There is no escaping the Google botnet.
I don't have a Gmail account.
I use dropbox for contacts/calendar.
I don't own any android devices.
Yet, this fucking captcha is getting all of my information.
I think it's time for me to give in. It takes way to much effort to avoid them... Fuck...
1st world problems.
>>45542533
why don't you trust Google? they give you EVERYTHING you need for free, what do you want? to pay for it or something? and then complain it's not free?
>>45542583
i don't need anything from them
>>45542671
Then how did you come to give a fuck on what they do with their time? If you're OP.
>>45542533
Buy a 4chan pass go--
>4chan Pass purchases are currently disabled.
Well shit.
>>45542533
>Yet, this fucking captcha is getting all of my information.
How? If you haven't logged in and erase your cookies, it won't get your information.
>>45542683
>giving the jew your hard earned shekels
>>45542694
>pay 20 sheleks for a year
>work for the merchant for a whole year FOR FREE
Two bottles of poison, I'd rather pay $20 than to teach/improve the botnet.
>>45542681
i'm not op
i don't care what they get up to, as long as it doesn't interfere with what i do, which it currently is, with their bullshit captcha service which rewards those with strong google service ties, and shafts the rest
and unfortunately not using captcha isn't an option here, especially now that moot has disable pass purchases
>>45542705
I hear that, but I think you're logic is flawed. The way I see it Google provides the service to allow people to post anonymously (in cooperation with 4chan). Would you rather be it as, without a pass you can't post? because that is an option you know, and very obviously it's an option 4chan CHOOSES not to implement.
>>45542705
Why do you care if it rewards those with google accounts? Why don't you just type in the captcha in privacy mode? Is it really that hard to move your mouse a bit more to post in 4chan?
>>45542737
>Why don't you just type in the captcha in privacy mode?
are you serious?
>>45542746
I'm serious. I'm apparently missing something that you know. That's why I'm asking so that I can learn.
>>45542583
>free
You sold them your online life for an inbox and search engine
>>45542751
Not him but I think he's saying that, since in reality privacy mode ONLY controls client side activities, anything passed to the server will be kept and logged for as long as the server wants, which is the problem most people on /g/ wearing tin foil hats loathe.
>>45542751
privacy modes on your browser only stop your browser from recording history on your computer, it does nothing to prevent external services from collecting information
>>45542775
>>45542772
>it does nothing to prevent external services from collecting information
So which information can it collect if you start from a blank privacy mode?
>>45542772
>>45542775
What information do you fucking expect them to collect? Your browser version? In privacy mode you'll have no tracking cookies for them to read.
>>45542704
With Jews you always lose.
>complaining about google captcha now when 4CHAN HAS HAD IT FOR FUCKING EVER
Are you this stupid?
>>45542788
IP (which basically let's them figure out who you are if they so desire), in connection with any post that you create and from that can gather what boards you frequent and so on.
>>45542813
You serious? IP address? Are you seriously implying that an IP address is equal to an identity? I take it that you've never studied any form of networking.
>>45542835
Not trying to get into an in depth, argument about something obviously we both know about. Most people aren't posting from vpn's, cracked wifi networks and public networks, if they do they aren't the ones complaining, most people ARE in fact using this shit from their homes/personal phone internet and shit like that which is in fact a sure way of detecting or at least leading to a person's real identity so please, don't start this shit.
>>45542811
It only had it for like 4 years now. The old capcha was less invasive
I'm just trying the new captcha
>>45542811
Hello newfag!
>>45542857
>Most people aren't posting from vpn's, cracked wifi networks and public networks
>using this shit from their homes/personal phone internet
How does Google tell the difference? Do you mean to tell me that Google studies VPN/cracked wifi/public addresses and maintains an IP database of these?
hurr botnet
hurr people are watching me
hurr im this important to others honestly
get over yourself
Still me, i got old fashioned captcha with clover
>>45542894
It doesn't work though, it's pulling the old CAPTCHA but the server doesn't accept those anymore.
>>45542759
>>45542888
I don't, most tinfoilfags on /g/ running that Windows botnet install Gentoo shit are though. I don't doubt Google logs DATA, key word DATA, I don't see any reason for them to give half a fuck about anyone's information, but point is that data just like most data can provide enough information to tell who is who and shit like that but it doesn't really bother me. What the fuck, as if my internet provider and the government didn't already have the power to figure that shit out, what's Google going to log that ain't already logged with everything being logged in the digital age.
>>45542689
Your browser can generally be uniquely identified based on the plugins you have installed, etc. It's very easy to be tracked.
panopticlick.eff.org can determine how identifiable your browser is. Here's my result:
>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,773,248 tested so far.
>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 22.19 bits of identifying information.
>>45542928
>Your browser can generally be uniquely identified based on the plugins you have installed, etc. It's very easy to be tracked.
So generate an identity that's not unique. Problem solved.
>>45542942
you're the guy who's gonna get caught not realizing how intricate forensic analysis is.
