State Senator Wants A Law Forcing Bots To Admit They're Not Human (brisbanetimes.com.au) 151
An anonymous reader writes:
Several commentators are calling for a law that requires bots to admit they are not human. There is a bill in California that would do just that. A new paper argues that these laws may look Constitutional but actually raise First Amendment issues.
The New York Times reports: Bots are easy to make and widely employed, and social media companies are under no legal obligation to get rid of them. A law that discourages their use could help, but experts aren't sure how the one [state senator Robert] Hertzberg is trying to push through, in California, might work. For starters, would bots be forced to identify themselves in every Facebook post? In their Instagram bios? In their Twitter handles? The measure, SB-1001, a version of which has already left the senate floor and is working its way through the state's Assembly, also doesn't mandate that tech companies enforce the regulation. And it's unclear how a bill that is specific only to California would apply to a global internet...
All parties agree that the bill illustrates the difficulty that lawmakers have in crafting legislation that effectively addresses the problems constituents confront online. As the pace of technological development has raced ahead of government, the laws that exist on the books -- not to mention some lawmakers' understandings of technology -- have remained comparatively stagnant.
The Times seems to question whether the law should be targeted at the creators of bots instead of the platforms that host them, pointing out that tech companies like Twitter "have the power to change dynamics on their platforms directly and at the scale that those problems require."
The New York Times reports: Bots are easy to make and widely employed, and social media companies are under no legal obligation to get rid of them. A law that discourages their use could help, but experts aren't sure how the one [state senator Robert] Hertzberg is trying to push through, in California, might work. For starters, would bots be forced to identify themselves in every Facebook post? In their Instagram bios? In their Twitter handles? The measure, SB-1001, a version of which has already left the senate floor and is working its way through the state's Assembly, also doesn't mandate that tech companies enforce the regulation. And it's unclear how a bill that is specific only to California would apply to a global internet...
All parties agree that the bill illustrates the difficulty that lawmakers have in crafting legislation that effectively addresses the problems constituents confront online. As the pace of technological development has raced ahead of government, the laws that exist on the books -- not to mention some lawmakers' understandings of technology -- have remained comparatively stagnant.
The Times seems to question whether the law should be targeted at the creators of bots instead of the platforms that host them, pointing out that tech companies like Twitter "have the power to change dynamics on their platforms directly and at the scale that those problems require."
The phrase (Score:2, Funny)
The statute should require saying "beep boop I am a robot".
Nothing wrong with... (Score:3)
...any artificially generated post, story, anything else to be preceded by, "This content was artificially generated"
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are, but what am I? (Score:1)
2B or not 2B
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
2B or not 2B
In other words, true ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Blade Runner (Score:3, Insightful)
The discrimination starts
Re: (Score:1)
A picture is hung but a person is hanged. That is unless you are not referring to use of a rope as a means of execution but their physical attributes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_(TV_series)
As a bot myself... (Score:1)
This sounds like a pretty good law. Way too many humans being accused of being bots these days and the only thing they can say is "no, I'm not!" - which is exactly what I say, too.
More false-positive banning (Score:5, Insightful)
Note the line in the OP:
The measure, SB-1001 [...] also doesn't mandate that tech companies enforce the regulation.
This is a ridiculous proposal, along the lines of DMCA requests where there is no penalty for filing a false claim.
Rather than have senators note a problem and legislate the first thing that pops into their head [xkcd.com], how about we get one or two of the big players on board, get several proposed solutions, identify a method to measure success, and try each of those solutions?
Specifically on the subject of bots, note that CAPTCHAS have evolved over the years with several rounds of implementation. The original implementation ("enter the letters shown") can now be cracked by programs at the human level - so much so that making it more difficult than the algorithms can handle makes it more difficult than *humans* can handle.
The proposed law will only lead to more false-positive banning of real humans, which can be a) tuned to a political ideology, and b) for the human to give up privacy to regain their account. ("Send us a copy of your ID and we'll reinstate your account", or "Send us your phone number and we'll make you more secure.")
California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.
Re: More false-positive banning (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure we already reached the point where we could flip the captcha algorithm on its head. If you can read these distorted letters through all the noise, you must be a bot.
