4 ms·

> Violators could face fines under state statutes related to unfair competition. I doubt that anyone running bots, and who is technically competent, will be id

> 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.

luckylion 7y ago
Depends. At some point, you're creating fake humans that are so deep under cover that nobody can tell them apart from real humans. When you achieve that, are they still bots? I've also often thought that the cheap bots are easily identifiable (tweeting every 3 minutes, 24/7/365) and that a better bot shouldn't be that hard to build, but then again, I've figured somebody to be a bot that actually wasn't, he was just very invested in the topic and had plenty of time on his hands.
- mirimir 7y ago
  That's an interesting point. I mean, why are they worried about 100K bots when 100K mechanical turk workers could do the same stuff.
freefolks 7y ago
Does this mean you will continue to do so knowing you will be breaking the law?
- mirimir 7y ago
  Well, I never said that I would, just that I could. Just as a way of saying that anyone competent could. Also, "breaking the law" is an ambiguous thing. I mean, that's one of my favorite Judas Priest cuts, and he was talking about breaking laws against homosexuality. Not that most head-bangers realized it, at the time. Also, just about every US media company breaks Saudi laws against sinful use of sexual images. And nobody seems to worry much about it.
zhte415 7y ago
Follow the money.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Sure. But not always so easy.
bengotow 7y ago
I feel the same way. It seems like this is likely to catch playful bots and not truly nefarious bots, because in the latter case the owner / author will sufficiently cover their tracks (and will probably not be in the state of California?) I'm excited to see legislation in this direction but I wish they'd focus on forcing Twitter, Facebook, etc. (which /are/ in California and can be governed) to display / disclose when they are aware a user is likely a bot, and employ some half-decent detection methods.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Yes, that's the obvious strategy. They're best placed to test for bots, and arguably they're responsible. And yes, I know, safe-harbor is a thing. But it doesn't protect from allowing illegal ads, so why should it protect from allowing illegal bots?
smt88 7y ago
> I doubt that anyone running bots, and who is technically competent, will be identifiable or findable Google's Duplex is an example of this, and I agree with the law that its use should be disclosed. The law doesn't have to lead to prosecution of every little criminal. If it polices some of the large players who can't easily hide what they're doing, it'll be a helpful law.
wpietri 7y ago
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 flow of significant amounts of money is actually quite hard. Robot salesmen masquerading as humans would be a plague, and I think this law should keep that from becoming a legitimate business technique.
- mirimir 7y ago
  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.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    Meanwhile, back in the real world, companies that were quite happy to pay for robocalls and social media bots to promote their product are not interested in paying anonymous people anonymously in Bitcoins for campaigns that might get them into trouble, no matter how proficient the bot developers might be at laundering their crypto earnings. That'll be the law working as intended
    - mirimir 7y ago
      True. But there's lots more deniability for political campaigns. Free speech and all.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    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-arrested-in-israel-after-15m-moved https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitfinex-hack-new-twist-two-a...
finnthehuman 7y ago
It's possible to break laws without getting caught. This is not new. In practice, there's still a reason companies avoid breaking laws most of the time.

luckylion 7y ago

Depends. At some point, you're creating fake humans that are so deep under cover that nobody can tell them apart from real humans. When you achieve that, are they still bots? I've also often thought that the cheap bots are easily identifiable (tweeting every 3 minutes, 24/7/365) and that a better bot shouldn't be that hard to build, but then again, I've figured somebody to be a bot that actually wasn't, he was just very invested in the topic and had plenty of time on his hands.

mirimir 7y ago
That's an interesting point. I mean, why are they worried about 100K bots when 100K mechanical turk workers could do the same stuff.

freefolks 7y ago

Does this mean you will continue to do so knowing you will be breaking the law?

mirimir 7y ago
Well, I never said that I would, just that I could. Just as a way of saying that anyone competent could. Also, "breaking the law" is an ambiguous thing. I mean, that's one of my favorite Judas Priest cuts, and he was talking about breaking laws against homosexuality. Not that most head-bangers realized it, at the time. Also, just about every US media company breaks Saudi laws against sinful use of sexual images. And nobody seems to worry much about it.

zhte415 7y ago

Follow the money.

mirimir 7y ago
Sure. But not always so easy.

bengotow 7y ago

I feel the same way. It seems like this is likely to catch playful bots and not truly nefarious bots, because in the latter case the owner / author will sufficiently cover their tracks (and will probably not be in the state of California?) I'm excited to see legislation in this direction but I wish they'd focus on forcing Twitter, Facebook, etc. (which /are/ in California and can be governed) to display / disclose when they are aware a user is likely a bot, and employ some half-decent detection methods.

mirimir 7y ago
Yes, that's the obvious strategy. They're best placed to test for bots, and arguably they're responsible. And yes, I know, safe-harbor is a thing. But it doesn't protect from allowing illegal ads, so why should it protect from allowing illegal bots?

smt88 7y ago

> I doubt that anyone running bots, and who is technically competent, will be identifiable or findable Google's Duplex is an example of this, and I agree with the law that its use should be disclosed. The law doesn't have to lead to prosecution of every little criminal. If it polices some of the large players who can't easily hide what they're doing, it'll be a helpful law.

wpietri 7y ago

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 flow of significant amounts of money is actually quite hard. Robot salesmen masquerading as humans would be a plague, and I think this law should keep that from becoming a legitimate business technique.

mirimir 7y ago
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.
- notahacker 7y ago
  Meanwhile, back in the real world, companies that were quite happy to pay for robocalls and social media bots to promote their product are not interested in paying anonymous people anonymously in Bitcoins for campaigns that might get them into trouble, no matter how proficient the bot developers might be at laundering their crypto earnings. That'll be the law working as intended
  - mirimir 7y ago
    True. But there's lots more deniability for political campaigns. Free speech and all.
- wpietri 7y ago
  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-arrested-in-israel-after-15m-moved https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitfinex-hack-new-twist-two-a...

finnthehuman 7y ago

It's possible to break laws without getting caught. This is not new. In practice, there's still a reason companies avoid breaking laws most of the time.