5 ms·

Hey there, I'm the author of the post. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your viewpoint, and I wanted to clarify my stance. I actually spent years working at

Hey there, I'm the author of the post. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your viewpoint, and I wanted to clarify my stance. I actually spent years working at a "good bot" company (Plaid), which focused on making users' financial data portable. The main reason Plaid existed was that banks made it hard for users to permission their data to other apps -- typically not solely out of security concerns, but to also actively limit competition. So, I know how the "bot detection" argument can be weaponized in unideal ways. That said, I think it’s reasonable for app developers to decide how their services are consumed (there are real cost drivers many have to think about) -- which includes the ability to have monitoring & guardrails in place for riskier traffic. If an app couldn't detect good bots, that app also can't do things like 1) support necessary revocation mechanisms for end users if they want to clawback agent permissions or 2) require human-in-the-loop authorization for sensitive actions. Main thing I care about is that AI agent use remains safe and aligned with user intent. For your example of an anonymous read-only site (e.g. blog), I'm less worried about that than an AI agent with read-write access on behalf of a real human's account. My idealistic long-term view though is that supporting AI agent use cases will eventually become table stakes. Users will gravitate toward services that let them automate tedious tasks and integrate AI assistants into their workflows. Companies that resist this trend may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Ultimately, this has started to happen with banking & OAuth, though pretty slowly.

do_not_redeem 2y ago
It seems like cases (1) and (2) would both be better handled by letting the user give their user agent a separate security context if they choose, instead of trying to detect/guess what kind of browser made that http request. I'm thinking about things like oauth permissions, GitHub's sudo mode, etc. Otherwise your magic detection code will inevitably end up telling an ELinks user "sorry, you need to download chrome to view your payment info".
- mcstempel 2y ago
  You read our mind! https://stytch.com/blog/the-age-of-agent-experience/ https://stytch.com/blog/the-age-of-agent-experience/ Very much agreed that's the long-term goal, but I think we'll live in a world where most apps don't support oauth for a while longer (though I'd love for all of them to -- we're actually announcing something next week that makes this easy for any app to do) But we're also envisioning an interim period where users are delegating to unsanctioned external agents (e.g. OpenAI Operator, Anthropic Computer Use API, etc.) prior to apps catching up and offering proper oauth
soulofmischief 2y ago
Plaid is not a "good bot" company. Despite posturing from leadership, it is fundamentally unethical to build a pervasive banking middle-man service which requires users to surrender their private account credentials in order to operate. What if every business operated this way? It's disgusting that companies like Plaid have considerably set back public discourse on acceptable privacy tradeoffs.
- clint 2y ago
  You write as if someone held a gun to your head and force you to sign up for Plaid. Plaid doesn't require anyone to use it. Your bank is the entity you're ultimately upset with, don't malign a company that generated a _very good solution_ to a _huge problem_ and THEN worked with their industry peers to cajole these huge banks to let you have access to your data how you want to use it. Before Yodlee and Plaid came around there was a snowballs chance in hell I could ever hope to get at my banking transactions in an API and now I can, and in many cases I never have to give supply my banking credentials to anyone but my bank.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    > You write as if someone held a gun to your head and force you to sign up for Plaid. Plaid doesn't require anyone to use it. There is not a physical gun pointed at my head, but an increasing amount of digital online interactions are solely gated by Plaid. I've run into plenty cases where I simply had no choice, for example dealing with landlords. And you already know how long it takes for financial systems to evolve once in place, as evidenced by your own frustration for them not embracing APIs and digital sovereignty. So once a solution like Plaid is in place, we're normalizing this kind of man-in-the-middle security nightmare for generations to come. Even if Plaid's founders did not have malicious intent, the company will eventually change hands to someone less ethical, and the door is open for other companies to seek the same kind of relationships with end users. If not malicious, Plaid is brazenly reckless and short-sighted. And regardless... I as a consumer do not want to hand over my passwords to a man in the middle, I'm already angry enough at the security and password restrictions I encounter now with financial institutions. If I am in a position where I cannot rent a home or make an important purchase without interacting with a company like Plaid, where is my digital sovereignty?
nonrandomstring 2y ago
What came up in this interview [0] was that 1) Because of "AI" we're moving more to API-like model in which the end user gets more say how they want to consume content. 2) That is in tension with (ahem) intention. We can't direct the user "experience" and have a "positive model" (not based on denylists). We can present data bit we can't enforce our intentions (informally defined ideas about how it may be used). 3) That means we must move to a behavioural security/access model in place of identity based ones (including categorical identity like ASN, user-agent, device type... ) [0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=39 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=39
baobun 2y ago
> That said, I think it’s reasonable for app developers to decide how their services are consumed But it's a far step from that to (attempting to) control the user agent, or only allow blessed clients/devices. Of course the site operator is concerned with limiting and preventing abuse by malicious users and agents, and an app developer should build for enabling that. > Main thing I care about is that AI agent use remains safe and aligned with user intent Nice and all. Keep a level perspective though: At scale, you can't keep control of your users not getting scammed/phished/hacked, or plain doing destructive uninformed actions on their own accord. Similar here: If you aim for 0, that will be to detriment to (at best, I believe) your growth. I believe the kind of patterns you describe in the article are in fact anti-patterns. Look at the kind of web and internet they lead to. Look at what they do to individual agency in society. Across the board, abuse is increasing alongside negative side-effects from false positives of these kinds of counter-measures - which will invariably end up abused (by ignorance or intentionally) to exclude an increasing number of "undesireds". Systematic discrimimation is an apt term for the emergent consistent blocking of certain groups and individuals even if "it's just the stats playing out that way"? Consider accessibility, and the diversity of humans. It is a folly to believe you can craft a singular user-experience that works satisfactory for everyone, or even catalogue and "officially support" what's in need by your entire target audience. By blocking access to screen readers and other accessibility agents you limit or prevent the use from those relying on these tools. > My idealistic long-term view though is that supporting AI agent use cases will eventually become table stakes. My optimistic long-term view is that accessing content on my own terms with an agent I compiled myself is still an option (without any need for dystopian centralized signing services a la apple/mozilla), and that companies are still legally allowed to offer that option.
rendaw 2y ago
Why can't users revoke permissions if the service can't detect good bots? Those seem wholly unrelated.