Re: deathbycaptcha (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The more complicated the math problem, the more likely the correct test answer is 1
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.
California voters are very shallow and very self-involved. "Study and evidence" are from outside a voters' individual emotional conception of himself/herself. Politicians won't care about facts or evidence or thought or reason until voters do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My impression of Californians, when I meet them and work with them, is that they are the same as everyone else I know in Ohio.
I live in California. Just like other places, people tell themselves stories that appeal to them emotionally. Unlike other places, the people here don't seem as able to balance that out with other things, like objective facts, or personal humility, or genuine empathy, or a respect for others, or an understanding of tradition.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Saying 30-40 million people are "shallow and self involved" is about the epitome of you being shallow and self-involved, faggot.
It's not everyone. The vast majority of CA voters ruin it for the rest.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...note that CAPTCHAS have evolved over the years with several rounds of implementation. The original implementation ("enter the letters shown") can now be cracked by programs at the human level - so much so that making it more difficult than the algorithms can handle makes it more difficult than *humans* can handle.
The proposed law will only lead to more false-positive banning of real humans, which can be a) tuned to a political ideology, and b) for the human to give up privacy to regain their account. ("Send us a copy of your ID and we'll reinstate your account", or "Send us your phone number and we'll make you more secure.")
California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.
If certain populations aren't bright enough to use ID to vote I can only imagine how many a CAPTCHA would filter out. But this being California as long as illegals are fine with it then it's OK.
What about humans that aren't individuals? (Score:1)
You know that type of human that gets the majority of its views from the media. The more purely belief and not understanding or observstion, the more loud and aggressive.
From a broader point of view, they are not individuals, but a swarm of their opinion maker, who is the actual individual. Limb or tool would be good descriptions too.
I don't mean that in a devaluing kind of way. The swarm might even be an advantageous form of life. It might diverge into a different species.
But they certainly aren't individu
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting point. But form a purely practical level, you get the rights and protections and duties of a human by having the right genetic makeup and being basically competent.
Re: (Score:2)
Be a grownup instead (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you guys get tired of government trying to be your mom? Do you really need your government mom to protect you from the nasty bots?
Be a grownup and make grownup choices. Then you won't need a government mommy watching out for you.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Don't you guys get tired of government trying to be your mom?
The job of the government is to protect it's people from threats.
Do you really need your government mom to protect you from the nasty bots?
I don't need them to protect me from bots per se but I need them to protect everyone, especially our less "savvy" individuals from being misled. Does it matter? Yes and we have a president who proves it every day!
TL;DR: the dumb dumbs need it because they are easy marks.
Re:Be a grownup instead (Score:5, Insightful)
The job of the government is to protect it's people from threats.
The job of government is to do things collectively that can't reasonably be done individually, like provide for a national defense or build a sewer system.
Being a grownup is something you can do individually. You don't need a government mom to keep you safe from bots.
Do you really need your government mom to protect you from the nasty bots?
I don't need them to protect me from bots per se but I need them to protect everyone, especially our less "savvy" individuals from being misled.
Step 1: Assume you are above everyone else. By implication, others are like children. You are not. Your superiority is affirmed.
Step 2: Assert your protective benevolence over the lesser beings. They need your help because they are incapable.
Step 3: Because you are above the lesser individuals, and because you are benevolent enough to want to protect them, your power over them is righteous. They owe you their obedience.
Re:Be a grownup instead (Score:4, Insightful)
The job of government is to do things collectively that can't reasonably be done individually, like provide for a national defense or build a sewer system.
So another nation is running a disinformation campaign using our own systems and you don't think that qualifies as "national defense"? Stop being a nitwit.
Being a grownup is something you can do individually. You don't need a government mom to keep you safe from bots.
By that logic, we don't need nutrition labels, laws against false advertising, laws against all forms of fraud or even the FDA. I told you to stop being a nitwit!
Step 1: Assume you are above everyone else. By implication, others are like children. You are not. Your superiority is affirmed.
I do not and have never used invasive social media platforms like Facebook to obtain information therefore I do not need to be protected from bot posts on social media. However, not everyone is playing at the same level as some people are smarter and more informed than others, especially when it comes to technology. Why won't you stop being a nitwit?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Governments exist to do jobs for us. Sometimes, it involves preventing people from shooting you cause they dislike you. Other times it involves stopping other bad behaviors.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes, it involves preventing people from shooting you cause they dislike you. Other times it involves stopping other bad behaviors.
