Comment by bramhaag
17 hours ago
The requirements for the mobile devices are listed here: https://support.google.com/recaptcha/answer/16609652
So it seems that you will need a modern Android device with Google Play Services installed or a modern iPhone/iPad to be allowed to browse the web in the future.
No mention of device integrity verification yet, but the writing is on the wall.
> No mention of device integrity verification yet
If Google Play services is listed as a requirement, that implies that a "certified Android" device capable of Play Integrity attestation is required, since that's the only officially supported way to obtain Google Play services. On consumer-facing support articles like this, they don't tend to get into the nitty gritty details like what APIs are being used. If MEETS_DEVICE_INTEGRITY is required, that would probably not be explicitly listed here.
E.g. the consumer documentation for Google Pay just says you need a "certified" Android device and a screen lock set up: https://support.google.com/wallet/answer/12200245
(Yes, if you go deep into the FAQ at the end it eventually states that if you rooted your phone, you can't use tap to pay, but that requirement is implied by the certification requirement [1].)
In Google's eyes, and in the eyes of the law due to trademarks filed by Google, Android == Google Android.
This feature would make little sense if it's not using device attestation because otherwise it would be easy to spoof. I expect that it will initially not use it, and they will start A/B testing device attestation in the coming years.
[1] Expand "What to do if you see device is not certified" -> "Reset device to fix issue" https://support.google.com/android/answer/7165974
> I expect that it will initially not use it
it's boiling the frog method. Moving too fast means backlash, but a slow, step by step transition where each step seems reasonable, but ultimately end up with a locked down device, is how they aim to achieve it. And people would be too lazy to complain until the last few steps, by which time it would be too late.
Good metaphor. On the one hand, Google increasingly cooperates and makes deals with militaries and governments. On the other hand, it increasingly locks down its customers and eliminates their privacy and freedoms.
Google has just about got the pot boiling. They win, we lose.
>that implies that a "certified Android" device capable of Play Integrity attestation is required
No, it doesn't. It implies that the app for handling the deeplink lives within GMS as opposed to needing to manually install a separate app like you do on iOS. GMS does not have a hard dependency on device integrity APIs being supported.
They said "capable of Play Integrity attestation". It's a weasel statement. If you have GMS, you're capable of performing PIA attestation, you just might fail. So it's strictly true, but doesn't tell us anything about whether it requires PIA.
And you must be signed in.
I frequently get flagged as suspicious activity and have to pass a captcha when trying to use the Google verbatim search function on a signed out Firefox browser on android.
I get this all the time with Brave, and especially in Private Windows. It's the number one reason I don't use Google Search anymore. I've used Brave search for a while, what do you use? Do you have a way to prevent the captchas?
> And you must be signed in.
I don't see any mention of that? Google Play services work fine without an account (although if you're the kind of person who doesn't sign in to a Google account on their Android phone, you're probably running a custom ROM or something)
Until now, I have never run "a custom ROM or something", but just the Android that came from the phone vendors and its updates.
Nevertheless, I do not have a Google account and I do not intend to have such an account.
Of course, this means that I cannot install any app from the official Google store, even if it is a free app. The requirement to login into your Google account should have existed only for payments, not for downloading a free app, but nonetheless Google does not work this way.
I already had problems with a bank that has terminated its Web-based online service, replacing it with an app that they refuse to provide for downloading, so that I could install it without having to open a Google account. Therefore I have also terminated my accounts with that bank.
I hope that this behavior will not spread to all remaining banks that still have Web-based online access.
1 reply →
I get it all the time on my Mac with Safari using iCloud private relay
I will be unable to solve the phone verification because I use LineageOS for microG, but any fraudster can just buy a bunch of $30 android phones. Many people have trouble using a smartphone, so they use dumbphones, but they will be locked out. Many people just don't have any mobile phone because they don't think that it is useful.
Google is mostly interested in abuse that happens beyond the scale of how many $30 phones you can buy.
They're mostly interested in having a complete record of all users' internet activity tied uniquely to their identity.
I'm expecting a pretty hard identity verification requirement to connect to the internet, which should solve for the burner phone thing.
