
Customer Service Agents Can See What You're Typing in Real Time - curtis
https://gizmodo.com/be-warned-customer-service-agents-can-see-what-youre-t-1830688119
======
Jerry2
Another thing people don't realize is that if your browser/extension
prefills/autofills certain fields (say, name, email, address, etc), those
things can be easily sent to the website even if you don't press the submit
button.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/10/browser-a...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/10/browser-
autofill-used-to-steal-personal-details-in-new-phising-attack-chrome-safari)

~~~
WestCoastJustin
Had this happen about 2 weeks ago when I was booking a hotel. This was _not_ a
chat window, like the article, but a hotel booking form. I had a few tabs open
and filled in the booking information but found something a little more
convenient. So, I did not submit the form and closed the tab. About 2-3
minutes later my phone started to ring. It was a customer service agent from
that incomplete booking website asking if I needed a better deal!? This was
extremely creepy! I guess they are grabbing the form data via xhr requests or
something (pre-submit). Not only that they do this, but the speed at which
they can action it, makes me think we're in a whole new ball game.

~~~
julienreszka
This is old news. It's fairly easy to implement and most often done with
simple google sheets.

~~~
sansnomme
Think you can give a short example code?

~~~
flak48
document.getElementById('myInput').addEventListener('change', event =>
fetch('[https://myapi/textBoxData'](https://myapi/textBoxData'), {method:
'POST', body: event.target.value})

------
dpkonofa
I wish that it was more prevalent for people to just assume and know that any
website, regardless of whether or not it has a chat function, has the ability
to record what you're saying (read: typing). Everyone out there should act
like everything they type into their web browser has the potential to be seen
by, at the very least, the website they're typing it on and, at worst, by
everyone online.

If you really need the kind of security or peace of mind that this situation
is not suitable for, type everything into a text editor and paste it into the
website when you're ready to send it. Otherwise, you can't ever have any
expectation of privacy on the web.

~~~
Cacti
If the site is using SSL, there is a reasonable expectation that only the
server will see that data, not the entire world.

~~~
lucb1e
TLS has very little to do with it. Some intermediary parties may be able to
read the plaintext, but that's different from putting it on pastebin for
everyone to see. I've never heard of ISPs or transit providers publishing
privacy-sensitive data or otherwise snooping on it. (Assuming non-business /
non-VPN / non-proxy connections. Just an ordinary internet connection.)

The author probably meant if the site gets/is hacked, or if they are later
bought by another company, or if a new employee joins and you can see chat
history... etc.

~~~
bradknowles
Many high-profile commercial carriers will do deep packet inspection of the
traffic from their end users, so that they can do insertion of their own ads
into whatever content you may be surfing. Including on your webmail pages.

And their ad networks might well be infected with malware. But because of deep
packet inspection and editing, you can't tell that the malvertising in
question actually came from AT&T or Spectrum instead of Gmail.

~~~
aquark
How are they able to do ad insertion into a https page?

I'm sure Google would not be happy with content injection into gmail.

~~~
copperx
Yeah,that doesn't make any sense, unless they're doing an MITM attack just to
insert ads?

------
sbuttgereit
I'm confused why this is news or surprising? At least for the audience here.

I remember plugins for various IM clients would do the same thing in a chat
window some decades ago. And I remember my days as a sysop in the good old
single line dial up BBS days. You could watch users browse and type all the
way back in the mid-80's and I'm sure this has existed about as long as multi-
user computers have.

If you're typing into an application which is any part of a networked or
multi-user system, assume someone can see what you do while you're doing it
(and can log same for later review).

...maybe I'm just old and don't understand the kids these days... or maybe
it's a slow news day...

~~~
noxToken
The older IM clients (AIM, MSN, Yahoo, et al.) could tell you if someone was
typing or entered unsent text, but it never previewed what had been typed. At
least that wasn't a default option back then.

~~~
ben174
ICQ had a character-by-character mode they experimented with for a while. It
was kinda fun. BBSs too.

~~~
copperx
Character by character IS fun. I've always wondered why newer messaging
platforms haven't implemented it yet.

