> 4. Solves CAPTCHAs via CapSolver (AI-powered, ~$0.001/solve)
Right, so my suspicion was correct: I'm the only one being inconvenienced by the same old captchas.
Right, so my suspicion was correct: I'm the only one being inconvenienced by the same old captchas.
The reCAPTCHA v3 Enterprise version and MtCaptcha cost a whopping 3x as much ($3 per 1000 solves). Seems like they're the best CAPTCHAs to go for.
"Select stairs": okay, does that mean the railing too? And probably some percentage of people clicked rails, so now I have meta it and guess if that percentage is enough to throw off my guess.
"Select motorbike": okay, but you're showing me a bicycle. I'll click "skip". FAIL. TRY AGAIN. Sighs.. okay, I guess the average person is so dim-witted they will misidentify a bicycle for a motorbike.
And the "correct" pictures all shows steps, not stairs.
> "Select motorbike"
And the "correct" pictures all show mopeds, not motorbikes.
Christ, don't get me stated on taxis that aren't black, fire hydrants that aren't a yellow H sign (apparently I'm supposed to look for something like a yellow painted R2D2) and WTF is a "crosswalk" (a pedestrian crossing?).
That's not gaslighting.
>And probably some percentage of people clicked rails, so now I have meta it and guess if that percentage is enough to throw off my guess.
No, there are multiple accepted answers.
It is gaslighting me into thinking I gave the wrong answer.
> No, there are multiple accepted answers.
Nope, even for very simple things like "select all fire hydrants" (which are extremely obvious) or "select all images with cars" (with the images only being images completely devoid of cars or only cars, no lorries or busses), you still get a fail.
I assume you work on Captchas, which makes it extra cute you're trying to gaslight me about the built-in gaslighting :). It is really obvious too because it doesn't happen when not using a privacy browser and/or VPN.
At any rate, I hope you internalize that your work has made everyone's everyday life a little more miserable. A net negative to society.
Speak for yourself!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fire+hydrant+uk&tbs=imgo:1...
Google will get to know every user browsing the web and link it to a smartphone. Since they’re rolling out government issue ID verification at the OS level, this change will allow Google to identify a random web visitor to a govt ID.
But then that would not work against correlating fraud detection as sketched above. A client could simply reset the app every now and then to generate a new UUID.
You're just describing a regular cookie.
>But not a fingerprint or otherwise linked to identity?
You'll have to reverse-engineer the app to figure out whether it's actually fingerprinting, and whether it's fingerprinting to make sure it's a real device (vs emulator) or it's fingerprinting to uniquely identify someone. I suspect they're complying with app store guidelines and not doing the latter, because it's not worth the PR hit to just to vaguely improve a product responsible for <1% of their revenue.
>But then that would not work against correlating fraud detection as sketched above. A client could simply reset the app every now and then to generate a new UUID.
The attestation result contains a count of attested keys generated in the past 30 days, which detects this case without a "supercookie" that persists across uninstalls.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/assess...
Yes regular cookie from Google's perspective, but super in that it works across sites. If for some reason you don't just take Google's word you might suspect they collude and share / sell your identity to the site as well...
> The attestation result contains a count of attested keys generated in the past 30 days, which detects this case without a "supercookie" that persists across uninstalls.
Ah. So there is something special limiting control over the UUID? Or is there some way of correlating the physical device to the attestation history?
Why wouldn't I be able to reset and re-enroll in the app and then have it generate me a fresh new cookie attestation history?
That's just third party cookies.
>Why wouldn't I be able to reset and re-enroll in the app and then have it generate me a fresh new cookie attestation history?
You can get a new uuid, but then that'll be associated with a key that has a high attestation count, which is also suspicious. It's like detecting spam from an account that has 1000 posts in 1 hr vs an ip that created 1000 accounts in one hr making one post each. Both are suspicious.
(At least, when your goal is to do as many fake attestations as possible rather than use your device for something more useful)
The point is that you can flag accounts/uuids based on monthly attestation count alone, without correlating all the posts to a given account/uuid.
Location (“coarse location”), identifiers (“device id, user id”)
^ both are deemed a necessity for app functionality, with deviceID required for analytics too.
I don't believe that iOS apps get a stable device ID. It may be that Google is generating one, and it can be shared across Google apps. But I'm pretty sure there is no global device ID that's common across all apps.
The original point stands that if you use recaptcha and you're signed in to a Google account on the device and you then use another Google app and you've done some form of identity verification with Google, then Google could link identity to recaptcha.
But I think the claim was over-broad about device ID.
You can characterize this commercial arrangement as whatever you want, but not meaningfully different than what they had before, where they were getting users to click boxes and charging businesses per "verification".