Google is interested in, like other tech companies, identifying users by tying them to their phones. Other ai defense companies are trying to get photos and IDs. This is just another take on the same subversive activity.
This is going to make my grapheneos journey a bit more exciting. How wild to force users through an official google identification for web browsing.
Does the iPhone recaptcha app force you to login with a Google account? Seems we didn't need ID verification for the web to lose all anonymity.
I'd rather have to do ID verification at a government site that gives out blindable RSA signatures to browse the web with using open source software, than this overseas tech company needing to lock down the whole device and tech stack and not have to 'show ID' at all. One of these two holds elections...
Music/movie corporations and game developers must look forward to an age where people can't access the cache files or hook up a debugger to their apps anymore
I guess history made us different. Personally I have reasons to be equally distrustful to anyone who wants to know too much about me, but much more afraid of my gov't than overseas entities.
16 replies →
I'd rather have no ID verification at all. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
1 reply →
one of these also rounds up people and sends them of to overseas concentration camps without due process. I think maybe white people still don't get what the rest of the world is living or experiencing.
One of them pretends to hold elections.
11 replies →
Sorry, I trust Google more than my government for my data. I mean I trust photos, youtube, music, gmail, wallet, keep, etc. what is that I have left anyway? It's sad that we started from open web, but we ended up in the hands of few. Apple/Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Amazon decide basically how I live my life. I don't want to (and sometimes I try to hard), but I don't want to give up the convenience also, but not only mine, also for my family is in the same pot.
2 replies →
I’m already sick and tired of seeing cloudflares “making sure you aren’t a bot” checkbox everywhere. Sometimes it locks me out entirely and decides I don’t get to view pages.
I see recaptcha less frequently but it’s much more annoying, with all the clicking of crosswalks, or busses, or whatever. I am not looking forward to a web where google can not only lock me out of my email, but also large sections of the previously public internet. Occasionally google decides I don’t get to do searches, and that’s not too much of an inconvenience, there are other search engines.
But what's the alternative? Sites need a way to prevent bots overwhelming them, and there's no perfect way to distinguish real users from bots.
What are "bots"?
If I use Claude to gather and summarize information for me, is that a "bot"? Because I recently hit that wall and it wasn't great. Turns out in our quest to fight "bots" we also force humans to do the manual labor of copy/pasting information.
Why would bots "overwhelm" a site is another discussion — I find it really hard to create a website that would be "overwhelmed" by traffic these days, computers are stupidly fast.
One alternative is to make simple, efficient, and where appropriate even static sites that can scale to meet the demand.
The HIBP hashes distribution is a great example.
2 replies →
The alternative would be tar traps that only a bot would “see” and interact with and thus be caught by. Default to annoying machines not people.
2 replies →
You're right, we need big tech to protect us from the problems big tech created.
In the olden 20th century, we had a term for that...
3 replies →
Whats your argument
mCaptcha, ALTCHA, Cap, Friendly Captcha, Private Captcha, Procaptcha, Anubis... there are literally dozens of open source alternatives that aren't feeding the Do Be Evil company... not to mention all of the commercial alternatives - if for whatever reason, you do feel like paying for a service that costs nothing to offer
2 replies →
Maybe ai companies should have invested any of those billions of dollars into safe and equitable ways of rolling out their new surveillance machines. Oh right that was never the point and this only serves to further that. Got it.
1 reply →
[dead]
reminder that any company which has a legal obligation towards you (GDPR requests, refunds, filling a complaint etc) can be contacted directly and forced to do it manually if you cannot use their web interface due to being blocked by Cloudflare & other captchas
"As part of our mission to enable a safe agentic web" drew an immediate swear from me.
What's happened here is yet another massive negative externality from AI. Because AI is such a fraud enabler, Google are now using that as an opportunity to end the open internet and competition in operating systems.
I'd much rather go the other way and make the AI wear identification. Crack down on both corporate and unlicensed AIs.
Edit: and of course it's also advertising killing the web, because the fraud in question is ad fraud. Need to force it into human eyeballs, not bots.
I believe you'll also need bluetooth enabled on both devices. At least you do for those "scan this QR code displayed on your computer to authenticate using the passkey on your phone" feature, which this seems analogous to. Bluetooth is used to ensure that the two devices are actually physically co-located.
