Topic: Trust List Analysis - Ethics (Read 1618 times)

No, different methodology.


Thread has been posted here, locking this one.

It doesn't work against one person, it works against all at once. I checked for my name but it wouldn't even weakly match me against anyone above 1 trust rating.


On both accounts the answer is: It can, but its always going to happen. You can impersonate people by name, email address, BTC address etc.

Again always going to happen but not entertaining it can remove most of the problems. I can also manually recheck unusual links (Ie a suggesting that John K is Theymos, or that BadBear is God).

Trust lists are public AND they're compiled and posted already. If you feel there is something to hide in your trust list, then maybe that rating shouldn't be there in the first place.

Anything and everything will lead to more drama.

So it means, alt can be reveal if only someone put his/her own trust into his/her alt by this method ?
Let see this..bring it on

Post the analysis, I see nothing wrong with it.
I'm just curious to see if it's accurate or not.

I don't think this is a good idea for a number of reasons:
(in no particular order)
1) Even if you do not publish the methodology of how you reach the conclusion that two people are potentially an alt of someone else, by posting 500 sets of potential alts (for example) then someone others can find similarities in their trust lists to determine what your methodology is. So by posting your conclusions, you are in effect also posting how you reached your conclusion (it will probably will still be difficult for most to run their own simulations though).

This presents a number of issues, primarily that it makes it possible to impersonate someone else. Someone who wishes to scam could potentially make it appear as if they are a potential alt of someone trusted with their trust list, and leave other subtle clues that they are an alt of someone trusted, then someone trading with that person would potentially be more comfortable in doing a direct trade with that person while being under the assumption that they are trading with someone trusted when they are not.

The opposite is true as well as someone already outed as a scammer could try to impersonate someone who is not a scammer in order to remove credibility from someone they know is looking at this information. As above, they can leave subtle cues they are the person they are trying to impersonate.

2) Many people here do not know (or they ignore) the difference between the words "potential" and "probable" so they will probably take it as fact when you say that person "A" is an alt of person "B". However since there is nothing wrong with having alts, you are not saying with certainty that both are the same person and if both "A" and "B" are respected/reputable currently, then there will be no reason for either of them to respond to this claim, then when "B" scams someone, others will think that "A" is the same person as "B" and might question as to why they did not deny this claim when it was initially made.

3) Piggybacking on one of HolgerDansk's points is that a trust list is very similar to something that is going on inside one's house while they have their blinds open. An individual looking at that person's trust list is somewhat similar to them looking inside their window, however if I see someone looking in my window then I can choose to close my blinds if I so wish. I would say that publishing these conclusions would be similar to broadcasting what you see in this open window for everyone to see, even if they choose to close their blinds later.

4) This will lead to more drama and will be one more thing for scammers to use to sling mud at people they do not like.

---

I didn't vote in the poll, as you especially should know that forum polls are useless.

How many times can I vote "no" in the poll, just the once with my main account or...?
j/k

Of course you should be free to post it if you want to.

Edit:
I suppose the best way to see if it works would be to run it on yourself.
Would you be proposing to open the new thread with that as proof?

 

If I do then this will probably be a one off - it'll inform those who could potentially be revealed in the future how to reverse engineer it to protect themselves from this analysis. The methodology is also not too important with this kind of thing and that'll make more sense once its posted. Essentially the clever stuff just deals with the 10,000s of accounts and the output is relatively simple.

@HolgerDansk I find your comparissons ill fitted. I do aggree that nothing revealed here should be taken as concrete proof, but I still think the results should be made public. A possible compromise I see would be to only reveal issues regarding default trust members up to level 2 as they have significant influence within the system. As such their ratings and choices should be discussed openly.

@dogie could you provide any details on the method(s) you used? I think it would help to understand how significant the results are.

I voted for :

Post the analysis

It will be really interesting (in my opinion) to read it.

He posted above you.


I don't propose to share the tool as it could be mis-used or edited into a form to fit a particular narrative, and its a .xlsm so you couldn't be sure it didn't contain malicious code until it was executed.


Its both more and less complicated than that, and I probably won't go into too much detail on the methodology in order to keep up its usefulness for now.

This version of the analysis has suggested 6 pairs then (very) weakly 100 or so other pairs. The next version will suggest many more pairs strongly and so actually be useful, but its got to be done from scratch so it may take a few nights to complete. Unless I here any compelling arguments against, this will get posted.

If you walked right up to their window, that would probably not be OK, as you would be on private property.  A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy on their own private property.  

However, if their curtains are wide open, and one can see their television from the street, they can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on what they are watching.

I'm looking forward to this analysis.  I voted to post it.  

Note:  This post broke my 10,000 post marker.  

Please name & shame this person publicly.

I'd urge to provide the tool to the community as well, so that anyone can independently verify your results.

Of course you should post it.

