You sound familiar… Writing Style Matching in a Blogged World

So the National Science Foundation created a program called Dark Web. For those not familiar it’s a project that tries to collect all the extremist and terrorist sites on the net. For monitoring, this is probably something that seems perfectly practical. Some of the technology has interesting applications. One in particular is a writing style matching technology Writeprinting. Writeprinting looks at things like your writing style, structure and semantics to identify who you are (or more appropriately identify writings by the same individual. The benefit to be able to identify “anonymous” extremists from other writings they have done online (or other sources) is of obvious benefit which few people would deny we should be looking into in an effort to keep all people safe. Indeed, the Unibomber was caught after his manifesto was published and his brother recognized the thoughts and writing style.

Of course, like most technologies, it can be used for good or evil as machines and algorithms are apathetic to purpose by definition. This means that the same technology we rely on to keep us safe from terrorists may also be the same technology that keeps us from expressing our thoughts and feelings about what is happening in our communities, country or world. Anonymous speech was important to our founding fathers (as much of what they were doing was treasonous under English rule) and this technology could easily be used for other “well meaning” though totally unintended purposes such as catching students who write other’s papers or unmasking anonymous whistle blowing bloggers.

Of course, not making any public writings available would thwart such a technology but it also has a down side. Right now public shows of dissent are the ways that people form movements against programs, policies, organizations and governments that they don’t agree with. This form of association allows a safety valve for people to express their concerns and help make change if their views are shared by enough individuals. If such speech is tracked and the authors found and punished (like those that have protested President Bush in the United States or were thrown out of the US Capital for shirts relating to the Iraq occupation). In individual cases this leads to motivating those who believe in the cause being suppressed. In extreme cases it leads people to go directly to much more drastic means such as subversion and terrorism.

The point here is that freedom of speech is as much about having a voice as it is about maintaining a civil society. The creation of technologies that remove that anonymity may have the ironic result of actually making things less safe in the long run as those who feel that they are being oppressed and don’t feel free to express their grievances (free from reprisal) move to more extreme tactics.

Will technology meant to make us safer actually have the opposite affect? I certainly hope not. But as we develop such technologies we should bear such possible outcomes in mind.

Of course, people also may just start to come up with obfuscation programs (such as used in computer code) to mask their identities; only time will tell.