2*4chan.co doesn't have captchas in addition to being generally better
>>45542959
You can catch me but I'm not doing anything that is a crime. I don't spend my time downloading movies or software and I don't steal or drive or commit violence. No crimes here.
I figured you'd say that, my point was simply that you're solution was not a solution the problem you were providing a solution to yet evidently you thought it was.
>>45542705
moot disabled passes? why?
>>45542987
>I figured you'd say that, my point was simply that you're solution was not a solution the problem you were providing a solution to yet evidently you thought it was.
Whatever this means, I probably agree with it.
>>45542999
He's not making new passes. The old passes are still good.
>>45542733
How about somebody makes a captcha that doesn't require authorization with every fucking post?
>>45542999
dunno, but i have a few ideas:
1. he thinks they're not needed anymore because is meant to be simple now
2. he's disabled them temporarily to avoid people saying he's doing this for the money
3. the new coke theory
>>45543010
That's the idea with this new reCaptcha. If it remembers you, you can just tick the box and you won't have to do a word entry.
>>45542857
Well said.
testing
>>45543089
finally working?
You could always go to that other chan that doesn't have Google botnet or Jewish finding.
>Still need to type out captcha even on the phone.
Fuck you Google.
>>45543100
>iiceda
that's clearly iiveda you fool
>>45542808
fug.
>>45543100
>Not reniggering.
>>45542928
They can track you even by the set of fonts you use. It's crazy.
>>45542533
But how is this different from the old captcha, concerning tracking? It's just more obvious.
>>45542890
>shitposting hurr
This has nothing to do with how "important" you are. This has to do with Google being able to overthrow any government, create any monopoly, use and abuse us to the point where if we say or do one single thing that is against US law (even outside of the US), Google will make sure to get you prosecuted in US court.
It's possible and imminent.
The internet is an NSA botnet. If you actually care about secure communication, do what we did before the internet existed.
IDGAF about "botnets". My data BURDENS them by being background noise. I don't have CeePee to hide and I'm not a revolutionary.
I know that feel, OP.
>>45542583
>why don't you trust Google? they give you EVERYTHING you need for free, what do you want? to pay for it or something? and then complain it's not free?
As the old saying goes, if everything given to you is free, then *you* are the product.
And I don't like that feeling of being willful cattle.
>>45542533
>dropbox
You have Condoleezza Rice in the board of directors of that company. Previously US National Security Advisor and lifetime State Department shill.
>>45542533
wait... do you have to type in the captcha or not? if you do then why do you think google's getting your information? it's the same thing as a normal captcha. if you're checking the box and that's all, then you must be somehow logged into google with a 'burner' account or something.
>>45542683
Moot must be trolling us.
>>45542808
Fucking jews.
>>45542968
Its so good that you come here...
>>45542811
>FOR FUCKING EVER
how new are you faggot?
>>45542981
>Or drive
What?
This captcha needs to go or else I will go. 9 years down the drain.
>>45542942
>So generate an identity that's not unique. Problem solved.
Not the same person, but lel,
Firstly, it is pretty difficult to generate a non-unique fingerprint.
Secondly:
>A few days ago, Google has introduced a new version of ReCaptcha, theorically allowing most users to complete it by only ticking a checkbox. If the user isn't deemed as human by Google, the old version with distorted text appears. [...]
> Google servers will receive and process, at least, the following information:
>
>- Plug-ins
>- User-agent
>- Screen resolution
>- Execution time, timezone
>- Number of click/keyboard/touch actions in the <iframe> of the captcha
>- It tests the behavior of many browser-specific functions and CSS rules
>- It checks the rendering of canvas elements
>- Likely cookies server-side (it's executed on the www.google.com domain)
>- And likely other stuff...
>
>You can look at the decompiled bytecode for more precision.
https://github.com/ReCaptchaReverser/InsideReCaptcha
That's pretty much enabling them to uniquely identify your system. Whether you view this as unacceptably risky when posting on 4chan, depends on how much you have to hide.
You do know that Google already collected all this information with the old captcha, right? How do you think they decided when to serve numbers vs. unreadable gibberish?
>>45548123
True. I think that people are only just now noticing it because now it looks fancier and thus 'more nefarious'.
However, /g/ had been applying the 'botnet' criticism to the old version of recaptcha as well, as the ability of the recaptcha to be used for fingerprinting like in >>45548114, is actually mentioned in the /g/ wiki.
See here:
https://wiki.installgentoo.com/index.php?title=Botnet
Pic from same page.
>>45548225
If I never used my real name on anything, (Just facebook) can they still tell who I am? How?
>>45548114
>That's pretty much enabling them to uniquely identify your system. Whether you view this as unacceptably risky when posting on 4chan, depends on how much you have to hide.
No, No, No It does not depend on what I have to hide!
It is another invasion of your privacy and that's all.
>>45548323
Depends on how far they are willing to go. For example, if they tie your IP address to a specific home address and then kick in your door for some reason, you might argue, "you have it wrong, you can't prove it was me".
