9 ms·

> it’s safe to assume that attackers are likely to lie on their fingerprints I hate this sentiment that every one who doesn't want to be tracked is a criminal.

> it’s safe to assume that attackers are likely to lie on their fingerprints I hate this sentiment that every one who doesn't want to be tracked is a criminal. It's the digital version of "You don't have anything to hide if you aren't doing bad". --- I don't understand the fear about bots or scraping. As long as bots are behaving nicely (not slamming servers), they are just as much web citizens as humans. The web is about sharing of information and having an entire company about exterminating the viability of bots is horrifying.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> > it’s safe to assume that attackers are likely to lie on their fingerprints > I hate this sentiment that every one who doesn't want to be tracked is a criminal. The statement you are referring to is more accurately paraphrased as “everyone who is a criminal does not want to be tracked”, which is very different from “everyone who does not want to be tracked is a criminal.” > It's the digital version of "You don't have anything to hide if you aren't doing bad". For the reason noted above, the statement at issue is actually the digital version of “if you are doing something bad, you do have something to hide,” which is a near-universal truth (I mean, it not true if you have actual or practical immunity from any accountability for your wrongdoing, but otherwise it's true.)
- a1369209993 7y ago
  The stamement, yes; the sentiment is "and therefore we can use not wanting to be tracked as probable cause for treating them as a criminal".
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    This makes, and implies, no claims about “probable cause”, and isn't about criminal process where “probable cause” would even be relevant, it's about security policy where personal rights are not involved, only private discretionary benefits. It is often entirely appropriate in such a content to apply heuristics which are effective because they minimize false negatives even when they might have a high false positive rate.
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      Fair enough about the phrasing, although madamelic is the one who brought criminal process into it. The sentiment is "and therefore we can discriminate against people who use user-agents[0] that don't actively help us violate their privacy rights". 0: such as screen readers, for that zesty ADA-lawsuit flavour.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
syndacks 7y ago
>having an entire company about exterminating the viability of bots is horrifying. I have a website I use to make money to feed my family. Shitty bots mess up my website, cost me money. A SaaS offers a solution, which saves me money. What about that line of logic is horrifying to you?
- jeltz 7y ago
  How do bots fuck up your website? I have been involved in running multiple websites (some of them which had plenty of bots crawling them) and only has had issues once or twice.
  - Kiro 7y ago
    Not all sites are valid targets for malicious bots. I presume your sites were not multiplayer web games. I have a serious bot problem in my game where bots ruin the fun for everyone if I let them be. As soon as you add a competitive element to your game you will have a bot problem.
  - syndacks 7y ago
    More bots, more EC2s, more money More bots, more noise, bad analytics More bots, IP theft at scale, competitors now have my content I don't understand how this is hard to wrap one's head around. This is why we can't have nice things. Edit - I offer 3 points to refute parent and I'm getting downvoted. This site is moderated by a bunch of bots!
    - neurobro 7y ago
      With a few exceptions like HD video hosting or sites doing a ton of computation for every request, the best response to point 1 is to just lighten the site, which reduces the load from bots and also improves the UX for humans. Rate limiting can also help in some circumstances. Or maybe consider... charging money. If you don't force botters to take extreme camouflage measures, bots are easily filtered out of logs (and offer a potentially useful metric of their own). If a business is threatened by "competitors" simply scraping published information, it's probably already doomed from the start. And I would posit that most site owners with this mindset originally got their data by scraping other sites, which is why they feel vulnerable. Compete over elements that are actually valuable!
Kiro 7y ago
I have bots completely destroying the fun for other players in my game. Are you saying I should just ignore it because they have "rights"?
- a1369209993 7y ago
  You have players completely destroying the fun for other players in your game. How you should address this (eg bracketed matchmaking, rate limiting, bans for harrassment, etc) has to do with what they're doing, not whether the game input is being generated by a human or computer.
  - Kiro 7y ago
    I really don't understand the higher purpose of "bots should never be banned anywhere, ever". You are allowed to think scraping is OK while thinking they should be banned in other contexts at the same time. And FYI the bots are destroying the in-game economy in my game by doing extreme grinding no normal human being is capable of. It's a very hard problem to tackle with mechanics.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      >"bots should never be banned anywhere, ever". Who said that? You can ban bots for bad behaviour. >As long as bots are behaving nicely (not slamming servers), they are just as much web citizens as humans.
      - Kiro 7y ago
        Look at the comment I'm replying to.
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      > bots should never be banned anywhere, ever I enthusiaticly support banning bots for abusive behaviour. I also enthusiaticly support banning humans for abusive behaviour. > extreme grinding no normal human being is capable of > a very hard problem to tackle with mechanics. - diminishing returns for over-farming particular areas (per-player, maybe also total) - stat penalties for playing too long / bonuses for rest ("You have worked a fourty-hour week in this game, don't you have a life you should be getting back to?") - moving resources[0] around to break pathfinding, and/or adding poisoned ones to discourage blind grabbing. - or just ban people who regularly dump extreme quantities of grind-farmed stuff into the economy (since that is the behaviour you're trying to stop), bots or no bots. 0: including enemies, who might, for example, run away from someone who's been slaughtering them for the past six hours
meowface 7y ago
Affirming the consequent.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> > it’s safe to assume that attackers are likely to lie on their fingerprints > I hate this sentiment that every one who doesn't want to be tracked is a criminal. The statement you are referring to is more accurately paraphrased as “everyone who is a criminal does not want to be tracked”, which is very different from “everyone who does not want to be tracked is a criminal.” > It's the digital version of "You don't have anything to hide if you aren't doing bad". For the reason noted above, the statement at issue is actually the digital version of “if you are doing something bad, you do have something to hide,” which is a near-universal truth (I mean, it not true if you have actual or practical immunity from any accountability for your wrongdoing, but otherwise it's true.)

