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

#241

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #235

anon1m0us wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem then, is that corporations have unchecked power. No one acting behind them is personally liable for their illegal behavior. Corporations can't go to jail. They only pay fines that are a fraction of their profits from the illegal behavior, which is a mathematical incentive for them to break the law before their competitors. Even in silicon valley, we laud AirBNB, Uber, Facebook, Google, et al. Do you…

I’m a fan of forcing corporations to issue shares to the victims. Do something minor? 10% dilution. Do something worthy of the corporate death penalty? Issue 100 shares for every share outstanding. Of course, the issued shares would have as many votes as the maximum currently issued share (so if the founders get 10 votes per share that is what the victims get too). Note that you can set precedents based on percentage…

Fascinating suggestion. I'm trying to think of consequences.

Among those: if lawyers get 30% of settlements, then large consumer-rights law firms could end up as major shareholders. That could get v. interesting several ways.

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

#242

Post by rchaud » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 9:03 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #235

anon1m0us wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem then, is that corporations have unchecked power. No one acting behind them is personally liable for their illegal behavior. Corporations can't go to jail. They only pay fines that are a fraction of their profits from the illegal behavior, which is a mathematical incentive for them to break the law before their competitors. Even in silicon valley, we laud AirBNB, Uber, Facebook, Google, et al. Do you…

I’m a fan of forcing corporations to issue shares to the victims. Do something minor? 10% dilution. Do something worthy of the corporate death penalty? Issue 100 shares for every share outstanding. Of course, the issued shares would have as many votes as the maximum currently issued share (so if the founders get 10 votes per share that is what the victims get too). Note that you can set precedents based on percentage…

Why shares instead of cash? How will issuing shares in Airbnb help people struggling to find affordable accommodations in the city where they live/work?

Airbnb isn't even public, so the shares are essentially worthless unless someone takes on the expense and hassle of pooling them together and finding a private buyer. And even then, there's a major imbalance of power because private buyers are usually wealthy individuals/funds and know that the seller is desperate for cash.

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

#243

Post by zamadatix » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

LostJourneyman wrote: post #230

burfog wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been assuming that it's a pre-determined initial message, but that a real human in a low-cost country would immediately be involved if I bothered to respond. What portion of the chat pop up windows do you think are purely bot? Might any of them be purely human?

It depends build to build. The standard approach is one of 4: 1) The bot initiates the conversation and your initial message gets sent directly to an agent. This is the older model that's in most common use today. 2) The bot initiates contact and based on your responses does some simple keyword matching and delivers help article links where possible or asks for more information IVR style, then when it hits an "I don'…

https://xkcd.com/806/

Nobody will notice, you know you want to add it ;).

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

#244

Post by HillaryBriss » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

LostJourneyman wrote: post #230

burfog wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been assuming that it's a pre-determined initial message, but that a real human in a low-cost country would immediately be involved if I bothered to respond. What portion of the chat pop up windows do you think are purely bot? Might any of them be purely human?

It depends build to build. The standard approach is one of 4: 1) The bot initiates the conversation and your initial message gets sent directly to an agent. This is the older model that's in most common use today. 2) The bot initiates contact and based on your responses does some simple keyword matching and delivers help article links where possible or asks for more information IVR style, then when it hits an "I don'…

#3 reminds me of self-serve retail checkout kiosks: when I get stuck, or the kiosk gets stuck, a nearby live human approaches and resolves the issue (except when there's no live human nearby in which case I just get to stand there feeling awkward and useless. it's pretty humbling.)

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

#245

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #154

wpietri wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Do Not Call list made a huge difference in telemarketing calls for many years. Robocalls have of course gotten worse lately, but those are all fly-by-night businesses and outright scams. The overall pattern is good evidence that non-criminal businesses will in fact respect laws like this.

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

#246

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 9:33 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #53

wpietri wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd do it using Bitcoin. And I know how to use Bitcoin ~anonymously. Or some other cryptocurrency that's actually anonymous. It's true that getting assets from cryptocurrencies is hard. I don't do it. I just spend my ~anonymous income on ~anonymous servers to play with. But if you're moving enough assets, you can pay people, who know what they're doing, to move it. As we've seen in real estate markets in many cities.

Bitcoin might work for small-scale crime, but as demonstrated by things from Ross Ulbright to the recent arrest of people for the Bitfinex hack [1], we see it doesn't work reliably for large-scale crime. And it especially won't work for businesses trying to be legitimate, which is the main target of this law.

[1] https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitfinex-hack-new-twist-two-a...

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

#247

Post by notafrog » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

jonnydubowsky wrote: post #56

dessant wrote: post #22

I felt stupid, but I have fallen victim to this on dpd.com while tracking a package. A helpful chat popup has appeared where I could request assistance from a support agent, but it was not disclosed that the agent is a bot. Needless to say I have spent a couple of minutes repeatedly asking a question, and even rephrasing it while being frustrated that this person does not seem to grasp my issue.

My recent experience with a credit card customer support agent might as well have been me conversing with a bot. It was actually more frustrating for both me and the agent, that they were so strictly bound to a script, with no room for their creative human brain to actually adapt their response to the unique context of my issue. When customer service is nothing more then an agent choosing from various scripted respon…

A few months ago, I contacted Microsoft support regarding an old Hotmail account of mine. I couldn't get access due to my own fault in the end, as I had set it up as a kid and 10 years later I could barely remember any details. However, the conversation with the support agent was by far the best. It felt natural, without the "copy/paste" ready-to-use responses they usually have.

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

#248

Post by threezero » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

msh317 wrote: post #234

This is a horrible idea, California doesn't have the ability to enforce such a law, and hackers would simple operate from outside California Bad idea

If the company or person is doing any business in California then California does have the ability to enforce the law.

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

#249

Post by threezero » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

I get the feeling that the commercial part of this law might hold up, but the election part is highly questionable based on Supreme Court rulings.

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

#250

Post by mirimir » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #246

mirimir wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd do it using Bitcoin. And I know how to use Bitcoin ~anonymously. Or some other cryptocurrency that's actually anonymous. It's true that getting assets from cryptocurrencies is hard. I don't do it. I just spend my ~anonymous income on ~anonymous servers to play with. But if you're moving enough assets, you can pay people, who know what they're doing, to move it. As we've seen in real estate markets in many cities.

Bitcoin might work for small-scale crime, but as demonstrated by things from Ross Ulbright to the recent arrest of people for the Bitfinex hack [1], we see it doesn't work reliably for large-scale crime. And it especially won't work for businesses trying to be legitimate, which is the main target of this law. [1] https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitfinex-hack-new-twist-two-a...

People get busted because they're sloppy. DPR, for example. From what I've read, he made at least five major OPSEC errors.

- Back when SR1 was starting, he got a visit from the FBI about fake ID that he had ordered, shipped to his actual address in SF. And he basically admitted that he bought them from SR1.

- He posted to at least two sites about SR1, using accounts linked to his real name.

- Logs in a SR1 server pointed to an IPv4 address that he used in SF.

- Apache in a SR1 server was misconfigured, such that errors were accessible via clearnet, instead of via Tor onion.

- He worked in public with a FDE laptop, which contained everything about SR1. Including IDs for all staff. And he didn't take steps to enable emergency shutdown.

And about Bitcoin. One of my favorite mixing services, Bitcoin Fog, has handled huge amounts of Bitcoin, from various thefts. And nothing has ever been traced, to my knowledge.

Finally, where do you get "businesses trying to be legitimate"? Maybe their customers are legitimate, but why would you say that about the bot providers? They could just have a credible cover operation.