The HEC is heavy - although you can change the size of the HEC and make it smaller. The HEC should only be on the form page (registration, forum submission etc) so it won't harm the user's experience too much.
I created the HEC because I used to get about 20 spam posts a day on my phpBB forums and other forms on my sites. I also read on many boards that this is a real problem. Since I started using HECs the spam amount went to 0.
Re:I failed to see how this'll help
on
HTML Encoded Captchas
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"so all a bot has to do is use a html renderer to turn it into a regular image that can be processed"
It's not that simple. Since the Captcha is no longer an image that you can download, the bot will first has to locate the position of the Captcha. The owner of the site can modify the layout of the page and Captcha making it unique. By rendering the image into HTML you practically modify to encoding of the image to a new and unique one - making it highly difficult to create a generic bot that will learn to decode all the HTML variations out there.
The problem today is with automated software that download the Captcha images from a pre-defined location (URL) and crack them. HECs makes it much harder to locate this resource.
Mouse labs that wanted the "New Cheese - Extra Holes" or chose the new "Super mouse Wheel" over the plain one, presents this gene, thus humans who present this specific gene suffer from Neophilia!
I remember the days before the release of XP SP2 - it was announced to be a security update that will make Win XP the most secured OS out there. Since then who can count the number of patches, updates and vulnerabilities. I wonder if it will be different with Vista...
The idea behind a patent is to be as vague as it can be but at the same time very specific! Sounds impossible? Well that's why a good patent costs a lot of money. The lawyers who write patents mission is to write something that will cover as much ground but on a specific quality of the product.
I think the problem isn't the trace. Many time websites of attackers are traceable, and also email address even the IP addresses. The law authorities don't give the spam, phishing and online crimes enough human resource and enough attention. I think that in their mind, if it's on the internet it's not a real crime.
I remember the MS vision of making light operating systems which are basically terminal computers and visualizing the OS with remote powerful servers. This way the user will pay monthly/yearly fees to use his computer. Upsides: OS is automatically upgrades with security patches and new features; Data is backed up and can be accessed from any computer. Downsides: Well basically the monthly payment and the fact the MS got your base;) I think many companies are looking for a way to monetize software by monthly or yearly fees - this can be their way...
Here it is from booble.com site: January 28, 2004
Dear Trademark Enforcement Team,
We are intellectual property counsel to Guywire, Inc. This letter responds to your e-mail message of January 20, 2004 to our client via domains by proxy.
As your communication recognizes, our client adopted and uses the BOOBLE and booble.com designations to parody the Google web site. Our client's web site is in fact a successful parody, which simultaneously brings to mind the original, while also conveying that it is not the original. See, e.g.,Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987) (finding no likelihood of confusion between LARDASHE for oversized jeans, despite its obvious similarity with, and parody of, the well-known JORDACHE mark for jeans). Cf. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding a domain name parody was unsuccessful because Internet users had to view the web site before they were able to discover that it was not the original). Obviously, the Booble web site brings to mind the Google web site, at the same time that it underscores its unique identity as a parodic adult search engine.
In trademark law, parody is a defense to trademark infringement. Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that a commercial advertisement of a well-known actor in a bunny outfit, banging a drum, was an effective parody of the plaintiff's mechanical toy rabbit advertising character). In the present case, consumers are highly unlikely to be confused as to the source of services for several reasons, including the following:
the domain names are entirely different; the BOOBLE web site searches only provide content related to Adult web sites, including TGP sites, Adult stores, and Adult-related products like browser cleaners, pop-up filters, etc.; and the BOOBLE mark is distinct from the GOOGLE mark in that it differs in sound, appearance, commercial impression, and other relevant aspects: it features a woman's chest; it uses the phrase, 'The Adult Search Engine;' it posts a warning that the web site contains explicit content; and it disclaims any association with Google.com.
Neither does the Booble trademark dilute Google's mark. First, the capacity of the GOOGLE mark to identify and distinguish its services is unchanged by Booble's use of its mark. See, e.g., Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 US 418 (2003) (requiring proof of actual dilution). In addition, Booble does not tarnish the Google mark. See, e.g., L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding that a sexually explicit parody of appellee's catalog did not constitute tarnishment). Moreover, Booble's web site is an adult search engine, not 'a pornographic site,' as referred to in your letter. In fact, entering the terms "porn" and "sex" in the Google search engine return 98,400,000 hits and 269,000,000 hits, respectively, while entering these same terms in the Booble adult search engine return 268 hits and 291 hits, respectively. Therefore, the Google mark - which has a longstanding association with pornographic terms and material - is obviously not tarnished.
In your letter, you refer to the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (holding that a commercial parody may qualify as a fair use and is not presumptively unfair). As you may have recognized, this is a copyright case. Although some analytic similarities exist between copyright and trademark parody cases, Google neither claims copyright infringement in its letter, nor is any relevant portion of its web site copyrightable. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that literal copying of a computer command hierarchy does not constitute copyright infringement because it is an uncopyrightable method of operation). Therefore, while we feel that Campbell adequately supports the legality of Booble's paro
Slashdot Mirror
The HEC is heavy - although you can change the size of the HEC and make it smaller.
The HEC should only be on the form page (registration, forum submission etc) so it won't harm the user's experience too much.
I created the HEC because I used to get about 20 spam posts a day on my phpBB forums and other forms on my sites. I also read on many boards that this is a real problem. Since I started using HECs the spam amount went to 0.
