Quote from: masterblaster on February 21, 2013, 11:21 pmQuote from: SelfSovereignty on February 21, 2013, 08:33 amThey have access to every letter I've written and sent via email (presumably -- best to assume so). Every college paper I wrote, every IM I ever sent, every product I've ever bought (we all do know what those silly "Savers Club" cards are for, yes? Selling ads, of course they track what we buy to target us with ads), etc., etc. etc..If they think you're of interest and you didn't plan to be of interest, you lose. Game over. They win. Period. They will find you. I didn't plan on ever trying to be found. It's too late now I'm sure, they likely crawl this board a dozen times a day and archive it all.So there you have it. A thousand posts is a lot of fucking information. Trust me. Their techniques work.Whoa, slow down on the amphetamines there, you dont talk any differently than i or anyone else with an education does. Profiling is a joke, they can't even profile people correctly at the airports, how are they going to determine one out of the millions of tor users? You think they're collecting dossiers on everyone who uses tor? So what, this is what you've revealed, you are a programmer, you dont like making gui's, you live in the us, your probably white/asian male, 18-30, you like amphetamines, you use tor....alright that describes about 75% of tor users. For them to find you they would have to eliminate 99.9999% of tor users. The only thing the government has against us is fear, and it seems to be working quite well.It's not the amphetamines, believe me. I've been taking them long enough to recognize irrational paranoia on the extremely rare occasions that I start feeling it. Have a newspaper quote that's two years old, which means it's a lot better now than it was then:QuoteRecently, a team of computer scientists at Concordia University in Montreal took advantage of an unusual set of data to test another method of determining e-mail authorship. In 2003, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as part of its investigation into Enron, released into the public domain hundreds of thousands of employee e-mails, which have become an important resource for forensic research. (Unlike novels, newspapers or blogs, e-mails are a private form of communication and arent usually available as a sizable corpus for analysis.)Using this data, Benjamin C. M. Fung, who specializes in data mining, and Mourad Debbabi, a cyber-forensics expert, collaborated on a program that can look at an anonymous e-mail message and predict who wrote it out of a pool of known authors, with an accuracy of 80 to 90 percent. (Ms. Chaski claims 95 percent accuracy with her syntactic method.) The team identifies bundles of linguistic features, hundreds in all. They catalog everything from the position of greetings and farewells in e-mails to the preference of a writer for using symbols (say, "$" or "%") or words ("dollars" or "percent"). Combining all of those features, they contend, allows them to determine what they call a persons "write-print."Worst case scenario, they end up wanting me as bad as DPR (yes, yes, as laughable as that may be, it's not 100% impossible and if you aren't at least considering worst case scenarios, you really need to start -- if it's not impossible, it may happen). That means they'll use basic techniques any fool could figure out to narrow down their list of candidates to a size that's manageable. They'll feed everything they know I've written into a program. They'll get a handful of candidates. They'll pay someone $100/hr to analyze my writings and identify me with relative certainty.You must know that this is possible. I mean don't you? Now is it likely? No, of course not; how likely you estimate it to be depends entirely on what kind of probability you assign to them wanting to find someone that badly. I'm thinking long term, "what if," here. Not "likely to happen." I have no desire to expose myself to the level of risk DPR faces. I intend to never get caught for anything. Ever.Most people get caught. Therefore if you don't want to get caught... you have to be more careful than most people. Being careful means assessing risk and being aware of possibilities. It's possible that if I actually helped DPR with the site or worked with him on a client... they'd decide I'm just as worth finding, especially since there's so much more information available on me than on him.So what part of this reasoning are you telling me is wrong...?