Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 245 posts

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#81

Post by JetSpiegel »

kuschku wrote: post #9

I'm wondering if this might not be illegal under several countries' data privacy laws. Users need to be directly and visibly be informed, if and when data of theirs will be transmitted to third parties. As Google's ReCaptcha is based on tracking what websites you visit, what search terms you enter, correlating this data, and comparing this tracking profile of yours, it's quite problematic that the user doesn't even s…

CDN also make requests to this party sites and that is never disclosed anywhere.

Why resort to flimsy legal methods when you can just use uMatrix and block those requests directly? It's your computer, after all.

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#82

Post by goodplay »

mrighele wrote: post #22
macrael wrote: post #4

Google using captchas to get humans to read street addresses captured by street view cars to improve maps results remains one of the most Googly things they've ever done. Genius, lateral, and a little weird.

Having to do free work for Google is more than weird for me. For this reason unless the page is really important I end up closing the tab. If it was for open service (such as OpenStreetMap) it would be a different matter though.

I actually feed google false information (select rectangular objects when asked to select traffic signs, flat surfaces when asked for water surfaces, and so on). It'll probably be filtered out when aggregated with other users, but I like to think that I'm at least influencing it even if a little.

I wouldn't have a problem if they'd open the data set, but I'm not exactly keen on being forced to work for free.

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#83

Post by piyush_soni »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #62
patrickaljord wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with showing me relevant ads?

It modifies your behaviour in ways that aren't in your interest.

And how's that different than advertisements in News Papers/magazines and TV? People never seemed to have a problem with that, and no one ever said "you are the product". Somehow, that is associated mostly only with Google.

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#84

Post by Quarrelsome »

cool_shit wrote: post #52
vidyesh wrote: post #8

This is so confusing. It doesn't explain how it works nor a demo page nor the reason behind why it went invisible.

It doesn't seem to be fundamentally different than reCAPTCHA. They will probably replace the click-this-checkbox box with a set of elements already on the hosted page. Only indexing a page's HTML isn't good enough -- it's better to also know how people interact with the HTML. Unfortunately, as soon as they click a link on Google, Google is no longer invited to the party, and is blind to how the user interacts with th…

why are you implying that taxation is somehow a protection racket? That's a pretty radical notion wrapped in a matter-of-fact language. Strikes me as a bit dishonest. Taxation pays for plenty of things besides police and military.

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#85

Post by Grangar »

popol12 wrote: post #58
Sir_Substance wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I mean does this mean google is going to keep track of what I would be doing when I visit a site? Oh buddy, I have bad news for you... https://support.google.com/dfp_premium/answer/1716364?hl=en https://www.google.com/analytics/#?modal_active=none https://www.doubleclickbygoogle.com/solutions/measurement/

Wow, I never heard of Pixel Tracking. That sounds super evil. Are there browser plugins to fight back on this one?

Check out Ghostery.

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#86

Post by icebraining »

piyush_soni wrote: post #83
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It modifies your behaviour in ways that aren't in your interest.

And how's that different than advertisements in News Papers/magazines and TV? People never seemed to have a problem with that, and no one ever said "you are the product". Somehow, that is associated mostly only with Google.

People have always said that, it's just that the mediums we had before were much more censored than the Internet.

“You are the product of t.v.(...) you are delivered to the advertiser who is the customer. He consumes you”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_Delivers_People

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#87

Post by Sir_Substance »

popol12 wrote: post #58
Sir_Substance wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I mean does this mean google is going to keep track of what I would be doing when I visit a site? Oh buddy, I have bad news for you... https://support.google.com/dfp_premium/answer/1716364?hl=en https://www.google.com/analytics/#?modal_active=none https://www.doubleclickbygoogle.com/solutions/measurement/

Wow, I never heard of Pixel Tracking. That sounds super evil. Are there browser plugins to fight back on this one?

My standard internet security suite is ublock origin, noscript, self-destructing cookies, privacy badger and httpseverywhere.

Privacybadger does an ok job against tracking pixels. It uses machine learning to try to detect when a specific url or domain seems to be "following" you around the internet, which could indicate a tracking pixel among other things. It then blocks these entities and gives you the option to override.

And yes, I do think tracking pixels are super evil. It could be standard for websites to have a bar at the bottom with little logos[1] showing the companies that are tracking you, with the logos being the remote-loaded content. The fact that these companies feel compelled to make it 1x1 transparent pixels tells me very clearly that they know they are doing something people don't want them to do, because they've gone out of their way to hide it. It's a clear misuse of browser capabilities, yet they do it anyway. What a pack of cunts they are.

[1] or textual short names company ticker style if you want to minimize bandwidth

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#89

Post by jhall1468 »

stephenr wrote: post #73
bitmapbrother wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is someone forcing you to use their services? Stick to DDG if you don't like the contract.

Did I claim to be using their services? Stick to what you know if you don't like reading what I actually write. I was questioning someone feeling "hypocritical" for using other google services but disliking their new recaptcha tool. As for "the contract": I'd wager that for most people, most contracts they see/sign are easier to get a clear understanding of, than Google's business model of "free" services.

> As for "the contract": I'd wager that for most people, most contracts they see/sign are easier to get a clear understanding of, than Google's business model of "free" services

Oh bull shit. The contracts you sign (or click I agree to) are thousands of legal definitions and words that most people don't even read, much less understand.

Google's contract is very simple: We show you ads (the more we understand your interests, the more targeted our ads) and you get to use our stuff without monetary cost.

Post reply on HN