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

Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

privatecaptcha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 394 posts

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#261

Post by nitwit005 »

alex_duf wrote: post #56
munchler wrote: post #51

I think this is the third HN link I've clicked on in a row that leads to an LLM-generated article. I'm not opposed to AI, but I'm tired of seeing it quietly substituted for human thought and expression.

I'm seeing this stance a lot "this is obviously AI generated" Why? What's LLM generated? How can you tell? To me what's obvious is that our trust system is already breaking down. Commenters accusing each other of being AIs is also another example of this.

They can't tell. It has become a statistical thing. There will exist some percentage of them that assumes an item is AI generated. With enough people seeing something, you'll see the accusation.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#262

Post by dns_snek »

vel0city wrote: post #113
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rapidly becoming Always has been. Google was creating cartels like the "Open Handset Alliance" literally decades ago. Via their control of Chrome and Search which are both monopolies, Google holds absolute authority on how websites are rendered and if websites can be found.

It cracks me up when people say Chrome is a monopoly, because a massive amount of computing devices do not even ship with Chrome. Windows computers, Macbooks, and iPhones require users go search out and install Chrome on their own out of their own volition, shipping with entirely functional and decent browsers out of the box that they have lots of patterns to push. Even many Android phones ship with browsers other th…

What's the point of this pedantry? Replace "monopoly" with "dominant market player" and their point still stands. A company doesn't need to be a literal monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behavior. The EU would call this "abuse of dominance". [1]

>> Google holds absolute authority on how websites are rendered and if websites can be found.

This is still 100% correct. Google owns the dominant browser and the dominant search engine, this means that they get to dictate how websites function and pick winners and losers through their search algorithm. If you're a publisher (i.e. anyone who hosts a website) you're forced to fall in line or go out of business.

[1] https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-05...

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#263

Post by chadgpt2 »

armchairhacker wrote: post #241
jeroenhd wrote: post #131

I saw this coming from miles away. Computers are better at solving CAPTCHAs than people are and people can be bribed or convinced to join botnets so IP whitelisting doesn't work either. Now we have tons of fingerprinting and behaviour analysis but governments are cracking down on that. Plus, YouTube had a massive ad fraud problem with ads being played back in the background in embedded videos, so their detection clea…

> people can be bribed or convinced to join botnets so IP whitelisting doesn't work either Do you think this won’t also be bypassed, by bribing people to scan QR codes and spoofing location etc.?

The person who scanned to QR code is knowable. They have their IMEI encoded in the response.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#264

Post by chadgpt2 »

janalsncm wrote: post #238
m463 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nonsense on all levels. RMS has offered broadly solutions/alternatives since the beginning, along with reporting early on trends that other people ignore.

What is his solution to combatting botnets at scale?

His solution is don't. Why would you? In fact, if you don't block the script that's running on one computer, the script operator won't need to run it on a botnet.

I don't know RMS's solution to spam or DDoS which are the real problems.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#265

Post by Dylan16807 »

vel0city wrote: post #242
Dylan16807 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever your definition of monopoly is, it's wrong. The threshold is not 100% market share. If that was the threshold no monopoly has ever existed.

> Whatever your definition of monopoly is, it's wrong Ok, so enlighten me which standard of monopoly they're so obviously breaking? > The threshold is not 100% market share. I never once said so I'm not arguing it requires 100% marketshare. I'm just pointing out there are tons of workable competitors out there, in fact one has to use a functional and fully featured competitors product to go and install Chrome on most…

> Ok, so enlighten me which standard of monopoly they're so obviously breaking?

Breaking?

They're being a monopoly by having a huge market share. A majority of browers are directly branded chrome, and the chrome team has strong codebase control over most of the alternatives too. Especially on desktop. It's that simple.

> I'm not arguing it requires 100% marketshare. I'm just pointing out there are tons of workable competitors out there, in fact one has to use a functional and fully featured competitors product to go and install Chrome on most platforms out there.

> How can one claim Chrome is a monoply when there are tons of competitors out there which work just fine, and for most users their computers came with the competitors products?

The existence of competition doesn't change whether something is a monopoly. It only disproves 100%, which is why I mentioned 100%.

The choices of users don't change whether something is a monopoly.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#266

Post by miki123211 »

Retric wrote: post #249
jonas21 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CAPTCHAs were designed as a type of Turing Test, not a reverse Turing Test. It’s not surprising that the effectiveness of these weaker variants has collapsed, given that AI can now pass the real Turing Test.