"so all a bot has to do is use a html renderer to turn it into a regular image that can be processed"
It's not that simple. Since the Captcha is no longer an image that you can download, the bot will first has to locate the position of the Captcha. The owner of the site can modify the layout of the page and Captcha making it unique. By rendering the image into HTML you practically modify to encoding of the image to a new and unique one - making it highly difficult to create a generic bot that will learn to decode all the HTML variations out there.
The problem today is with automated software that download the Captcha images from a pre-defined location (URL) and crack them. HECs makes it much harder to locate this resource.
Oh and everything is Crackable;)
Use Customize Google:
Customize Google For Internet Explorer
Customize Google For FireFox
Both will anonymize your google cookie, click tracking and much more.
Both are free open source projects.
I recommend my fiends and family to at least try firefox, regardless of any google/firefox incentive. Firefox is just a good browser - period.
Mouse labs that wanted the "New Cheese - Extra Holes" or chose the new "Super mouse Wheel" over the plain one, presents this gene, thus humans who present this specific gene suffer from Neophilia!
I remember the days before the release of XP SP2 - it was announced to be a security update that will make Win XP the most secured OS out there. Since then who can count the number of patches, updates and vulnerabilities. I wonder if it will be different with Vista...
The idea behind a patent is to be as vague as it can be but at the same time very specific! Sounds impossible? Well that's why a good patent costs a lot of money. The lawyers who write patents mission is to write something that will cover as much ground but on a specific quality of the product.
Cool!!! Can't wait for those charter flights to America on Boing Ornithopters... I wonder what kind of drinks they offer...
I think the problem isn't the trace. Many time websites of attackers are traceable, and also email address even the IP addresses. The law authorities don't give the spam, phishing and online crimes enough human resource and enough attention. I think that in their mind, if it's on the internet it's not a real crime.
I don't think you can do that.
:)
One red paperclip costs about 10 cents and a house cost much more... maybe 1000$
It doesn't make sense!
BUT, if you start a Blog, write some insightful post, get some traffic and ads, you might be able to buy a house without giving up your red paperclip.
I hope this post will be moded insightful
I remember the MS vision of making light operating systems which are basically terminal computers and visualizing the OS with remote powerful servers. This way the user will pay monthly/yearly fees to use his computer. Upsides: OS is automatically upgrades with security patches and new features; Data is backed up and can be accessed from any computer. Downsides: Well basically the monthly payment and the fact the MS got your base ;)
I think many companies are looking for a way to monetize software by monthly or yearly fees - this can be their way...
Is it just me or something wrong with the reply system of Slashdot - I see no replies for the last 5 stories...
Here it is from booble.com site:
January 28, 2004
Dear Trademark Enforcement Team,
We are intellectual property counsel to Guywire, Inc. This letter responds to your e-mail message of January 20, 2004 to our client via domains by proxy.
As your communication recognizes, our client adopted and uses the BOOBLE and booble.com designations to parody the Google web site. Our client's web site is in fact a successful parody, which simultaneously brings to mind the original, while also conveying that it is not the original. See, e.g.,Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987) (finding no likelihood of confusion between LARDASHE for oversized jeans, despite its obvious similarity with, and parody of, the well-known JORDACHE mark for jeans). Cf. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding a domain name parody was unsuccessful because Internet users had to view the web site before they were able to discover that it was not the original). Obviously, the Booble web site brings to mind the Google web site, at the same time that it underscores its unique identity as a parodic adult search engine.
In trademark law, parody is a defense to trademark infringement. Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that a commercial advertisement of a well-known actor in a bunny outfit, banging a drum, was an effective parody of the plaintiff's mechanical toy rabbit advertising character). In the present case, consumers are highly unlikely to be confused as to the source of services for several reasons, including the following:
the domain names are entirely different;
the BOOBLE web site searches only provide content related to Adult web sites, including TGP sites, Adult stores, and Adult-related products like browser cleaners, pop-up filters, etc.; and
the BOOBLE mark is distinct from the GOOGLE mark in that it differs in sound, appearance, commercial impression, and other relevant aspects:
it features a woman's chest;
it uses the phrase, 'The Adult Search Engine;'
it posts a warning that the web site contains explicit content; and
it disclaims any association with Google.com.
Neither does the Booble trademark dilute Google's mark. First, the capacity of the GOOGLE mark to identify and distinguish its services is unchanged by Booble's use of its mark. See, e.g., Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 US 418 (2003) (requiring proof of actual dilution). In addition, Booble does not tarnish the Google mark. See, e.g., L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding that a sexually explicit parody of appellee's catalog did not constitute tarnishment). Moreover, Booble's web site is an adult search engine, not 'a pornographic site,' as referred to in your letter. In fact, entering the terms "porn" and "sex" in the Google search engine return 98,400,000 hits and 269,000,000 hits, respectively, while entering these same terms in the Booble adult search engine return 268 hits and 291 hits, respectively. Therefore, the Google mark - which has a longstanding association with pornographic terms and material - is obviously not tarnished.
In your letter, you refer to the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (holding that a commercial parody may qualify as a fair use and is not presumptively unfair). As you may have recognized, this is a copyright case. Although some analytic similarities exist between copyright and trademark parody cases, Google neither claims copyright infringement in its letter, nor is any relevant portion of its web site copyrightable. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that literal copying of a computer command hierarchy does not constitute copyright infringement because it is an uncopyrightable method of operation). Therefore, while we feel that Campbell adequately supports the legality of Booble's paro