an amusing challenge I could see this being done, but genuinely out of pure laziness? That's incredible if true.
What would be more interesting: His Bank accounts. Who paid him? Who did get paid?
What is the legal basis for releasing the someone's private files and communications? If they can do it to Epstein, they can do it to you, to the Washington Post journalist, to former President Clinton, etc. Is the scope at least limited somehow? Generally I favor transparency, but of course probably the most important parts are withheld.
He was a pedophile sex trafficker. Epstein and his clients deserve zero privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People always claimed this as a data leak vector but I've always been sceptical. Like just writing style and vocabulary is probably extremely shared among too many people to narrow it down much. (How people that you know could have written this reply?) The counter argument is that he had a very specific style in his mail so maybe this is a special case.
If you have a large enough set to test against and a specific person you are looking for, this is totally doable currently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People always claimed this as a data leak vector but I've always been sceptical. Like just writing style and vocabulary is probably extremely shared among too many people to narrow it down much. (How people that you know could have written this reply?) The counter argument is that he had a very specific style in his mail so maybe this is a special case.
this is a well-studied field (stylometry). when combining writing styles, vocabulary, posting times, etc. you absolutely can narrow it down to specific people. even when people deliberately try to feign some aspects (e.g. switching writing styles for different pseudonyms), they will almost always slip up and revert to their most comfortable style over time. which is great, because if they aren't also regularly changi…