Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
How is this tool not a violation of its own CoC?
> Permission is hereby granted... to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use
I would never register an account on Twitter, put information in my public profile, then consider that to be private information that people should not know about. And if I did do that, I did that, this tool did not do that. And the "privacy" is already breached regardless of whether this tool exists or not. That definition of "privacy" is incoherent. Something deliberately shared in a public profile is not private information by definition.
You can't hide behind, "but no one expected that" and expect to live a happy, unsurprising life. There is no law you can pass that will fix this, no matter how much you complain.
I thought the last one was common sense in the 2000 actually. But apparently it was lost together with the netiquette.
From other comments here I assumed it did something sinister/sophisticated (matching photos, avatars or even text analysis) to try and tie a poster at one site to another site.
OP: uses different usernames, for the same reason
I'm not sure what is "particularly odd" about this? Also, you have a very accusatory tone.
And no installation needed.
Maybe the twitter mob could make itself useful for once...
All companies do that by registering their trademarks. I don't see how this is different.
GitHub doesn’t have private messaging.
There are tons of legitimate uses. The point of a username is to identify someone.
Would-be dating partners are another good use.
Also, searching for a way to contact someone. Reporters looking to contact sources, or anyone trying to find someone who offered a rare item or service for sale a while back.
If this is truly for public benefit, then the dev should at least include an opt-out mechanism.
And this is good because it removes the illusion that they can speak freely and saves them from repercussions coming from eventual de-anonymization.
What next? A publicly available ML web crawler that analyzes speech and belief patterns, triangulates them with metadata, and returns someone’s identity with 99% confidence? I’m not naive enough to believe the government won’t build that, but for that to be freely available is just a recipe for chaos. It should be illegal, and it should be illegal to distribute many intermediate tools as well.
Close but no cigar.
But seriously, correct me If I am wrong but if I were to propose a solution to defeat this `ML web crawler' confidence in it's results, then the first thing I would do is to feed the internet with invalid data. How does ML-based analyzers deal with this kind of data set?
I apologies but that's disappointingly vague..
The way I see such a thing working is that you train it to identify what makes your writing unique . Everyone has a highly esoteric writing style, akin to a thumbprint.
An ML optimizing for uniqueness can identify:
- Relative frequency of certain words
- Written tics
- Distance between certain words that the author tends to cluster together
- Mean clauses per sentence, clause variance
- Symbol usage
and abstract patterns that we haven’t even recognized yet. You can limit the search space at first by pointing the algorithm at certain websites and sub-sites that you’re fairly certain the person uses, but eventually I think even that will not be necessary.
Aha. Indeed. I would prefer to have someone actively working in ML to weigh in as well.
Would you be interested in PoC'ing it out for such a trivial project?
I don't think you can, not without special means.
Phone companies used to print hard copies of the white pages and hand deliver it to everyone’s house, and the biggest concern anyone ever had about them was the volume of waste they generated.
Not saying this is a net positive for society by any means, but just another example of a potentially legitimate use for doing online research about someone.
And then as far as "bass player," that's just a proxy for low income; I also picked a hyper-niche genre that even most metal listeners don't enjoy. If he can prove income via sending copies of contracts with music venues or something, more power to him.
For good or bad, this all stuff that could plausibly be used as an accurate source of information about someone's ability to pay and to not be a problem to the other tenants--especially the lying part.