do_not_redeem 2y ago

It seems like cases (1) and (2) would both be better handled by letting the user give their user agent a separate security context if they choose, instead of trying to detect/guess what kind of browser made that http request. I'm thinking about things like oauth permissions, GitHub's sudo mode, etc. Otherwise your magic detection code will inevitably end up telling an ELinks user "sorry, you need to download chrome to view your payment info".

mcstempel 2y ago
You read our mind! https://stytch.com/blog/the-age-of-agent-experience/ https://stytch.com/blog/the-age-of-agent-experience/ Very much agreed that's the long-term goal, but I think we'll live in a world where most apps don't support oauth for a while longer (though I'd love for all of them to -- we're actually announcing something next week that makes this easy for any app to do) But we're also envisioning an interim period where users are delegating to unsanctioned external agents (e.g. OpenAI Operator, Anthropic Computer Use API, etc.) prior to apps catching up and offering proper oauth

soulofmischief 2y ago

Plaid is not a "good bot" company. Despite posturing from leadership, it is fundamentally unethical to build a pervasive banking middle-man service which requires users to surrender their private account credentials in order to operate. What if every business operated this way? It's disgusting that companies like Plaid have considerably set back public discourse on acceptable privacy tradeoffs.

clint 2y ago
You write as if someone held a gun to your head and force you to sign up for Plaid. Plaid doesn't require anyone to use it. Your bank is the entity you're ultimately upset with, don't malign a company that generated a _very good solution_ to a _huge problem_ and THEN worked with their industry peers to cajole these huge banks to let you have access to your data how you want to use it. Before Yodlee and Plaid came around there was a snowballs chance in hell I could ever hope to get at my banking transactions in an API and now I can, and in many cases I never have to give supply my banking credentials to anyone but my bank.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  > You write as if someone held a gun to your head and force you to sign up for Plaid. Plaid doesn't require anyone to use it. There is not a physical gun pointed at my head, but an increasing amount of digital online interactions are solely gated by Plaid. I've run into plenty cases where I simply had no choice, for example dealing with landlords. And you already know how long it takes for financial systems to evolve once in place, as evidenced by your own frustration for them not embracing APIs and digital sovereignty. So once a solution like Plaid is in place, we're normalizing this kind of man-in-the-middle security nightmare for generations to come. Even if Plaid's founders did not have malicious intent, the company will eventually change hands to someone less ethical, and the door is open for other companies to seek the same kind of relationships with end users. If not malicious, Plaid is brazenly reckless and short-sighted. And regardless... I as a consumer do not want to hand over my passwords to a man in the middle, I'm already angry enough at the security and password restrictions I encounter now with financial institutions. If I am in a position where I cannot rent a home or make an important purchase without interacting with a company like Plaid, where is my digital sovereignty?

nonrandomstring 2y ago

What came up in this interview [0] was that 1) Because of "AI" we're moving more to API-like model in which the end user gets more say how they want to consume content. 2) That is in tension with (ahem) intention. We can't direct the user "experience" and have a "positive model" (not based on denylists). We can present data bit we can't enforce our intentions (informally defined ideas about how it may be used). 3) That means we must move to a behavioural security/access model in place of identity based ones (including categorical identity like ASN, user-agent, device type... ) [0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=39 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=39

baobun 2y ago

> That said, I think it’s reasonable for app developers to decide how their services are consumed But it's a far step from that to (attempting to) control the user agent, or only allow blessed clients/devices. Of course the site operator is concerned with limiting and preventing abuse by malicious users and agents, and an app developer should build for enabling that. > Main thing I care about is that AI agent use remains safe and aligned with user intent Nice and all. Keep a level perspective though: At scale, you can't keep control of your users not getting scammed/phished/hacked, or plain doing destructive uninformed actions on their own accord. Similar here: If you aim for 0, that will be to detriment to (at best, I believe) your growth. I believe the kind of patterns you describe in the article are in fact anti-patterns. Look at the kind of web and internet they lead to. Look at what they do to individual agency in society. Across the board, abuse is increasing alongside negative side-effects from false positives of these kinds of counter-measures - which will invariably end up abused (by ignorance or intentionally) to exclude an increasing number of "undesireds". Systematic discrimimation is an apt term for the emergent consistent blocking of certain groups and individuals even if "it's just the stats playing out that way"? Consider accessibility, and the diversity of humans. It is a folly to believe you can craft a singular user-experience that works satisfactory for everyone, or even catalogue and "officially support" what's in need by your entire target audience. By blocking access to screen readers and other accessibility agents you limit or prevent the use from those relying on these tools. > My idealistic long-term view though is that supporting AI agent use cases will eventually become table stakes. My optimistic long-term view is that accessing content on my own terms with an agent I compiled myself is still an option (without any need for dystopian centralized signing services a la apple/mozilla), and that companies are still legally allowed to offer that option.

rendaw 2y ago

Why can't users revoke permissions if the service can't detect good bots? Those seem wholly unrelated.