------
mooman219
At work, the assumption is that every non-corp web site has a key logger built
in. A corp extension monitors (key logs) all input on non-corp sites, checking
if any credentials are accidentally typed. If they are, you're notified
immediately on the last key press and have to change your credentials within 7
days of the incident. I think this is a reasonable idea for security, and
helps prevent some phishing schemes.

~~~
jstanley
> At work, the assumption is that every non-corp web site has a key logger
> built in. A corp extension monitors (key logs) all input on non-corp sites

Sounds like that assumption is well-founded!

------
ve55
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who allows their browser to run all the
Javascript that companies want it to (of course, assuming they have a decent
understanding of the web to begin with, which is a huge limiting factor).
Reading what you type in real time isn't even as invasive as most companies
go, when they commonly track your cursor movements, the size of your window,
what extensions you have, make attempts at getting browser history, and so on.
And that's with just JS enabled, not counting access to devices like
microphones and webcams. If you care about this you should be using an addon
to (at the very least) limit js execution.

~~~
AnaniasAnanas
Even with JS disabled you can still get a lot of these via CSS. Sadly none of
these technologies were designed with privacy in mind.

~~~
quietbritishjim
CSS can send HTTP requests without JavaScript? How does that work?

~~~
AnaniasAnanas
Yes, it can. Consider [https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2014/10/css-only-
solution-f...](https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2014/10/css-only-solution-for-
ui-tracking/) for example.

~~~
quietbritishjim
Thanks!

That page does say this:

 _The problem with this kind of CSS UI tracking is that we get only the first
occurrence of the event. For example, take the :active pseudo class example.
The request for the background image is fired only once. If we need to capture
every click then, we have to change the URL, which is not possible without
JavaScript._

It's also not clear to me how you could capture any keystrokes with this
technique. Still, I did find it interesting.

------
mrspeaker
In 2005 during the birth of "ajax" I got paid ($100 or something: it was great
when I was a youngster!) to write an article warning of the _spooky dangers of
xmlhttprequest_ \- keylogging everything you type.
[http://www.devx.com/webdev/Article/28861](http://www.devx.com/webdev/Article/28861)

There was a demo (dead now - I'll fix it) that was a text adventure, that
keylogged. And it was interesting to see typos and changes of wording. It
_did_ provide some insight that wasn't always apparent in the final submitted
text commands.

Even though in 2005 it was known you could do this (long before ajax), still
today I'm a little taken-aback about being keylogged on a random website:
despite having written a bloody article about it 15 years ago!

------
CreepGin
It's like rehearsing in front of a mirror, then finding out it's a one-way
mirror and there were other people behind the mirror watching you the entire
time.

------
Alupis
I always suspected this. Particularly when you're typing something long-
winded, and the agent's response is a bit too quick for having to read it all.

Although, this will certainly depend on the Chat software used. Back when we
used Olark at our company, there was no preview available, although we could
"co-browse" and redirect the user's webpage, which was helpful in some cases.

~~~
bcx
We (Olark) specifically decided not to implement the "read-ahead" or "sneak-
peak" feature because we thought it was creepy and broke customer
expectations.

When you are typing a message to customer service as a customer you should
have a chance to compose your thoughts, and should have an expectation of
privacy in whatever you are writing before hitting enter.

~~~
Alupis
I like that a lot. It is creepy, imho.

There's been more than a few times where I was up late, on a chat support, and
quite upset about something or other... and decided to re-write my message
before hitting the "Send" button. Composing your thoughts is valuable...

~~~
laumars
I'm actually ok with this. It's a good way of getting more reliable subtext
about a persons emotion. You'd gather that from someone stumbling their way
through a real time voice conversation on the phone or in person - as well as
the nuances in vocal tones and body language - but all that is lost in a text
only interface. So this at least gives you an idea. eg are they ranting then
delete it for a more composed message? That might signal that the person is
really pissed off but actually open to working with the agent for a mutual
resolution.

The point another poster made about secrets is a valid one but I'd argue that
the kind of secrets you're likely to be pasting are the same ones the support
operator would have access to anyway (payment details, address, order details,
etc). But if you're really worried, other HN posters said it best when they
commented about typing in a desktop text editor _then_ paste your text into
the chat window.

~~~
lolc
It's ok if both parties know what's going on. If visitors are left with the
expectation that a message becomes visible on the other end when they send it
then it is not ok at all.

~~~
laumars
People give off all kinds of messages they don’t realise; from facial
expressions and other forms of body language to the tone and volume of their
speech. We are forever communicating far more information then we ever intend
to and people who deal with customers are trained how to read those tells so
they can better handle customers temperament as well as their spoken
requirements.

