3 ms·
You would have to change every word, since any could be a waterprinted synonym. A better way would be to read it, make a summary, then rewrite it from memory an
by snovv_crash 9y ago
You would have to change every word, since any could be a waterprinted synonym. A better way would be to read it, make a summary, then rewrite it from memory and only use the source data to correct factual differences.
- chatmasta 9y agoYou wouldn't necessarily have to change every word; just enough to break the decoding scheme. But even then it's totally random, so the longer the document, the more opportunities to be fingerprinted. It's like the old saying goes, "the police only need to be lucky once, but the criminals need to be lucky all the time." [0] [0] I never bothered looking up where this came from until just now... interestingly it's from the IRA, and used in the total opposite way most people use it now... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing
- snovv_crash 9y agoYour saying illustrates what I'm saying perfectly: if you miss even a single fingerprinted word, it might uniquely identify you. So you need to change every single word, and even that isn't enough in case eg. adjectives were added or omitted.