The next best thing a search company can do is have every website willingly track their users' mouse and key movements, and then willingly send all of that data to the company's inbox. In return, Google provides them with a binary classifier trained on all of the user click-stream/click-move data which determines whether or not the user is a bot!
It's an OK deal for the website owner; it's a great deal for Google. Not to mention, the user is now sending anonymous data to Google, at the expense of the website's Privacy Policy.
Google gets website owners to willingly install live-cameras on every corner of their website, and then willingly send over all of the footage, in exchange for "protection" from bots. Cough The Government gets citizens to willingly fill out lengthy tax forms, and then willingly send over a bunch of money, in exchange for "protection" from criminals. Cough
No idea how the additional prompts (e.g. "select the parts of the image with a street sign") are shown nicely in this "invisible" UX though.
Really?
> It doesn't explain how it works nor a demo page
Imagine a web form without reCaptcha. Do you really need a demo of that?
> nor the reason behind why it went invisible.
Because Recaptcha had an annoying, bad, terrible UX.
How does Google determine if the captcha should be shown?
What are the "adaptive captchas" that are shown to suspect users? A demo would do a great job here.
How does an invisible captcha "create value by applying human bandwidth" if the premise is that humans never see the captcha?