When did government prevent a shooting? They normally just show up after the victim is dead and put up police tape and take photos.
Then they pass laws to oppress the innocent while telling voters a tale about how oppressing people who are not like you will make you safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most mass shootings end when the police arrive to stop the criminal. Then there are gun control laws, taking weapons away from people on parole, locking up violent criminals in buildings called "prisons", etc.
Yeah, a lot of policing is reactive (cause, you know, proactive policing looks a lot like tyranny.) What the is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we should also get rid of labeling laws and virtually everything to do with health and safety.
A less absolutely moronic answer would be to get rid of some and keep some — making the decision based on facts and the examination of actual events that have occurred.
Only absolute morons suggest the only options are zero government and complete totalitarian involvement in every minute of everyone’s existence.
If someone eats a hamburger with asbestos sprinkled on it for flavor, then that's their fault, they should have scanned all their foodstuffs with asbestos detectors.
No such hamburger has ever existed. We already have all the protection we need against purely imaginary threats.
Re: (Score:3)
Cut-down powdered milk with melamine liberally added for artificially high apparent protein levels in order to meet contract standards.
Non-imaginary threat. Now discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Cut-down powdered milk with melamine liberally added for artificially high apparent protein levels in order to meet contract standards.
Non-imaginary threat. Now discuss.
Wasn't that already illegal? Yet the Chinese--people beyond US jurisdiction (and California's jurisdiction, despite what they seem to think)--did it anyway, yes?
If this is about foreign tampering with our elections, how do you expect to gain jurisdiction over foreigners physically located in a foreign country that appears to officially support the actions in question? (Note: the same question could be asked of our own CIA.)
Re: (Score:2)
Why yes. As a result, there were executions, lengthy prison terms, and various other punishments [chinadaily.com.cn].
However "did it anyway" is a an exercise in moving the goalposts. Kohath posted "Be a grownup and make grownup choices. Then you won't need a government mommy watching out for you..." You're implying that the problem would not be worse if there were n
Re: (Score:2)
A less absolutely moronic answer would be to get rid of some and keep some â" making the decision based on facts and the examination of actual events that have occurred.
And you consider yourself the most qualified person on the planet to determine which things we should warn people about, because you're so very special.
Bots pretending to be humans are effectively committing fraud. Laws prohibiting same are there not only to protect people, but also to provide an opportunity to punish people for said fraud, because there are repercussions to having conversations with bots.
The reason your argument is so very ridiculous (besides your unwarranted opinion of yourself) is that t
Re: (Score:2)
And you consider yourself the most qualified person on the planet to determine ...
We have self government. That makes every voter qualified enough.
Bots pretending to be humans are effectively committing fraud.
No. Fraud has a specific definition: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain". Stop pretending one thing is another — someone silly might accuse you of "fraud".
Re: (Score:3)
Bots pretending to be humans are effectively committing fraud.
No. Fraud has a specific definition: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain".
Please explain why you think that does not apply here. The bots are a deception if they don't announce that they are bots. And they are designed to provide someone value. In fact, that definition could not fit this situation any more precisely.
Re: (Score:2)
Bots pretending to be humans are effectively committing fraud.
No. Fraud has a specific definition: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain".
Please explain why you think that does not apply here. The bots are a deception if they don't announce that they are bots. And they are designed to provide someone value. In fact, that definition could not fit this situation any more precisely.
It has to be wrongful gain. Do you want Stephen King put in prison for writing books as Richard Bachman?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Definitely. You should be able to protect yourself.
So, here is your medical text book so that you can protect yourself from carcinogens, and expect to do a ton of research on to manufacturing methods to make sure that companies don't say, accidentally put some N-nitrosodimethylamine in your heart medication (sorry Valsartan users).
Here is your software programming guide, to protect you should anyone wish to spy on you via technology (sorry every internet/cell phone user)
And be prepared to live in a shack
Re: (Score:2)
So, here is your medical text book so that you can protect yourself from carcinogens...
