California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure • Hacker News Board

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#151

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:42 PM UTC

brownbat wrote: post #146

jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

> allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend I agree companies should be forced to tell the truth to their customers, but in all cases where they're asking for details about the customer service rep? That could go weird places. If a caller demanded to know the rep's HIV status, we wouldn't insist the company disclose it. We'd probably demand they didn't. Honesty is important, ok, but the customer…

[deleted]

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#152

Post by pixl97 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

afiori wrote: post #108

bengotow wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of those election SMS messages. /Technically/ a human presses send on every single message so it doesn't meet the definition of SMS spam, but for all practical purposes it is.

A nice test to implement would be that if the function of the human operator can be replaced by a dumb bot, then it is functionally a bot.

Heh, I'm afraid that might reclassify a large portion of the workforce that falls under the saying "I can replace you with a simple shell script"

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#153

Post by crazygringo » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

throwaway13337 wrote: post #60

California is setting a dangerous precident. If individual states each enact individual laws governing the internet, then only large companies will have the resources to follow them. We'll see a balkanization of the web wherein it's no longer very world wide. Small internet businesses will become harder and harder to start. Big monopolies will become entrenched. It's not pretty.

First of all, California isn't just any state, it's the largest one. It even has stricter auto emissions standards pushing forwards the rest of the country -- so this isn't so much a dangerous precedent, as a "special California thing" which is historically more protective of the consumer than the federal government. (I personally see this as a positive thing.)

And as long as state laws are limiting abusive behaviors, I don't see what the problem is -- then we all follow the new "floor" and the whole country benefits. A small start-up can not choose not to lie about a bot being a person just as easily as a tech giant can.

The problem is if local laws conflict with each other or impose a significant burden. But then the federal government generally steps in quickly and shuts things down thanks to the interstate commerce clause.

So I don't think there's anything to worry about here.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#154

Post by pixl97 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #36

mirimir wrote: post #8

> Violators could face fines under state statutes related to unfair competition. I doubt that anyone running bots, and who is technically competent, will be identifiable or findable. I mean, I could do it, and I'm just a random anonymous coward.

I think part of the goal of this law is to make this be true: > I doubt that anyone running bots, and who is technically competent, will be identifiable or findable. Telemarketing, for example, was done a great deal by perfectly legal, traceable businesses. Once it was made illegal, it was forced underground, and volume dropped immensely. > I could do it, and I'm just a random anonymous coward. Could you? Hiding the…

Telemarketering volume dropped? I guess you still aren't getting 10 spam calls on some days.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#155

Post by jimhefferon » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

brownbat wrote: post #146

jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

> allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend I agree companies should be forced to tell the truth to their customers, but in all cases where they're asking for details about the customer service rep? That could go weird places. If a caller demanded to know the rep's HIV status, we wouldn't insist the company disclose it. We'd probably demand they didn't. Honesty is important, ok, but the customer…

> If a caller demanded to know the rep's HIV status

This seems very far from the OP's thesis that in our culture there is a normalization of lying by people trying to sell us things.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#156

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:49 PM UTC

brownbat wrote: post #146

jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

> allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend I agree companies should be forced to tell the truth to their customers, but in all cases where they're asking for details about the customer service rep? That could go weird places. If a caller demanded to know the rep's HIV status, we wouldn't insist the company disclose it. We'd probably demand they didn't. Honesty is important, ok, but the customer…

I think it's more

"Hello, it's [fake name they can't quite pronounce chosen to be a common UK name] calling you from [company they don't work for but who ordered a phone advertising service], it's lovely weather here in [small UK town they mispronounced badly and where it's terrible weather today], how are you today? ... Great, we are calling about your [account with company you don't have an account with] ..."

It's basically all lies, and all unnecessary, trying to win some trust as part of a marketing exercise. Bleurgh.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#157

Post by jjoonathan » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #133

ethbro wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other issue with bots is whether a company's support is bot-only or human. Free choice and all, but without disclosure ( pre -purchase) a company shouldn't be able to "cost manage" their support function by using an algorithm fronted by chatbots.

Should they have to disclose that their phone system has an IVR before every purchase as well? That they use a third-party logistics provider to handle returns?

Nah, those with an IVR should be summarily shot.

Kidding, of course. Mostly.

Disclosing IVRs before purchase would be a good start. Preferably with a legally mandated recognizable logo that customers can quickly learn to associate with terrible support.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#158

Post by arbitrage » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

comboy wrote: post #130

simpss wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, GDPR does not have any effect on personal websites. Article 2 of GDPR defines the scope of the law. > This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity

If I had a website about programming and it had a forum part is it purely personal? What if is it just comment section? What if I had ads to cover server costs vs when I don't have them now? I closed the website because I don't know. And I don't think I would say I know until I hire a lawyer. Re analytics part from another comment, I only care how they interact with my website. Without sharing that info with anybody.…

What if aliens came down and probed your butt?

You're throwing about ridiculously obscure edge cases that don't really matter to the point at hand.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#159

Post by pixl97 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 1:54 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #35

Bots are communications tools configured and deployed by human beings, at least until they can pass the Turing Test. Human beings have human rights to express themselves however they wish.

Really I would say at this point any Turing test that can catch bots 100% of the time will also incorrectly identify some portion of people as bots.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#160

Post by jellicle » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

brownbat wrote: post #146

jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

> allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend I agree companies should be forced to tell the truth to their customers, but in all cases where they're asking for details about the customer service rep? That could go weird places. If a caller demanded to know the rep's HIV status, we wouldn't insist the company disclose it. We'd probably demand they didn't. Honesty is important, ok, but the customer…

Declining to tell someone something is not the same as lying to them. And declining to tell the customer "I am HIV positive" is not the same as declining to tell them impersonal information.

You may or may not be aware but there are companies that actively instruct their international call center personnel to tell customers "My name is Sally and I live in Fort Worth Texas, right near you" when none of that is true.