a1369209993 7y ago
The stamement, yes; the sentiment is "and therefore we can use not wanting to be tracked as probable cause for treating them as a criminal".
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  This makes, and implies, no claims about “probable cause”, and isn't about criminal process where “probable cause” would even be relevant, it's about security policy where personal rights are not involved, only private discretionary benefits. It is often entirely appropriate in such a content to apply heuristics which are effective because they minimize false negatives even when they might have a high false positive rate.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    Fair enough about the phrasing, although madamelic is the one who brought criminal process into it. The sentiment is "and therefore we can discriminate against people who use user-agents[0] that don't actively help us violate their privacy rights". 0: such as screen readers, for that zesty ADA-lawsuit flavour.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

syndacks 7y ago

>having an entire company about exterminating the viability of bots is horrifying. I have a website I use to make money to feed my family. Shitty bots mess up my website, cost me money. A SaaS offers a solution, which saves me money. What about that line of logic is horrifying to you?

jeltz 7y ago
How do bots fuck up your website? I have been involved in running multiple websites (some of them which had plenty of bots crawling them) and only has had issues once or twice.
- Kiro 7y ago
  Not all sites are valid targets for malicious bots. I presume your sites were not multiplayer web games. I have a serious bot problem in my game where bots ruin the fun for everyone if I let them be. As soon as you add a competitive element to your game you will have a bot problem.
- syndacks 7y ago
  More bots, more EC2s, more money More bots, more noise, bad analytics More bots, IP theft at scale, competitors now have my content I don't understand how this is hard to wrap one's head around. This is why we can't have nice things. Edit - I offer 3 points to refute parent and I'm getting downvoted. This site is moderated by a bunch of bots!
  - neurobro 7y ago
    With a few exceptions like HD video hosting or sites doing a ton of computation for every request, the best response to point 1 is to just lighten the site, which reduces the load from bots and also improves the UX for humans. Rate limiting can also help in some circumstances. Or maybe consider... charging money. If you don't force botters to take extreme camouflage measures, bots are easily filtered out of logs (and offer a potentially useful metric of their own). If a business is threatened by "competitors" simply scraping published information, it's probably already doomed from the start. And I would posit that most site owners with this mindset originally got their data by scraping other sites, which is why they feel vulnerable. Compete over elements that are actually valuable!

Kiro 7y ago

I have bots completely destroying the fun for other players in my game. Are you saying I should just ignore it because they have "rights"?

a1369209993 7y ago
You have players completely destroying the fun for other players in your game. How you should address this (eg bracketed matchmaking, rate limiting, bans for harrassment, etc) has to do with what they're doing, not whether the game input is being generated by a human or computer.
- Kiro 7y ago
  I really don't understand the higher purpose of "bots should never be banned anywhere, ever". You are allowed to think scraping is OK while thinking they should be banned in other contexts at the same time. And FYI the bots are destroying the in-game economy in my game by doing extreme grinding no normal human being is capable of. It's a very hard problem to tackle with mechanics.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    >"bots should never be banned anywhere, ever". Who said that? You can ban bots for bad behaviour. >As long as bots are behaving nicely (not slamming servers), they are just as much web citizens as humans.
    - Kiro 7y ago
      Look at the comment I'm replying to.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    > bots should never be banned anywhere, ever I enthusiaticly support banning bots for abusive behaviour. I also enthusiaticly support banning humans for abusive behaviour. > extreme grinding no normal human being is capable of > a very hard problem to tackle with mechanics. - diminishing returns for over-farming particular areas (per-player, maybe also total) - stat penalties for playing too long / bonuses for rest ("You have worked a fourty-hour week in this game, don't you have a life you should be getting back to?") - moving resources[0] around to break pathfinding, and/or adding poisoned ones to discourage blind grabbing. - or just ban people who regularly dump extreme quantities of grind-farmed stuff into the economy (since that is the behaviour you're trying to stop), bots or no bots. 0: including enemies, who might, for example, run away from someone who's been slaughtering them for the past six hours

meowface 7y ago

Affirming the consequent.