You lose so much with typed text which makes good customer services a lot
harder. Thus as long as any pre-posted text isn’t stored anywhere (I fully
expect posted chat logs would) then I don’t see an issue with support
operators using real time text as a glimpse into the customers mood.

[edit]

To the people who voted me down: I get that you disagree with me but I have
been on courses regarding just this (which is weird because I couldn't be in a
less customer facing job....) so what I'm talking about here isn't just some
random junk I've invented off the cuff. It's what I was taught how customer
services (the good ones anyway) work.

~~~
lolc
You don't sneakily access other people's draft thoughts without very
explicitly asking for permission. The eavesdroppers are not reciprocating and
sharing their typing either. They're not only creating an asymmetry: they're
actively hiding it!

~~~
laumars
It's not the sort of environment you want asymmetry. You want the customer
services to be infallible - and by "you" I don't just mean company execs but
also us customers who want to feel like we've been treated appropriately.

Anyone who's ever done a stint on 1st line tech support will understand just
how much of a thankless job it is. If this helps them to serve me better then
I welcome it.

I think the real complaint being made is that you didn't realise they were
using these visual clues. But that's why I keep coming back to how other forms
of customer services are trained to read vocal tones and body language. Would
you also feel cheated if you learned your favourite high street store's
customer services team had training on reading body language while you hadn't
so they have an advantage in gauging your temperament but they didn't let on
they had that training?

Don't get me wrong, I do see and understand your point. I'm very privacy
minded so this is the kind of thing I'd normally get annoyed by as well. But
at least this time the anti-privacy tools are genuinely being used to improve
customer experience rather than just to monetise them (yes I know good
customer experience can lead to repeat custom - but more often than privacy is
sold to the detriment of customer experience)

~~~
lolc
Thanks for the explanation and perspective. I still don't see how this
justifies the deception.

------
AznHisoka
Great. Can they also read what I wrote and submitted before I reached #1 in
the queue? So they don’t waste my time asking for my name, how am I, what I
want, etc. I already outlined it all in the message!

------
nneonneo
On a recent customer service call, I bid the agent goodbye but did not hang up
(deliberately - I wanted to see if they would terminate the call). The rep
held the call open for a good 2-3 minutes even though there was nothing from
my end except some typing. I’m fairly sure I heard some small sounds from
their end so they didn’t just switch to another line.

I’m not usually paranoid - but moments like this remind me to hit the Mute
button whenever I’m not directly conversing with an agent. You just never know
what they’ll pick up.

~~~
vardump
> I’m fairly sure I heard some small sounds from their end so they didn’t just
> switch to another line.

Ever heard a concept of comfort noise [0]? Maybe some call center software can
add something analogous when necessary. Like noises you'd expect in a call
center.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_noise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_noise)

------
mosselman
> during those calls where you are reassured of “being recorded for quality
> assurance purposes,” your conversation while on hold is recorded.

I worked at a call center for a month or two one summer and when you'd put
someone on hold you'd still hear them. I was only talking to network mechanics
(ISP internal call center), but I am sure that the customer call center worked
in the same way. I, after this experience, always assume someone can hear me.

Update: "I, after this experience, always assume someone can hear me." when I
am on the phone with customer services, not in general. Although in today's
technological world it would not be that much of a stretch.

------
colemickens
Has anyone had any chat-based experience that anything more than a complete
waste of time recently? (Amazon being the usual, consistent exception.)

I contact support when something is broken. There is a critical bug, or there
is something down, or there is a physical defect. Every single time, it's just
me getting jerked around, often times for an hour or more.

Just in the last week: an hour with Google Support with them insisting that I
factory reset my phone for a hardware failure (hours of work to re-setup), or
my ISP insisting that the "limits are set in the lines" and that a technician
would have to come out to inspect their own modem so that they can determine
why I'm being throttled to 10% of my paid speed, rather than 90% which is what
I'm apparently entitled to. I hate that I have to get pushy/mean and insist
that, Google, either send me a replacement or start processing a refund. I
have no idea what to do with my ISP, they seem incompetent at every layer that
I have any way to contact and they have a non-compete negotiated with their
competition so I have no other options; their technician based had nothing to
suggest and agreed with my conclusions.