But then if they have your web browsing environment fingerprinted, then they have actually pin it to your specific PC or mobile device or whatever, and be all like, "Well, can you explain why the fingerprint is exactly matching a result that your device uniquely delivers?"
For example, how many bits of information do they gather from doing browser-specific functions and rendering of canvas elements? They can render text or WebGL scenes to a canvas element and then they are enhancing the uniqueness of the result since that means that even the behaviour of your graphics card can be used in making a very unique fingerprint.
Google has been watching you longer than you think. The new captcha is just one tiny new thing. Haven't you ever heard of Google Analytics?
>>45548432
Well, I agree that it's an invasion of privacy, I'm just saying that sometimes people tolerate it. But generally speaking, of course it is undesirable and none of this ought to be happening in the first place.
A lot of work is going to need to be done to combat the use of environment fingerprinting, especially since Google has clearly begun to just openly use it in front of everyone's face.
>>45548459
Google Analytics, versus Google fingerprinting your environment, are two very different kinds of problem though.
The mainstreaming of the latter is a problem that is not simple to solve, and at the present moment actually cannot be solved. Hence why people are panicking a little at the belated realisation of this being possible. Their panicking is not actually unreasonable.
It's like moot wants 4chan to die.
>>45542533
It's like you didn't learn anything from Snowden. The govt. already has a 5 page paper at least on you.
DISABLE JAVASCRIPT FOR 4CHAN AND YOU'LL GET THE OLD CAPTCHA
>>45548459
Further to >>45548525, here's an example:
>Tying the browser more closely to operating system functionality and system hardware means that websites have more access to these resources, and that browser behavior varies depending on the behavior of these resources. We propose a new system Fingerprint, inspired by the observation above: render text and WebGL scenes to a <canvas> element, then examine the pixels produced. The new Fingerprint is consistent, high-entropy, orthogonal to other Fingerprints, transparent to the user, and readily obtainable. [...] We exhibit a new system Fingerprint based on browser font and WebGL rendering. To obtain this Fingerprint, a website renders text andWebGL scenes to a <canvas> element, then examines the pixels produced. Different systems produce different output, and therefore different Fingerprints. Even very simple tests such as rendering a single sentence in a widely distributed system font produce surprising variation. [...] [T]he possibility of Fingerprinting might be an unavoidable consequence of browsers' closer ties to operating system functionality and system hardware.
https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~hovav/dist/canvas.pdf
>>45542533
then don't use them
seriously, what's stopping you from buying a thunderbird or fastmail account?
stop being lazy, privacy is no longer given out on gratis anymore
>>45548532
what?
>>45542683
Mootstein hates you
Do you think it's possible to make a browser addon that forces the old reCAPTCHA to return? I mean, the API for it's still there, so why not?
>>45548696
How would that help? The old recaptcha was likely doing the exact same thing anyway.
>>45548732
Nah, the old one probably collected less data. I highly doubt it tracked your mouse movement; for example. I'm pretty sure it logged my posts somewhere, but I doubt it did all this. >>45548114
ccd0 said he was going to work on a way to use noscript and 4chan x so hopefully that'll save us.
>>45548828
what evidence do you have, other than "the new capatcha requires the user to do something different ergo all it's nsa tracking stuff must be different too"
>>45548866
forgot: by this I mean that the old capatcha collected all that data too, not that it doesn't collect said data
This new captcha is wonderful though.
>dropbox
do you honestly think that's any better?
>>45548866
>>45548877
What evidence do you have that the old one does all of the same stuff as the new one? The reason I believe the new one does new fancy business is because by design, it must track you in some additional ways to prove that you aren't a bot. And there's the github page above that shows this. It's reasonable to conclude that the old one tracked you in some way, but not the same way that this new one does. It works differently.
>>45543768
>I don't have stuff to hide
when people point out the stupidity of this statement, do you just ignore it?
if you had a bb gun, but let the gov search your house for actual guns, you are now highlighting who actually has guns. those who open their trunks to let cops search them might as well open their other trunks, because when they've got all the guns rounded up, they go for people who have bb guns and crowbars and other bullshit.
if you take a wet noodle stance to your right to privacy do not be surprised when it drops out from under you.
I'll bump this.
Who cares.
If you actually add personal information anywhere on the internet you need to rethink what you're doing on this board.
>>45551225
My name: Patrick Bateman
My address: 55 Dubs Drive, Antarctica
My ssn: 56662333
>muh botnet
always makes me laugh
>>45551343
"personal info" like this is what the internet is all about. It's supposed to remain anonymous and only the content of the post matters, not the poster.
>>45542759
>Implying your ISP doesn't collect your data as well.
>You pay your ISP
Top kek.
>>45548626
is there nothing we can do? like honestly
>>45552403
>giving ISP real info aside from address (at which point if someone tries to find you, you can pretend to be mom, brother, dad, etc)
>not paying cash and using your credit card
you fucking pleb