My desktop doesn't have Bluetooth. Does this mean I'd be doomed even if I had a compatible mobile device?
I also disable Bluetooth on my phone every few months (and never enable it)... or at least after every CCC or such.
We might need to redo this whole Internet thing because this is insanity.
1 reply →
Yes. The technical name for this FIDO2 QR code flow is caBLE (Cloud Assisted Bluetooth Low Energy).
In a free market, the content provider is free to put whatever guardrails they feel appropriate. Loginwall, Paywall, CaptchaWall.
If you don't like that provider, you are free to pick another.
2 replies →
CTAP2 requires Bluetooth but I'm not seeing any mention of that protocol here? It wouldn't really solve the "are you a human" thing, because you can just implement your own CTAP2 protocol handler if you wanted to write a bot.
I think the phone will just do basic remote attestation and then do a POST request to Google. Still not exactly difficult to bypass for anyone with a dollar to throw at the click/ad fraud farms, though.
In passkeys the bluetooth is used for the actual authentication protocol...
Sometimes, sort of. Most passkey usage doesn’t involve bluetooth. When it does, there’s no real data being sent over bluetooth, just a meaningless hash that can be confirmed using a secret inside the QR code.
So really, it’s like I said, Bluetooth is used to make sure that the device consuming the QR code is actually near the device that’s displaying the QR code.
... or you'll need to stop using reCAPTCHA if you want to get any traffic on your Web site.
I know, people will slavishly knuckle under, but let me dream for a few minutes.
99.999% of people don't give a shit and don't even know what this means. They'll follow the instructions. These are the same 99.999% of people who press win+R ctrl+V enter when the captcha prompts them to. Because do this to see the dancing bunnies.
> press win+R ctrl+V
LOL is this real?
I guess yes, because yesterday ReCaptcha asked me to screenshot a QR-code with the mobilephone :-D
3 replies →
Yeah, this is going to turn into another malware vector, isn't it?
7 replies →
They will do exactly as it says while also ceaselessly complaining, completely unable to connect their choice to use a website with the pain of using that website.
There's some sort of serious issue with learned helplessness or something
2 replies →
I have blocked it for years with ublock origin, if a site doesn't work, ctrl-w. Nowadays i cannot even use google search because of this, any search will trigger a captcha, hilarious (atleast on chromium-based browsers, firefox lets me get a page or two).
Ditch Google Search as well then, use something like SearXNG or another meta-search engine. You'll get more representative results, no tracking and no captchas. Sometimes some of the engines may return captchas but they're kept from the search results, i.e. those engines don't get used for the query. You can run your own instance of SearXNG or one of the alternatives or use one of the available public instances, your choice. The fewer direct interactions with the likes of Google/Apple/Microsoft/etc. the better.
The thing is even a contact form without something like reCaptcha is doomed on today's web: spam all day.
If it's just a contact form on some random site that isn't particularly valuable to spammers, a bespoke solution like hidden input fields, obfuscation, or some kind of token calculated client-side by JS will probably work just as well.
> but the writing is on the wall.
Only if politicians are still corrupt and law enforcement doesn't work.
Which means the writing is on the wall.
No surprises here, though of course disappointment when it comes to fruition.
Do you have an alternate solution? When we hear so many stories from HN'ers of their websites being hammered by out-of-control crawling and fetching and new levels of AI slop spam?
This is something site owners choose to implement or not. They're the ones paying the extra hosting fees to handle potentially unwanted traffic, and dealing with spam that traditional CAPTCHA's are no longer effective against. Google's not forcing this on anyone else.
Investigate the anti-bot sellers.
[dead]
I've been saying for years that it does not make sense to browse the web on a smartphone. Eventually things will get bad enough that people will agree with me.
“On an infinite timescale, I’m eventually right, so it never makes sense to not heed my advice” is silly. We’re all going to die eventually so it’s not worth browsing the web on any device.
Smartphone is just a small computer. I don't see hiw what you say makes sense.
It's a small computer that I don't really control with a horrible UI, horrible privacy, and nothing but perverse incentives. ("download the app!")
7 replies →