How do you "determine" individual clients to show them CAPTCHAs? Yes, you can, and probably should, make some use of IP addresses, although that would work better if idiots hadn't polluted the Internet with quite so much NAT.
But you don't have to, and you definitely don't have to completely rely on it. Look for a cookie. If you don't see it, route the client through a page that sets it.
Yes, this is subject to flooding attacks... in exactly the same way that every CAPTCHA system is subject to flooding attacks. But it actually uses fewer resources per request than showing the CAPTCHA would.
> Uhm no the whole point of captchas is that it requires (or used to anyway) humans to solve them, thus limiting the rate to human speeds.
The CAPTCHA challenge page itself has to be served to a client that has not yet given any evidence that it's not a bot. It's just as expensive to serve the challenge page as it is to serve a cookie-setting page. Bots can infinitely retrieve the challenge page (and can also infinitely try to retrieve the underlying "authenticated" page, forcing you to process redirects).
The only reason it looks better to you is that a third party is serving the CAPTCHA. You could also have a third party serve the cookie-setting page.
Not if the parents are setting it up beforehand (like with small children) then their iaccount or Google account will be under parental controls from that point on.
It seems reasonable that if a parent enables their child to visit sites after that, then that's just their prerogative (like giving your kid beer)
Then it is monkey see, monkey do the same/similar policies on smoking control, LEZ, digital ID, children's education, red meat and fish consumption, alcohol consumption, women's rights and a whole host of other things.
Some of these are good causes, some not so much. Some of them rely on an excluded middle.
Erm, no I'm not. I'm pointing out the homogenisation of policies across multiple countries.
You should be well aware by this point in life that plenty of good causes are used to justify not so good things. Or to put it another way, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
On the most basic level, I could give the example of various children's charities being used to line the pockets of someone rather than doing what they are supposed to. That has happened a number of times.
In much the same way, we can see child safety and bullying (both of which are real issues) being used to excuse clamping down on freedom of expression online. A generation ago, the excuse of terrorism was used to remove civil liberties as well.
With women's rights, we see a genuine issue being abused. We see women from upper class or aristocratic backgrounds like Ursula von der Leyen getting jobs, while the bulk of women continue to work in grinding poverty, and can barely support themselves let alone a family. That is just the same old oligarchy and nepotism with a female face.
I'm making the point that many legislatures are no longer displaying initiative or autonomy as they should, but doing the same as each other. It is obvious that in many cases they derive their policies from the same handful of thinktanks and conferences etc. As a result we get homogeneity across multiple legislatures as opposed to testing out more varied solutions.
At the same time? I don't think so. Almost everyone talks to each other and takes notes. We know they do. The World Economic Forum is real and has a website you can access. They talk about policies like this under their "Fourth Industrial Revolution" section and don't even hide it. The same policies are repeated across much of the world on everything from smoking to driving to digital ID, regardless of who gets voted in.
reply