Why do I have to verify that I am human for viewing my own account??

It's not your account. It's GGG's. If they ban it, your 'my account' will turn into an empty, meaningless push of the air.
So calm down and follow the security procedures GGG have in place for their accounts.

That verification helps keep out malicious bots that try & scrounge available data from your player profiles. Believe it or not, it actually works since humans & bots behave very differently when having to click that box.

The way a human moves their mouse is much more random than a computer could act. Additionally, cookies & browsing history create a clear picture whether the user is human or not.

I don't find seatbelts especially comfortable but I know why I put it on. :-)

"

xxanderr wrote:

It's not your account. It's GGG's. If they ban it, your 'my account' will turn into an empty, meaningless push of an air.

Dont know if this is serious or not but if it is: The account contains some of my personal data. According to GDPR (and similar) this is my data and not GGGs (GGG has limited rights on what to do with it unlike me) so I think its fair to call it my account. (And there are other obvious reasons for calling it "my account".)

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

That verification helps keep out malicious bots that try & scrounge available data from your player profiles.

This topic is about me viewing my account while I am logged in. So I totally dont see your point here.

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

Believe it or not,

I dont...

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

it actually works since humans & bots behave very differently when having to click that box.

No they dont. Computers behave exactly like humans if they have been programmed to behave so. Considering that all it takes is recording human mouse movements (etc) and using that as input this isnt "rocket science" either. Its a minor hurdle at best. How proficient and/or willing to put in such minor effort the "average" botter is I dont know though.

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

Additionally, cookies & browsing history create a clear picture whether the user is human or not.

Typically websites arent allowed to access these. At most their own cookies. And I dont see what that has to do with cloudflare "verify that I am human".

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

I don't find seatbelts especially comfortable but I know why I put it on. :-)

Seatbelts have a proper purpose/benefit. In addition the benefit of me using a seatbelt is for me to be more secure. So I suffer to make myself more secure. This is inherently balanced by me paying and gaining. Here its completely different: One side (GGG) makes others (users) suffer for their benefit. This is inherently imbalanced and thus (human nature) prone to be misused in such that the relation of cost vs benefit doesnt fit anymore.

Zrevnur, it's okay. You don't have to believe me. I guess you just never heard of what the Turing test is, and what CAPTCHA stands for. GGG uses Cloudflare's version and you are in luck, because they explain how it works so you don't have to take me at my word. :-)

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

Zrevnur, it's okay. You don't have to believe me.

I dont...

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

I guess you just never heard of what the Turing test is,

Wrong. (Also doesnt matter here because the Cloudflare test cant access much.)

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

and what CAPTCHA stands for.

Correct, I dont know. Doesnt matter though.

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

uses Cloudflare's version and you are in luck, because they explain how it works so you don't have to take me at my word. :-)

From your link:

"

they are far from foolproof.

You may have missed that part...

"

This reCAPTCHA test takes into account the movement of the user's cursor as it approaches the checkbox. Even the most direct motion by a human has some amount of randomness on the microscopic level: tiny unconscious movements that bots can't easily mimic.

This is blatantly misleading or false: Whatever the website sees is determined by the browser and whatever the browser does a bot can copy and use. So obviously its possible to exactly record/copy a human and use this recording for botting. (Whether they have counter algorithm for detecting copies I dont know. This would be the usual "arms race". Also dont know if this copy detection is legal (GDPR etc) as it would likely require some kind of recording to not be easy to counter.)

"

The reCAPTCHA also may assess the cookies stored by the browser on a user device and the device's history in order to tell if the user is likely to be a bot.

It can only access what the browser lets it see. And for my browser (Firefox) this can be parametrized. Most especially it cant see a "device history" or some such thing.

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

uses Cloudflare's version and you are in luck, because they explain how it works so you don't have to take me at my word. :-)

Just read the rest, there is exactly what this thread is about:

"

What are the drawbacks of using CAPTCHAs or reCAPTCHAs to stop bots?

Bad user experience: A CAPTCHA test can interrupt the flow of what users are trying to do, giving them a negative view of their experience on the web property, and leading to them abandoning the webpage altogether in some cases.

Not usable for visually impaired individuals: The problem with CAPTCHAs is that they rely on visual perception. This makes them nearly impossible, not just for people who are legally blind, but for anyone with seriously impaired vision.

These tests can be fooled by bots: As described above, CAPTCHAs are not fully bot-proof and shouldn't be relied upon for bot management.

Point of me commenting was some people saying "dont know what it's for."

I actually agree that it's inconvenient and annoying, you know? You are awfully defensive about anything that isn't a "+1, agreed" comment. Chill out, mate.

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

Point of me commenting was some people saying "dont know what it's for."

Yes but do we know what its for? You got this Cloudflare PR. They are company trying to sell something. We dont even have a statement from GGG. For all I know this could simply be an error in GGG web programming.

"

ArtCrusade wrote:

You are awfully defensive about anything that isn't a "+1, agreed" comment. Chill out, mate.

Not anyting. Just things I disagree with and which undermine my topic and which are presented as something "objective" or generally applicable or some such.

So something like "I dont have a problem with it and it doesnt bother me." I wouldnt have an issue. Its you talking about yourself. You can be bothered or not by something. Its your right and your deal.

But false/misrepresenting "objective" statements I often meticulously respond to. Like "Let me explain this to you ..." - this is implying superior (true objective) knowledge. I am very unlikely to let this stand in my topic if I disagree with it.

Well, facts are objective. When I state that Captcha is used to keep bots scrounging the internet for information out, there's nothing wrong with it.

You yourself state several falsities because indeed, most of your knowledge about Captcha seems to stem from the link that I provided you with. Just look at Google's Captcha solution and its capabilities if you want to learn more about it.

You can disagree with how someone interprets facts, or come to a different conclusion. However, I didn't make an argument for or against, I merely stated what it is and why it's there.

From what you have been saying you are not a tech person. However, you don't have to be one to learn some basic facts about Captcha and the internet is far and wide in case you don't 'trust' Cloudflare's own PR blurb. In fact I encourage you to. I think more people should learn how websites they visit every day work. :-)