4 ms·
> So I think we will need a different detection mechanism. Maybe something from the real world, some type of ID, or even micropayments. I'm not sure, but it's c
by JimDabell 1y ago
> So I think we will need a different detection mechanism. Maybe something from the real world, some type of ID, or even micropayments. I'm not sure, but it's clear that bot detection is at the opposite, and currently losing, side of the AI race.
I think the most likely long-term solution is something like DIDs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_identifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_identifier
A small number of trusted authorities (e.g. governments) issue IDs. Users can identify themselves to third-parties without disclosing their real-world identity to the third-party and without disclosing their interaction with the third-party to the issuing body.
The key part of this is that the identity is persistent. A website might not know who you are, but they know when it’s you returning. So if you get banned, you can’t just register a new account to evade the ban. You’d need to do the equivalent of getting a new passport from your government.
- freeone3000 1y agoIt also allows automated software to act on behalf of a person, which is excellent for assistive technologies and something most current bot detection leaves behind.
- timshell 1y agoI think this will be a positive effect of the rise of AI agents. We’re going to have a much different distribution of automated vs human traffic and authentication/methods will have to be more robust than they are now
- imiric 1y agoOn the one hand, yes, this might work, but I'm concerned that it will inevitably require loss of anonymity and be abused by companies for user tracking. I suppose any type of user identification or fingerprinting is at the expense of user privacy, but I hope we can come up with solutions that don't have these drawbacks.
- JimDabell 1y ago> I'm concerned that it will inevitably require loss of anonymity and be abused by companies for user tracking. Are you sure you read my comment fully?
- Liquix 1y ago> trusted authorities (e.g. governments) the governments powerful enough to roll something like this out are not trusted authorities which will protect the privacy of their citizens. remember before the Snowden revelations when the NSA's director of national intelligence swore under oath that they did not collect "any type of data at all on millions of Americans"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#Testimony_to_Congress_on_NSA_surveillance,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#Testimony_to_Con...
- HeatrayEnjoyer 1y agoUltimately trust must be placed in an entity of some type. A democratically elected body isn't perfect but I can't think of a better option. If the electorate don't care about digital privacy or elected lawmakers do not protect their rights, then that needs to be addressed first. Governments have a monopoly on violence. If a citizen can't trust their government to enact (or enact but then not follow) laws that protect human rights, they frankly have much bigger problems to solve.
- switknee 1y agoPart of solving that problem is to make it expensive for governments to violate human rights. If spying on everyone is easier than targeted spying, they'll spy on everyone. Governments have a lot of different priorities and it's not always easy to balance them. Online identity verification is probably best handled by an organization with that as a single priority. Under the government ID scheme, we have to trust [bad corrupt government] to verify all citizens of [bad corrupt government]. Since that government frequently lies and acts maliciously using every means at their disposal, platforms will treat IDs verified by that government similar to bot traffic and the country will be cut off from the public internet. You'll be banning scientists and journalists from working with others around the world, just because they live in a country with an obnoxious government. Isn't it also best if people can have multiple identities? Or should someone's contributions to X field be discounted because of their dabbling in fringe Y field?
- thatnerd 1y agohttps://www.wired.com/story/worldcoin-sam-altman-orb/ https://www.wired.com/story/worldcoin-sam-altman-orb/
- timshell 1y agoYup, Worldcoin has been the one of the efforts in this space. We're trying to have a frictionless, less privacy-invasive method than biometric scanning
- jskrn 1y agoDo you work for Worldcoin?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- julkali 1y agoThat is the silicon valley cryptoscam version. This concept has been studied already extensively, e.g [1] (in 2000!) by people like Rivest and Chaum, who have actual decade-old competence in that field. [1] https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/pubs/LRSW99.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/pubs/LRSW99.pdf
- calvinmorrison 1y agoOr just charge bots and humans and we're good to go https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/postage-is-due-for-companies-sending-email.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/postage-is-due...
- TJSomething 1y agoWhile that works for attacks that are like spam, bot detection for high margin attacks like show ticket scalping really wants an identity-oriented solution.
- BiteCode_dev 1y agoBut this mean that now a saas baning you from your account for spurious reason can be a serious problem.
- econ 1y agoYou could roll a new id to replace the previous one. Each user would still have only one at a time. If this isn't acceptable a service may ask to have the feature disabled for clear mission critical reasons and/or a fee.
- JimDabell 1y agoThat’s the point. Bans should be effective.
- BiteCode_dev 1y agoI get it. And also, I know that Apple and Google would abuse that, and destroy lives and businesses as casually as I eat my breakfast. Then 1000's of disposable companies would pop up with valid id, and abuse some system (like terrible DMCA) and make it worse. If you think people self-censoring themselves on social media is now a problem (the "unlive" novlang is always such a dystopic hint to me), you have seen nothing.
- JimDabell 1y agoBusinesses should not be forced to serve abusive users. They should have the choice to refuse to serve somebody permanently. You do not have the right to use somebody else’s service without their permission. If they want you off their platform, they should be able to do so. The whole point of having trusted issuers is that there aren’t any “disposable companies” who hand out many identities in an uncontrolled manner. If there were, they would quickly become untrusted, making the IDs worthless.
- collingreen 1y agoWhy is it the responsibility of the customer and the government to enable a business model someone wants that doesn't work well otherwise? Like I agree with some of your sentiment but where does this end? Anyone can come up with any untenable business model and then the government should intervene to make it work the way they want, at the citizens expense? I doubt that's your point and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but what's the difference here? "I should be able to control people on the internet better" doesn't feel like a thing we should all collectively bend over to enable.
- johnisgood 1y agoI have not heard about DIDs at all before. How does this really work? They are Government-issued? I am not sure I would trust that though.
- encom 1y agoI have to ask the government for a roided up tracking cookie? Hell. No.
- codedokode 1y agoIf this gets implemented, the next thing the govt will do is require all websites to store DIDs of visitors for at least 10 years and not accept visitors without them.
- JimDabell 1y agoThis makes no sense at all. If a government wanted to pass a law to force logins and track people, they could do that today without using an identifier that is worthless for that purpose.