5 ms·

> this setting causes problems with google captcha - the number of challenges that you will need to solve will drastically increase No kidding. I'm talking abo

> this setting causes problems with google captcha - the number of challenges that you will need to solve will drastically increase No kidding. I'm talking about ~30-40 clicks (1 click per task in the captcha grid)

pinko 7y ago
Why can't they just allow the user to whitelist recaptcha?
- Spare_account 7y ago
  The people who're trying to avoid being fingerprinted are probably thinking of Google when they decided to go down this path. I'm willing to go through extensive captcha cycles if that's the cost of retaining some anonymity. I installed uMatrix a while back to recover some anonymity and it worked at first, my Captcha load spiked significantly which was a great indication that I'd succeeded but it has dropped over time. I guess I'm gradually being fingerprinted again. Google's captcha tests are my litmus paper test that what I'm doing is effective.
  - the-pigeon 7y ago
    At this point can I just pay for a certificate or something? Like for $1 give me a certificate that I can use to say "I'm not a spammer" and I can anonymously buy as many certificates as I want. And then if a certificate is used by a spammer it becomes invalid. Seems like it's expensive enough to be worth using for existing spammers but let normal people pay a $1 every year or two to not have to deal with captchas.
    - aussieguy1234 7y ago
      Fingerprinting is designed to generate a unique identifier to track you. Certificates would be an even more accurate unique ID over what fingerprinting could provide
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        > and I can anonymously buy as many certificates as I want
        acdha 7y ago
        Do you really think that statistically noticeable numbers of people would do that and have perfect opsec preventing those perfect unique identifiers from being linked? I mean, even software developers tend to whine about paying $5 for an app which has far more immediate rewards.
    - ENGNR 7y ago
      Even just proof that 5c worth of crypto or something was burned would would a good alternative. Let the site/app designer work out how often it needs to happen (maybe just the first few times if they're new) to stop spam and not cost honest users much
    - close04 7y ago
      This seems like a very cheap way to make spam look legitimate at least for a while. It now costs me $1 more to spam until I get caught and banned. But until that point I don't have to worry about any kind of filter, I'm a legitimate user.
- colemickens 7y ago
  It would be more interesting, to me, to see Google support something like CloudFlare's Privacy Pass. https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001992652-Can-I-use-Privacy-Pass-with-Cloudflare- https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500199265... Though it seems unlikely they would want to? (Though I don't know a lot about and would be interested to hear criticisms of it.)
  - jorvi 7y ago
    They would have probably supported it when CAPTCHAs were still about digitizing books. Now that they've turned everyone into unwilling trainers for their visual machine learning they'll never do it.
gcb0 7y ago
not to mention when google puts you in captcha-hell-ban. often, after a few difficult ones, I realize I get stuck into the same 20 challenges. over and over. no matter if I get them rigth or not. We do run all browser in the office with figerprint protection on and run non-exit-tor-nodes in all offices. But those are hardly excuses. The hell bans happens more often on firefox for android, but I guess that is what you can expect when you go against goliath. It's literally google censoring me from talking (and sometimes reading) random sites on the web
- elagost 7y ago
  I've had this happen frequently because my configuration really aggressively blocks this stuff. It's bad enough that I have a separate browser (Gnome Web aka Epiphany) just for logging into and using sites that have Captcha, like Pocket and Bandcamp, and I do everything else in Firefox. Captcha is horrible. I understand why sites use it, but putting a Google-wall in front of your content is a very bad idea.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    The problem is not the wall itself, but that Google uses it’s de-facto monopoly position to enforce tracking.
    - danieldk 7y ago
      Plus creating image recognition training data for them. I am not interested in working for Google. Not paid, let alone for free.
      - comprev 7y ago
        Never thought about it from that perspective before
- msla 7y ago
  And it's going to get worse if this whole "privacy" thing catches on. Google is an advertising company which does adtech, and adtech is inherently about tracking and profiling people. Anyone who messes with that is actively costing Google money, and Google will... you know... stop them from doing that, whether subtly or overtly. There's nothing else they can really do, and "congressional hearings" and "calls for reform" won't change that fundamental fact.
Tsubasachan 7y ago
Yeah I use multiple browsers. One that is completely locked down and one for CAPTCHA. The internet is hostile to anonymity.
ahoka 7y ago
This is why I immediately close any page with google's captcha.

pinko 7y ago

Why can't they just allow the user to whitelist recaptcha?

