Navigator logo

CAPTCHA Transcends and Everybody Wins

The internet is going to be a lot less annoying soon. Headlines like ‘Google has finally killed the CAPTCHA‘ give us a hint as to why. But these headlines don’t tell the full story — which is a shame, because the full story is kind of cool.

Yes, there is reason to celebrate. CAPTCHAs those boxes that force you to prove you’re human by clicking three pictures of an umbrella or typing out grainy text — are going away. But CAPTCHA is not dead — it just evolved. The latest version is completely invisible, but very much still there.

CAPTCHA, an acronym for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart will finally realize its original design, automating a test that determines if we’re human beings. CAPTCHA has learned from human behaviour so well, it no longer needs us to confirm our humanity, it assumes it. The latest version only serves the annoying quizzes to suspected bots.

Now that CAPTCHA automatically detects human interaction, the bot intended to protect against simulated human behavior is, in a way, closer to that perfect human simulation than the bots it was originally created to protect against, who are themselves trying to achieve an undetectable human simulation.

See? Kind of cool.

But why does this matter? And how does it work?

Unfortunately we can’t really know the how the new CAPTCHA works.. It doesn’t make sense for Google or any company making widely-used security programs to publicize how those programs work. Captcha exists because spam, virus, and all the ugly parts of the internet exist. Whether its preventing fake accounts from voting in online polls or blocking malware, there has been incentive to filter out unnatural website behaviour from genuine interactions, as long as the internet has been around.

All we know about this new phase of CAPTCHA is in this video. The latest version of rechaptcha, aptly named ‘Invisible Recaptcha’ uses ‘a combination of machine learning and advanced risk analysis that adapt to new and emerging threats’. My personal theory is that this has something to do with a recent search-engine algorithm update, nicknamed Fred. It’s too coincidental that the same week Google adjusts its criteria to penalize or reduce the search authority of blog-style sites with ‘low content value‘, it also unveils a breakthrough in separating genuine human interest from robotic simulation. Fred hit content farms, the places where black hat or unnatural linking techniques live. Basically, until a few days ago, it was possible to manufacture conditions that search search engines would mistake for actual user interest in a site, so that the site could eventually improve its position on results pages. Like with the new CAPTCHA, end-users never see search-engine algorithm updates when they happen, the search engine results just change. If Google can distinguish between human and bot behavior in links or searches, it is a small leap for the company to extend the technology to cover general browsing.

Many have also speculated that this would not be possible without the piles of data Google has been mining through its other projects. That’s also probably true. The company needs some kind of a baseline for how people really act online to pull something like this off. Of course this development probably brings us closer to that inevitable robot uprising, but why not give Google the benefit of the doubt for once? Sure, it’s a little bit suspicious that it blatantly repurposed the scanning technology it originally acquired to help digitize books for security or consumer research that borders on surveillance. But, CAPTCHAs were also really irritating; now they’re going away. Google keeps repeating ‘what’s good for the internet is good for Google’. This time, I’m inclined to agree with them. Not having to enter CAPTCHAs will make browsing better, which will indirectly encourage people to use Google services more often. Internet security supposedly improved. Everybody wins.

Re: The NDP leadership candidates


Randi and Stephen Ledrew discuss the NDP leadership race.

After the NDP leadership debate on the weekend, tune in to see Randi break down the latest with the NDP candidates; who does she predict has the necessary charisma and character to secure their spot as leader?

Aired on CP24, Mar 13, 2017.

Canadians divided on cash for access fundraisers

Cold comfort is the best the federal Liberals could take from polling numbers that suggest cash for access fundraisers are okay in the eyes of Canadians.

Forum’s findings indicate the biggest group of Canadians (41%) think it’s okay for cabinet ministers to attend as special guest fundraisers for their own political party, while a smaller group (36%) disagrees with the practice.

The results suggest a few things about Canadians’ perspective on the issue. First, while the Trudeau government’s approval ratings have begun to slip as their track record in power grows, they still enjoy decent support across the country. Canadians seem willing to view the fundraising issue through the lens of their perspective on the party’s performance. By contrast, the reaction of Ontarians towards the Wynne government’s similar fundraising methods have been much more negative.

The federal Liberals would be making a mistake to think they are okay on this.

The Liberals have tinkered with the rules around cash-for-access fundraisers, but they haven’t addressed the issue in a substantive manner. They certainly haven’t addressed the issue against the standard their own leader Justin Trudeau established for the party, when he told every minister in their mandate letters that ‘there should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties.’

The trend line around greater transparency and ethical standards is moving in one direction — up. Governments of all levels are more accountable and transparent in how they fundraise today than they were 20 years ago and they will be more accountable and transparent 20 years from today.

This issue does reflect some of the internal identity crisis the federal Liberals face. On one hand, the party attempts to project an image of being thoroughly modern and committed to innovation and better ways of operating. On the other hand, the party that vowed to reform our electoral system and bring a higher standard to government ethics, seems quite willing to hold on to the old parts of the system that serve them well.

Not to be overlooked in the Forum poll are the 24% who are undecided. I would expect their minds will be made up as they judge how well the Trudeau government continues to deliver on their behalf through the second half of its mandate.

Mike Van Soelen, Managing Principal at Navigator Ltd., is a public affairs specialist who has worked for conservative governments in Ontario and Ottawa.