Of course it will lead to more drama.  For those that are outed for using alts, they'll scream and cry.  Similarly, those that are identified as alts and really aren't, will scream and cry.

There definitely will be some drama - some from those that are busted, and some from those that are innocent - but they'll both be singing the same tune.  So how will anyone know what the truth is.  The OP clearly states, it may identify alts.

I have a few questions about this:

How can anyone absolutely prove the accuracy of this kind of analysis?  Without knowing that, I can see that innocent accounts could fall victim to being wrongly identified.

Even though the raw data is publicly available, is it reasonable to examine personal trust habits of all BCT users?  And then to share publicly that analysis?


To make a comparison, just because a person goes out in public, to work, to the store, to the post office, to dinner, (all in the public view mind you), it is not deemed legal (nor appropriate in my opinion) to follow them about and inspect their personal life.  So much so even, that there are laws against that, at least in my country, the USA.

I wholeheartedly believe, that I would be charged with stalking, if just wanted to do my own in-depth analysis of my insurance agent, and followed him about to see who else he interacts with and who he trusts, by following him to different appointments with clients, when he goes to lunch and follow him to where he lives.  I don't think the US Courts would find anything impressive in a defense of, "I was just performing my own trust analysis of my insurance agent.  I didn't invade his privacy.  I only followed him around in public."

Here’s another quick comparison.  Just because I can walk up and down my residential street and see lots of windows open and without any curtains drawn, does not make it okay for me to walk up to each window and take a picture of the inside of the houses on my street (publicly viewed information).  What if I then take those photos, make a compiled list (analysis) of the details of say, everyone's televisions (or whatever), then buy billboard space and list all of that information for public view.  Is that okay?

Here's my last question to everyone: are you okay with this analysis being used for personal purposes other than identifying alts?

There's another current thread about, is doxxing okay.  There seems to be a debate about that.  But after all, it's just public information right?  So it's no big deal to share it, right? :-)  (let's not have a doxxing discussion here).


I truly and genuinely compliment Dogie for publicly asking this question, since I'm at least one person that brought this question to mind.  So I am curious to know people's response as well.   

From my personal experience, earlier this week, because of this analysis, Dogie politely PM'd me and asked why I had removed him from my personal trust.  As we exchanged some PM's I was amazed to find out that my personal trust list was publicly available.  I hadn't complained about it, because I didn't know.  Next I was amazed to know that someone had been looking at the trust of little ol' me.  A rather quiet person on this forum.  And finally I was amazed that I was being essentially asked, why don't you trust me.  It was a private decision that I made.  Now I was being asked about my private decision? 

So yes, I did feel that it was an intrusion of my privacy. 

Would you consider that an intrusion of privacy?




As I mentioned above, I didn't know that my personal trust list was publicly available.  To whom & how would you suggest I complain to?  I would like to.

I don't think that my personal trust list should be publicly available.  Who I trust or don't trust, should be my choice to share.  I think the way it should be, is if you want to know trust opinions of a user, send the a PM and ask.  Isn't that how it is in real life?  For me to know who you trust or don't trust, I'd have actually ask you.  I really would need to ask specifically, do you trust DavidT or JohnnyL? (etc)  That's exactly what I have to do in real life, is ask.  I don't have some way to quietly peer into someone's data and find out.


IMO, on the positive side of this, I would love to see this analysis (if it can be proven out) be an additional tool of proving alts, available to admins or staff only.  Not publicly.  If they can use the information, to further a review into specific, possible, alt accounts, let them do that, with discretion, using other input as well.  Dogie mentioned in the OP, that this may help identify alts and that it should be but one piece of evidence (great wording btw Dogie, and thank you for qualifying the possible limitations of the analysis).  It's not an absolute.

As I read that, I read that there is possibly some margin of error or something similar.  With that in mind, I don't think the results should be shared publicly, because it is way too easy (and likely here on BCT) for it to turn into a witch hunt, where innocent people will be trampled along with alt abusers.

Dogie, thanks for posting the question.  It was your analysis, so it was your question to ask publicly.


My request would be, if this was to be posted publicly, that it only be done, with the blessing of Theymos (in a public post).  (it's really his forum, let him decide if something like this should be publicly shared and let him publicly let us know he has approved that).

I votes yes, I just hope this will not lead to more drama.

Why not? Post it.

But I didn't get that part. Alts are added into their trust list

This exactly...post it!

Exactly. If they thought it was a "personal intrusion" then why haven't they complained about the publicity of trust lists? IMO, analysis of public information of any kind should be public as well.

Posting is the way to go.
If you don't, somebody else might try and do the analysis.

Trust lists are public. I don't see how anyone could have a problem with you sharing them, or the results of analysing them.

I say post your results.

Why would people put alts on their trust list?

Unless you were on DT... and wanted to farm trust.

Seems to me that it's just compiling information that is already available.