We show that large language models can be used to perform at-scale deanonymization. With full Internet access, our agent can re-identify Hacker News users and Anthropic Interviewer participants at high precision, given pseudonymous online profiles and conversations alone, matching what would take hours for a dedicated human investigator. We then design attacks for the closed-world setting. Given two databases of pseudonymous individuals, each containing unstructured text written by or about that individual, we implement a scalable attack pipeline that uses LLMs to: (1) extract identity-relevant features, (2) search for candidate matches via semantic embeddings, and (3) reason over top candidates to verify matches and reduce false positives. Compared to classical deanonymization work (e.g., on the Netflix prize) that required structured data, our approach works directly on raw user content across arbitrary platforms. We construct three datasets with known ground-truth data to evaluate our attacks. The first links Hacker News to LinkedIn profiles, using cross-platform references that appear in the profiles. Our second dataset matches users across Reddit movie discussion communities; and the third splits a single user's Reddit history in time to create two pseudonymous profiles to be matched. In each setting, LLM-based methods substantially outperform classical baselines, achieving up to 68% recall at 90% precision compared to near 0% for the best non-LLM method. Our results show that the practical obscurity protecting pseudonymous users online no longer holds and that threat models for online privacy need to be reconsidered.

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The false positives are going to be tremendously dangerous to the falsely accused, as there is no way to either prove or disprove the charge. It's just a case of "computer says you're 99% likely to be the same person."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago

    None of what this does is new, the issue is that’s being commodified: in a short amount of time these techniques will be available to non experts in the field.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    So they found something LLMs can actually do, and predictably it's incredibly evil.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    That’s why I always run my text through an LLM for refinement before posting it. 😉

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    I disguise my internet writings by doing them left handed.

  • source
  • 12 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 19 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    So it seems that letting LLMs to write sloppy posts for us can be useful after all. May be c/privacy should implement an automatic AI reformating XD

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 18 points 7 months ago

    Yah, there might be something to that. For protection against style + vocab matching.

    It sucks though. I recently read where the more people use LLM assisters when they write, the more the whole virtual commons grows bland. It feeds back upon itself.

    Sigh. I just want a world where we can have nice things. And assholes don't try to ruin the nice things we could have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Previously, the advice was to translate your posts into one or two languages before posting. It seems that even rough content generated by large language models (LLMs) can help people fit in more easily.

    I like how slop became "rough content" after translation.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 7 months ago

    I've been expecting to hear of something like this, it's a natural evolution of LLM use cases and grimly inevitable.

  • source
  • [+] 15 points 7 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Yes I've been worried about exactly this. I'm sure it's very much within the realm of possibility these days.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    You can protect yourself by never giving away much info.

    Which is why you should silo all online accounts and avoid linking them together.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    The corruption and rape of our digital freedom only sucks the life out of the internet. Eventually it will die. At some point the only way to avoid AI, algorithmic manipulation, and the like will be to live a life completely offline. That's what the powers that be will push people to. I have hope that these shitty evil practices aren't sustainable and the whole thing will collapse.

  • source
  • 9 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 15 points 7 months ago

    I think anyone who's paid any attention to targeted advertising has know this long before LMMs were a thing. Removing the 'easy answer' is just a legal formality at this point and does little to nothing for the privacy it claims to protect. Advertisers like Google like it that way and will fight tooth and nail against any 'reconsiderations'

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Ok, here's a simple solution:

    1. Live a country with protected free speech
    2. Don't hold any controversial opinions
    3. If you do have controversial opinions keep them to yourself
    4. Don't comment on pornhub

    Follow those simple rules and you should be fine.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    I think the problem is that sharing any opinion can be turned into a controversial one. It the matter of who is the judge. Something you think is acceptable to share may not be deemed acceptable by an opposing party.

    I’d replace ”controversial” with ”unique” or ”non-conformist”.

    Standing out is risky.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    this is why I use my dick to type all my content on here.

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    At least I have something to point to when people call me crazy for pointing out AI is a death blow to what little privacy we have left.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    This is why I fully wiped my reddit account history overwriting every comment before deleting. There was no explicit personal information but anyone looking hard enough could probably tie it to my real life identity.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I wonder if this thing can be used to instead of finding an anonymous account belongs to, what anonymous accounts someone has.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 2 comments in c/blueteamsec@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Silver lining to being purged from Reddit

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    And that's just for talking.

    This is why "metadata" was always a bullshit excuse. Tracking anything about you is tracking you.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    TL;DW Mind your OPSEC, and AIs aren't magic. It can only find what information you willingly give up in the first place.

    The authors of this paper also refuse to publish their exact testing methods "for safety."

  • source