Spare_account 7y ago
The people who're trying to avoid being fingerprinted are probably thinking of Google when they decided to go down this path. I'm willing to go through extensive captcha cycles if that's the cost of retaining some anonymity. I installed uMatrix a while back to recover some anonymity and it worked at first, my Captcha load spiked significantly which was a great indication that I'd succeeded but it has dropped over time. I guess I'm gradually being fingerprinted again. Google's captcha tests are my litmus paper test that what I'm doing is effective.
- the-pigeon 7y ago
  At this point can I just pay for a certificate or something? Like for $1 give me a certificate that I can use to say "I'm not a spammer" and I can anonymously buy as many certificates as I want. And then if a certificate is used by a spammer it becomes invalid. Seems like it's expensive enough to be worth using for existing spammers but let normal people pay a $1 every year or two to not have to deal with captchas.
  - aussieguy1234 7y ago
    Fingerprinting is designed to generate a unique identifier to track you. Certificates would be an even more accurate unique ID over what fingerprinting could provide
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      > and I can anonymously buy as many certificates as I want
      - acdha 7y ago
        Do you really think that statistically noticeable numbers of people would do that and have perfect opsec preventing those perfect unique identifiers from being linked? I mean, even software developers tend to whine about paying $5 for an app which has far more immediate rewards.
  - ENGNR 7y ago
    Even just proof that 5c worth of crypto or something was burned would would a good alternative. Let the site/app designer work out how often it needs to happen (maybe just the first few times if they're new) to stop spam and not cost honest users much
  - close04 7y ago
    This seems like a very cheap way to make spam look legitimate at least for a while. It now costs me $1 more to spam until I get caught and banned. But until that point I don't have to worry about any kind of filter, I'm a legitimate user.
colemickens 7y ago
It would be more interesting, to me, to see Google support something like CloudFlare's Privacy Pass. https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001992652-Can-I-use-Privacy-Pass-with-Cloudflare- https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500199265... Though it seems unlikely they would want to? (Though I don't know a lot about and would be interested to hear criticisms of it.)
- jorvi 7y ago
  They would have probably supported it when CAPTCHAs were still about digitizing books. Now that they've turned everyone into unwilling trainers for their visual machine learning they'll never do it.

gcb0 7y ago

not to mention when google puts you in captcha-hell-ban. often, after a few difficult ones, I realize I get stuck into the same 20 challenges. over and over. no matter if I get them rigth or not. We do run all browser in the office with figerprint protection on and run non-exit-tor-nodes in all offices. But those are hardly excuses. The hell bans happens more often on firefox for android, but I guess that is what you can expect when you go against goliath. It's literally google censoring me from talking (and sometimes reading) random sites on the web

elagost 7y ago
I've had this happen frequently because my configuration really aggressively blocks this stuff. It's bad enough that I have a separate browser (Gnome Web aka Epiphany) just for logging into and using sites that have Captcha, like Pocket and Bandcamp, and I do everything else in Firefox. Captcha is horrible. I understand why sites use it, but putting a Google-wall in front of your content is a very bad idea.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  The problem is not the wall itself, but that Google uses it’s de-facto monopoly position to enforce tracking.
  - danieldk 7y ago
    Plus creating image recognition training data for them. I am not interested in working for Google. Not paid, let alone for free.
    - comprev 7y ago
      Never thought about it from that perspective before
msla 7y ago
And it's going to get worse if this whole "privacy" thing catches on. Google is an advertising company which does adtech, and adtech is inherently about tracking and profiling people. Anyone who messes with that is actively costing Google money, and Google will... you know... stop them from doing that, whether subtly or overtly. There's nothing else they can really do, and "congressional hearings" and "calls for reform" won't change that fundamental fact.

Tsubasachan 7y ago

Yeah I use multiple browsers. One that is completely locked down and one for CAPTCHA. The internet is hostile to anonymity.

ahoka 7y ago

This is why I immediately close any page with google's captcha.