I have also never had a chat experience where I didn't feel like I had to very
carefully word my sentences to make myself understood, or where I wasn't
waiting an exorbinant amount of time for the other side to read/reply. I can't
fathom how peek-ahead would help any of these custom service experiences.

------
ct0
This is nothing new. When i worked for a shady video game repair company in
the early 2000's, the (male) boss would play 3 (female) customer service roles
and know exactly what they were typing even back in the early days before
facebook.

~~~
baroffoos
I think customer support people who have foreign names get their names changed
to more local sounding names while doing support because it makes customers
feel better.

~~~
ct0
This employer was in the US talking to people in the US. He found that men are
more likely to spend money/easier to work with when the customer service rep
has a female name.

------
lunaru
Before rolling out this exact feature in our own chat product we resisted
doing so because of the concerns being echoed here. However, it was becoming
obvious from the demands from our users that this was make-or-break feature in
a modern chat system.

After rolling it out and enjoying this for ourselves as we handle our own
customer support using our own software, it's become a "why didn't we do this
earlier?" type of thing.

Overall, there's already a ton of asymmetry of information when a customer
contacts a support team (e.g. our product pulls in order history, subscription
details, stripe transactions, etc) that streaming a text preview is really
just a drop in the bucket, and it's actually a win-win for both sides since it
leads to faster answers.

Also keep in mind that any questions you ask may be used to feed machine-
learning systems, like chatbots, which is true for our product as well. Just
something to be aware of, that I think is a fair tradeoff for better customer
experiences long-term.

Disclaimer: I'm the founder of [https://reamaze.com](https://reamaze.com)

~~~
purple_ducks
> "why didn't we do this earlier?"

Because it's invasive.

The user consents to sending you information when they hit Send(explicit).
They can remove any incorrect or unrelated information from the text box
before they do so.

Especially if they paste in to the text box and inadvertently paste the wrong
thing(be that sensitive info or similar).

~~~
chrischen
I use a chat service that has this feature on by default (for real-time chat
customer support, not for general messaging), and never in the history of its
usage has a person complained about it. For every 10,000 people that may not
have an issue with it, 1 may have an issue about it, and with these numbers
it's really up to that 1 person to guard their privacy better (disable JS,
never step outside their house, etc) than to inconvenience 9,999 other people
from the benefits.

The experience is all in the context, and since this is only general behavior
for customer service chats (where you're expected to send everything you type
and the other end is simply trying to help resolve an issue), it's not really
a realistic issue in terms of privacy. I agree that if facebook messenger
started doing this and showed the other person what you are typing, this would
be _unexpected_ and potentially _unwanted_ behavior, but the likelihood of
unwanted behavior in a customer support context is extremely rare.

~~~
sp0rk
> I use a chat service that has this feature on by default (for real-time chat
> customer support, not for general messaging), and never in the history of
> its usage has a person complained about it.

How would most people know to complain about something they don't know is
happening?

------
boxcardavin
I use this to send messages to the agent that won't be recorded in the
transcript because I delete it after typing it. Not sure if it has gotten me
better results from the agents but it's fun to do.

~~~
copperx
Because I'm a fast typist, I sometimes swear at people and then delete what I
have typed as a cathartic exercise if they're being annoying. I've done it
since I was a teenager. It's like second nature, probably because I do it in
my head too.

It's unsettling to know that a customer service agent would see that and think
I'm being impolite.

------
mvexel
Perhaps it's time for more granular Javascript blocking. Since forever it's
been 'Enable Javascript yes / no'. This makes no real world sense to me
anymore (if it ever did). Could there be an end-user friendly way to tell a
browser to block Javascript that transmits your 'pre-submit' activity on a web
site without breaking the site?

~~~
air7
No (imo). It'll be impossible to tell that apart from legitimate usage. JS can
access the input fields, garble them, and send to the server. How would you
tell that apart from say, a ticker request to update real-time prices?

~~~
munk-a
I agree, with current technology it seems pretty impossible to differentiate.
But I do think there is hope in the field of whitelisting, things that people
commonly use JS for should be slowly added to the list of native features, as
long as this process has oversight we could start having more responsive sites
with less JS requirements.

------
rhizome
As I post this, every comment is "Derp if you're surprised, I mean this is how
every site is. GOSH." However, you sure don't see this in the e.g. Munchery
shutdown story. "90% (or whatever) of all startups fail, big whoop. Everybody
with a decent understanding of business knows this."

~~~
somebodythere
It's not even true. This behaviour is not obvious at all. No consumer
messaging application allows you to see what the other person is typing before
they have sent it.