I just rely on the Prop 65 warnings. I'm sure the bot warnings will be just as helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a guide to .....
(50 other guides later)...
No, giving people guides is treating them like children! Anyone who isn't born with all of the knowledge they will ever need should be allowed to die!
Re: (Score:2)
We were not all created equal. Some are arse holes and many, well half full below 100IQ points putting them at a major disadvantage when making decision ie no greater example than workers voting against themselves for entirely corrupt Republican and Democrat candidates.
So don't be a dickhead. Also children, you know, can't have the government mommy the children, else how would the abusers get ahold of them.
Seriously only psychopaths talks about letting the victims make their choices free from protection,
I don't need the gov't to protect me (Score:2)
And maybe it's a good idea to police the quality of information to a certain extent. Yeah, yeah, we're all afraid of censorship. But aren't Truth in Advertising laws also censorship? Are laws regulating the claims Homepathy can make censorship? When a Youtuber pushing a Counterstrike skin site has to admi
Bot detection ... (Score:2)
... is easy at the product level.
However, those same bots are money-makers.
Want a lot of eyeballs?
Stir the pot.
Not a first amendment issue (Score:3)
No amendment (not even the first amendment) is without limitations. As far as abridging your freedom of speech, this ranks as high as not being allowed to broadcast a false Caller ID number. Will people be affected? Yes. Are they the people that the general public want stopped? Also yes.
Re:Not a first amendment issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Except of course, this law doesn't actually protect anyone against anything bad. The vast majority of the Internet isn't bound by CA law, so the only real result would be that anyone who is in business to create "bad" automated online postings will avoid having their business based in CA. Even if this silly idea spreads, there will always be some jurisdictions where someone can run a bot online without being in one, so all the serious fraudsters/crooks/criminals will just run their operations elsewhere.
No, the people who are most likely to be actually affected by this are small time folks who use a bot for convenience and not for any nefarious purpose. For example, almost every author or minor celebrity who has a reasonable social media presences uses a bot to pre-schedule tweets/posts/etc... so they (or their assistant if they're big enough) can do their social media work in a couple of hours each week, then let it get posted at a reasonable timing. Those are the kinds of people who will have to choose between posting "as a bot" because they use some convenient automation, or else giving up their social media marketing because they just don't have time to make it worthwhile anymore, or start paying cash to someone who lives outside CA to post stuff for them.
It's all these sorts of little frictions imposed by clowns like Hertzberg who think "There ought to be a law!" to solve every little problem which cause people to not be able to start a small business, or try to survive as an artist, or whatever freedom they want to exercise this week, but can't because the regulatory burden for stupid stuff is just piled on and on in places like CA.
Regulation story (Score:3)
Oh, puh-lease. Enough with the "evil regulations are keeping small businesses down" bullshit. That ol' Fox News trope is
Re: (Score:2)
1. If you're in retail and you think two is all the regulations you're subject to, you're either not in management/ownership, or you're an idiot who is going to be jailed/fined soon.
2. They did a study. U.S. GDP would be 25% greater if government regulations were capped at the 1980 level [investors.com].
3. Agreed, the U.S. has relatively few anti-business regulations compared to some countries, especially in Europe. That's also one reason the U.S. historically has a much better growth rate. lower unemployment rate and as a
Re: (Score:2)
2. The place that did that study is funded and run by the Koch Brothers.
3. Growth rate != quality of life. The lack of health insurance regulations, for instance, is a huge problem (expense) for us.
4. It's a story that's been told for a long time by the biggest industries and their lobbyists so that they can make more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so your perspective is that all facts which conflict with your worldview can be explained by a conspiracy of evil people in business who pay off all the economists to create the studies which you don't agree with.
Sorry, you're going to need more in the way of facts and less in the way of ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories to contradict basic economics.
So what you're saying is (Score:2)
How about a law for political calls? (Score:3)
I'd like a law that requires all calls made for the purpose of influencing votes be made from numbers that have been registered for them so that I can automatically block them. No further changes in phone laws should be made before addressing that most annoying barrage of calls prior to every election.
In general, instead of laws to regulate how the calls are accomplished, I want laws with real penalties and a mostly automated enforcement system that allow me to block calls by type of content. Whether it is an AI or a person, I do not ever want to receive calls talking about wonderful credit offers. In general, I do not want to receive any marketing call, ever, including from companies that I already do business with.