LLM’s can still only pass limited Touring Tests. The longer the interaction the worse they do. Which of course means you can easily create an experiment they successfully pass, but just as easily you can create an experiment where they fail. CAPTCHAs are nearly useless because of how little you need to pay humans to solve them.

A more interesting question is whether there is a Turing test that is easy for ALL humans to pass, while still being hard for LLMs.

In practice, most of the major CAPTCHA vendors already rely on non-privacy-preserving tests for those needing more accessible solutions than a visual puzzle.

Google's audio captcha (only available in a few languages and unusable for those who also have hearing issues) only works for a narrow band of users, not trusted enough to bypass the captcha entirely, but also not untrusted enough. If you fall outside of that band, you get a nice "your device has been classified as a fraud risk, please use the visual captcha" message.

hCaptcha goes even further and straight-up requires you to have an "accessibility cookie", which requires verifying your email address (and apparently your phone number in some cases) to obtain, as well as disabling some anti-tracking settings in your browser.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#267

Post by chadgpt2 »

narrator wrote: post #179
EGreg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you see it closing all around you? It's not just Google. It's governments, corporations, all around the world, simultaneously. The noose is being tightened gradually, then all at once. And it's coming for all of us: https://community.qbix.com/t/increasing-state-of-surveillanc... The threats above interlock by design or convergence: Identity layer (1-5) creates the prerequisite for the others. Once identity is e…

I said 16 years ago that when IPV6 was coming into use was the only reason for a 128 bit address space was so they could tie every packet on the internet back to you as a person. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1464940

No, the main reason is because NAT is terrible and restoring the end to end principle is important if we want the internet to stay not separated into server networks and eyeball networks. If we want to decentralize the internet it's necessary that eyeball machines can talk with each other, not only with servers. This ability reduces the possibility of surveillance.

When IPv6 was designed it was normal for each IPv4 address to be traceable to someone's desk. Fortunately, as that changed with IPv4 so did it with IPv6, so we got IPv6 privacy extensions.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#268

Post by Dylan16807 »

vel0city wrote: post #228
majorchord wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much forcing people to Chrome/chromium for specific features, but trying to increase market share through more subtle means, like paying to have their search engine featured, advertising their products everywhere possible (including inside other people's apps), slowing down their sites (like youtube) on other browsers, or tying in other services (along with way too much personal info) to try to keep peopl…

So now Chrome is a "monopoly" because they're "advertising their products everywhere possible". I guess I can only ever drink Redbull, they're a monopoly, because they're advertising their products everywhere. Seriously? That's our standard of what is a "monpoply"? Words have no meaning anymore. You can choose to use something different. The device you bought probably came with an alternative! Otherwise, the device n…

> Seriously? That's our standard of what is a "monpoply"?

No. That part of the post was answering your question about how it impacts people. Not what makes it a monopoly.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#269

Post by hansvm »

hbn wrote: post #230
motbus3 wrote: post #138

I strongly suggest people move away from chrome. They lost all sense of respect. I know it is a small move, but as it happened when chrome started, this opens opportunities for other players

I really tried to switch off Chrome when they broke ad blockers, I gave it a good few months trying out alternatives but I really don't like any of the other browsers. I do primarily use Safari on my Mac, but on Windows where I don't have that option, I don't like any of the big players, and I don't really trust the smaller players. Even the "big" smaller players are not that trustworthy when it comes to security, li…

Qutebrowser is my favorite daily driver, save for a few sites I can't boycott and which need Firefox or something.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#270

Post by willio58 »

Havoc wrote: post #24

Whether it's AMP or manifest 3 or android source shenanigan or attempts to replace cookies with their FLOC nonsense or this...Google is rapidly turning into a malicious force when it comes to the open internet

> AMP

My god AMP was such an annoying thing ~4-5 years ago when I was working in a marketing-forward web dev shop.

"Google really likes when you pipe your words into their shitty UI because it saves some time for the user"

We were all like, cool so on one hand we're being given complex designs for sites to differentiate them, and on the other hand we're bowing to a megacorp who actually wants to skip the whole web design part entirely and pipe our content through their pre-defined UI.

So glad it died. Should have known it would die in a matter of a couple of years with that being the track record for Google in general.

Post reply on HN