~~~
chrischen
This is quite different from a consumer messaging application. It's a
website's customer support chat.

~~~
somebodythere
But the people using it would be consumers, and they would be familiar with
the way consumer messaging applications work. So it would not be obvious to
most people that the person on the other end can see what they're writing.

------
umvi
I sometimes assume this is true and use it to my advantage by typing up a
scathing rebuke venting frustration, only to delete and type a respectful
query. I don't know for sure, but sometimes I get goodies in the form of gift
cards and such and I don't know if this is an effort to placate me or not.

~~~
itronitron
You could also paste in an ebook and then delete it a few seconds later...

------
aynawn
For privacy minded people, is there an extension that detects textarea's and
input boxes and overlays them with new ones and once you hit send that's when
it inserts them into the real html inputs preventing this sneak peak?

Or perhaps simply the xhr requests could be blocked.

------
jbeales
I wonder if they can see if I've gone off to some other tab to wait while they
take their time getting me an answer.

~~~
megous
Websites have access to that inforation (document.visibilityState). So I
wouldn't be surpirsed.

------
tombert
I can finally think of a practical reason to tell people to install Vim
Anywhere! [https://github.com/cknadler/vim-
anywhere](https://github.com/cknadler/vim-anywhere)

I don't actually use that plugin but I have gotten the Vim keystrokes so
ingrained in my brain that I've gotten in the habit of having a terminal open
whenever I need to type into web forms...Now I finally have an excuse to not
feel silly doing it.

~~~
copperx
How does this avoid the problem in the first place?

~~~
tombert
Because you write the message in Vim and it adds to the paste buffer, so you
paste it in. Since the agents on the other end are only seeing what's in the
text box they don't see the preview.

------
MatekCopatek
Another thing to add to my list of things that creep me out right after typing
notifications I can't opt out of and Facebook supposedly storing unsent posts.

Maybe a simple blocker for this could be the next must-have extension/browser
functionality. Something that doesn't send your input events until you press
shift+enter.

------
sp821543
What an amazing opportunity for trolling support staff :)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
It is. But... you're actually going to want _help_ from them, so trolling them
might not be in your best interest.

A related maxim: "Never be rude to an airline gate agent."

~~~
makr17
A related related maxim: "Someone who is nice to you but rude to the waiter is
not a nice person."

------
pwman
This has been the case since at least 2003... The agents also see you page
history, search terms, can cobrowse with you to show you things. Anything to
make them quicker and more effective is implemented.

------
braddeicide
I've stood behind a support guy and watched it, it can be hilarious when you
see someone type out a horrible rant, then delete it and send thanks.

------
modernerd
It's very rare for a live chat employee to handle only one request. Look at
how popular chat apps present multiple requests within the same UI and imagine
dealing with these without live streamed text:

HappyFox:
[https://zapier.cachefly.net/storage/photos/3fe2e4f896499b131...](https://zapier.cachefly.net/storage/photos/3fe2e4f896499b1314b7515403571b90.png)

Olark:
[https://zapier.cachefly.net/storage/photos/d53ec47e6affe26a5...](https://zapier.cachefly.net/storage/photos/d53ec47e6affe26a5cde85f83cd0bc91.png)

LiveChat:
[https://zapier.cachefly.net/storage/photos/26c01334ea7335635...](https://zapier.cachefly.net/storage/photos/26c01334ea73356357fee132a49ca469.png)

Denying support techs the extra 10-30 seconds that live streaming your typed
words buys them for privacy reasons seems strange to me.

Your typed words are no more an indication of your deepest private thoughts
than a phone support session full of ums and errs and “oh, actually I meant…”.

~~~
baroffoos
I think its perfectly fine for them to see it live but users should be aware
of it. The current behavior that everyone knows is the other end doesn't see
what you type until you send it.

~~~
modernerd
I think this would only slow chat sessions down.

If you make me feel self-conscious about what I'm typing, I'm going to
consider each word rather than type then correct/revise and send.

~~~
bayindirh
On the contrary, it won’t change anything for me, because I always form the
whole sentence in my mind before writing into a chat or text box (like this
comment).

So, it seems there are different types of writers. That’s a small moment of
enlightenment for me. :)

------
LawnboyMax
I didn't know this for sure, but assumed that agents can see me typing for the
sake of better response time.

I usually type my questions in a text editor first and then paste it into a
service agent chat when I am sure that it is exactly what I want them to see.

------
m-p-3
Looks like I'll be typing in a text app from now on and copy-paste my replies
as I go.

