Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Security Stats IT

CAPTCHA Using Ad-Based Verification 174

Posted by samzenpus
from the more-human-than-human dept.
mk1004 writes "Yahoo news has an article explaining how the text-based CAPTCHA is giving way to ad-based challenge/response. It's claimed that users are faster at responding to familiar logos, shortening the amount of time they spend proving that they are human. From the article: 'Rather than taking just a mere glance to figure out, recent studies show that a typical CAPTCHA takes, on average, 14 seconds to solve, with some taking much, much longer. Multiply that by the millions and millions of verifications per day, and Web users as a whole are wasting years and years of their lives just trying to prove they're not actually computers. This has led many companies to abandon the age-old system in favor of something not only more secure, but also easier to use for your average Webgoer: Ad-based verification, which can actually cut the time it takes to complete the task in half.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CAPTCHA Using Ad-Based Verification

Comments Filter:
  • Spyware (Score:5, Interesting)

    by matria (157464) on Friday February 22, 2013 @01:53AM (#42976441)
    I've examined a few of these "services". They keep track of who is using these things. Some of them even provide you with some of their data, such as a weekly or monthly report on how many people solved their question and how many failed. And some of them use cookies, allowing anybody to track your users.
  • Re:Spyware (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Friday February 22, 2013 @02:02AM (#42976493) Journal

    Nice catch.

    (shock, horror) I actually read The Article, and you're spot on about how thin it is.

    I don't know anymore. Maybe slashdot editors feel like they're under a gun to produce something/"anything" in the timeframe, but the cost to the readers of bad stories is growing. In other news sites I wouldn't care because we expect that drivel from some of them. But "news for *nerds" ... yes this matters, but aren't / weren't nerds the ones who dug into the details!? The ones who got thrown into the dumpster because we asked too many questions in class?

    Supposedly the raw code to slashdot is open, but I haven't once seen us fork slashdot to only include (fewer?) high quality stories. (Not saying someone didn't, just saying that this medium regular user never saw it.)

  • Re:Just ID computers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OhANameWhatName (2688401) on Friday February 22, 2013 @02:02AM (#42976497)
    It's a v.good idea, but how would that sell advertising?
  • by ksemlerK (610016) <kurtsemler@gma i l . c om> on Friday February 22, 2013 @02:10AM (#42976537) Homepage
    They are only trying this bullshit because of Adblock. If an advertisement is required to be used to solve a question, that renders Adblock completely useless, and will force people to view crap ads they have been able to block for ages now. If the internet becomes the ad-infested crap fest that I remember from the days before Adblock Plus, and Privox, I'll disconnect from it permanently. I'm not willing to endure a deluge of ads to enjoy a service that I'm already paying a pretty penny to receive,.
  • It's more than that (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2013 @03:01AM (#42976717)

    If a person hears or reads something that they don't like (e.g. an ad) their brain will often discard it immediately. But if you can make them say it, or in this case type it, they're more likely to remember it, and even start to believe it.

    This is, essentially, low-grade mind control.

  • Re: translation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2013 @05:03AM (#42977207)

    What about the folks who want their privacy and in NO WAY shape or form said it was ok to track every web site they go to, location, and more?

    And how about the security problems? Even Google gave out viruses in their ads just a couple of years ago. You think I trust strangers on the internet who want to push ads on me on pages I never wanted to begin with from doing searches? Most viruses are transmitted by online ads now.

    http://www.avast.com/en-us/pr-online-ads-put-web-users-at-risk
    http://www.spamfighter.com/News-8809-Online-Ads-%E2%80%93-New-Virus-Spreading-Tools-for-Hackers.htm

    So anyone not wanting someone begging you with flashing bright orange and letter colors, or showing half naked women trying to sell you something for erections, or jumping up and down like their screaming at you for your attention, or not wanting popup windows that have their own popup windows, then they are "leeches"? Ya right. You are a troll. That is the most illogical and ridiculous statement, and I am totally surprised that someone really defends obnoxious and irritating ads on websites. Not only that... you got angry about it. lol

    You, obviously, work for a company connected to the ad industry.

  • Re:more ads (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sockatume (732728) on Friday February 22, 2013 @06:27AM (#42977571)

    They also know that if you have to write down the name you're more likely to remember the brand. There's a lot of research right now in working around people's wonderful capacity to tune out commercials.

    (I think I saw a Microsoft patent for Kinect-based ads where you could skip the ad, but only by saying the product's name (or whatever).)

  • Re: translation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BasilBrush (643681) on Friday February 22, 2013 @08:10AM (#42978089)

    The sites you use decide what they put up.

    Lowest common denominator. The way so many things in the world turn to shit.

    In Sao Paolo they banned billboard advertising. Business wasn't damaged at all.

    In many cities and towns in Europe, advertising only allowed to be very low key, so that it doesn't spoil the look of the place. Especially so in historical locations. They still flourish.

    The only reason there's so much advertising on the internet is there's nothing to stop it. Bad practices induce worse practices.

    What does the purpose of the internet's creation have anything to do with the day someone asked 'who the hell is going to pay for all this'?

    Government pays for some of the internet. Consumers pay for some of the internet to their ISPs. Lots of content providers do it for fun. Lots of content providers do it because they want to spread their message, and that doesn't have to be third party advertising. If the internet wasn't an advertisers whorehouse, micropayments might take off for things that are worth paying for.

    Advertising doesn't have to ruin everything.

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...