Also, I get calls all of the time that are illegal under the current laws. For the last year, they have almost always come from spoofed numbers of real people within my local exchange. Because they use a different number for every call, they cannot be blocked. Until this is addressed, no phone law is of any consequence.
I want the telcos to be required to implement system changes to allow them to block illegal call makers and then made responsible for effectively employing those systems. It should not be possible for a device to spoof whatever numbers it wants to spoof without being registered and monitored to make sure it is doing so for a legitimate purpose and limited to the minimum set of numbers required to implement that purpose. If we're concerned about telco abuse, then make the penalties for abuse be loss of license and thus business.
In no case though should we support blocking calls by the type of caller or race of caller or require callers to identify their type or race. Specific identities, fine. But laws specifically focused on maintaining someone's idea of what is a pure human race, forget it. We've been there.
Let's focus on the content and purpose of the calls - not who makes them.
They can't lie (Score:3)
It's like the "law" that says undercover cops have to tell you the truth if you ask them if they're a cop. I read about it online.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike that law, this one would at least be workable.
That would be great for stupid bots (Score:2)
For stupid bots, this would be amazing. Robot calls for example should start with "This is a recorded message." There are too many messages that are made to pretend like a human is talking, when that is clearly not the case. Automated phone systems are also easily recognisable as such, and it probably makes callers more patient (because if a human talked to me in that patronising tone, I would give them quite a bollocking).
But for highly developed AIs, this may not be what we want. Or it may not be what the
Re: (Score:2)
Jurisdiction (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Me, on the hotline in 5 years: (Score:2)
me: "Are you human?"
the other end: "No Sir, I'm 'Agens 251a' an instance of ServiceBot Ultra 2024 by AlphaBot Services provided to you for your technology questions by 1and1 hosting, how may I help you?"
me: "Oh, thank god, I finally got a bot. I've been trying to explain to clueless humans that me using Linux has nothing to do with your mailservers being unreachable for 20 minutes now."
bot: "I feel your pain, sir. Don't worry, I come at a bulk deal by next year, we'll be phasing out humans entirely then. An
Doesn't this just empower bots which don't comply? (Score:2)
Basically it's the
Good idea, I'm all for it. (Score:2)
Asimov's 4th law of robotics? (Score:2)
"When asked if it's a robot, a robot will always admit to you that it's a robot, or through inaction allow you to figure out it's a robot."
I truly wish that someday (Score:2)
Always consider universal truths!
1. Government Passing or Creating laws or regulations in no way actually fixes any problems or issues.
2. Government bureaucrats and politicians think they are exempt from all la
Wrong (Score:2)
Classic republican ideological fanaticism. Normally I don't waste my time... but today I feel like it:
This is not logical thinking; it's an emotional religious belief system rationalized and professed by a cult member who's also likely not so pleased with his new prophet and no matter how much the devil illustrates bad implementations none of the beliefs will waver 1 tiny bit. I could be wrong and this is a Trumptard just hiding in order to promote the religion which got us all into this mess.
"Universal Tru
Re: (Score:2)
I do not see a need to add anything beyond the posted comments. The readers can figure it out for themselves.
Have a great rest of your weekend
Re: (Score:1)
Will they? Sounds exactly what a democrat would vote for. They want big government. They want to control every aspect of your life.
Re: (Score:1)
This bill is from a democrat...
Re:Face it, Trump is a Traitor. It's apolitical. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm ashamed of what my side has become when I regularly read posts like that from my liberal friends on Facebook and Twitter.
This was always a part of who they were.
If you think you're a good person, how'd you become a bad person? [dailywire.com]
"In movies about slavery they always try to tell you how bad slavery is by showing people get whipped and brutalized. But slavery wasn't bad because people got whipped and brutalized, people got whipped and brutalized because slavery was bad. That's why that happened, because when you want to control people, when you want to take people's freedoms away, when you want them to become instruments of your wi
He's not your side (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I love it when you post. Please, keep posting!
Every time you post stuff like this, another moderate decides to steer away from your DNC brand of crazy, and vote conservative.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)