~~~
intopieces
Why? Isn't this a _good_ feature? It means the person can be prepared for your
question or comment ahead of time.

------
albertshin
Reminds me of a similar debate my friends had when Google Wave first came out.

~~~
markovbot
But Google Wave was up front about it, and both parties can see what each
other is typing.

~~~
r00fus
Not only that, but "talk" on Unix had that for 20+years before that.

~~~
BenjiWiebe
Unix/Linux talk/ntalk is my favorite method of textual communications. Too bad
I can only use it with a few of my friends, and only occasionally at that. We
can communicate far more quickly if both can see the other's questions/answers
even before they are fully typed out.

------
socrates1998
Makes sense. I didn't really think about it before, so I imagine that a few of
them were surprised at my language.

I have tendency to type if I pissed off then either delete it or amend it
before sending/posting.

------
August-Garcia
Depends on what live chat software they're using. Zendesk (one of the most
commonly used live chat tools) doesn't show what users are typing in real
time.

------
qwerty456127
Is there a browser extension that lets you forbid websites to intercept your
keyboard and mouse keystrokes without disabling JavaScript completely?

~~~
copperx
Wouldn't pausing and resuming JavaScript have the same effect?

~~~
qwerty456127
Many websites don't work or work quirky without JavaScript. I used to have
JavaScript blocked by default and enabled on demand (using NoScript) but this
felt fairly annoying. At the same time I'd estimate the number of websites
that I want to capture my keystrokes or mouse right clicks as one in a
thousand or near that (some games I play for some minutes a couple of times a
year perhaps).

------
nerdbaggy
When doing support over chat it is nice to see ahead of time what they are
saying to allow for a faster response.

~~~
lucb1e
Would be cool if one could be informed about it, though.

Imagine if on the phone, you would have to hold down a button to talk. At the
end of the recording, you're given the change to edit any mumblings, rephrase
things, or start all over. If it later turned out that the other end can hear
every word, that is probably surprising to the vast majority of people.

------
powercf
I don't have any problem with this. It highlights a lack of user education, if
they expect their typed input to a website to be private.

It reminds me of the "talk" (and ytalk, ntalk) programs, where all parties can
see in real-time what the others are typing. It's a cool technology that,
unfortunately, is not used on the web.

~~~
lolc
> It highlights a lack of user education

Education in what? That they shouldn't trust companies because they eavesdrop
on them? Please don't blame deceitful practices on the victims.

> if they expect their typed input to a website to be private.

Most chat apps work that way. Others only see what you typed once you send it.
Just because the now obscure `talk` worked differently is no excuse.

The deception starts where the agents' responses are not relayed as they type!
I don't see how you could explain this asymmetry in innocent terms. It clearly
benefits the shop without them being open about it.

~~~
powercf
> Education in what?

Education in how the web works. That typing something into a text field, or
moving the mouse, or any interactions with a website can be read on the other
side. Many users expect this behaviour when they use, for example, Google
search or Google Translate. If users expect their text to be private in one
context, but shared in another, then there is clearly a lack of understanding
of how the web works.

> Please don't blame deceitful practices on the victims.

I didn't blame anyone for anything. It's not a priori deceitful. Presumably
some of the motivation is to enable faster responses to client queries.

~~~
lolc
Just because something's technically feasible does not mean we should expect
it's being done by a shop we're doing business with!

Apparently we don't have the same standards as to what constitutes deceit. To
me it's enough when the chat is asymmetric in that the agent's typing is not
visible until they send it but the visitor's is relayed immediately to the
agent. If visitors could watch the agents type they would understand that
their typing is visible on the other end.

> Presumably some of the motivation is to enable faster responses to client
> queries.

Sure. Then why not offer the same privilege to the client? If it's so
beneficial?

------
lucio
ICQ did that. It changes the experience significatively

------
mdevere
This is not a problem

~~~
lucb1e
That's not a very insightful comment.

------
leowoo91
Facebook can see too.

------
weaksauce
I wonder if this runs afoul of the GDPR in some way?

