Can't agree on number 4 that invented captcha's. I saw that talk and he talks how annoying captcha was and how re-captcha would be so much better because it is actually used for a purpose. There is one word they know the meaning of and they use your translation of the word that they don't know the meaning of.
It's just horrible that in a time of great motivation that they still try to push a security issue to the end user. And for me they made it even worse with re-captcha because now you have to type 2 words.
A solution would be to know which is a computer and which is a real user, it's not impossible to do so.
"A solution would be to know which is a computer and which is a real user, it's not impossible to do so."
It seems like you have revolutionary knowledge that could change the course of human history. Or you're just trolling. Since you are not pointing to any actual approaches and hundreds of thousands of engineers have not yet come up with what to you is just "a solution" that doesn't even require further specification, I will go with trolling.
Figuring out remotely whether you are dealing with "a human" without any interaction (or, particularly, interaction less than a captcha, or even -gasp!- a two word captcha) is very definitely impossible. Think about it - how do you know whether it's a human? Well, you say, the black box device that he is sitting at has made sure that he is! And how does that machine transmit data to you? Over that data line that this supposed human is sitting right next... I guess you will see where I'm going with this.
It's just horrible that in a time of great motivation that they still try to push a security issue to the end user. And for me they made it even worse with re-captcha because now you have to type 2 words.
A solution would be to know which is a computer and which is a real user, it's not impossible to do so.