1

Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart, or captcha's, have become more common recently, in particular from cloudflare. If one used or distributed a browser plugin that solved the captcha automatically could one face any legal challenges?

Because of the the nature of the internet answers for any jurisdiction are welcome.

To clarify from the comments, when I say "browser plugin" I mean a tool optimised for a human user to navigate the web. This would be analogous to an ad blocker or auto-translator. It would allow the user to open multiple web pages at the same time, and the end page of each would be opened rather than having to complete a captcha for each. This is not the behaviour the designers of the web site intended.

Improve this question
5
  • 4
    As with every tool, it probably depends on the use. If you build it for visually impaired people to participate in the WWW, I don't think you will get sued. If you build it for a spammer, you might. Same thing as with a knife, cutting meat is fine, cutting people is not. It's hard to tell whether you will be at legal risk with a knife. Depends on what you do with it.
    – nvoigt
    Commented Jun 17 at 7:23
  • @nvoigt I have clarified what I mean by "browser plugin". Purpose in a software tool is even more ephemeral than with a knife.
    – User65535
    Commented Jun 17 at 7:51
  • "could there be a risk" is subjective and opinion based. In my opinion.
    – Michael Hall
    Commented Jun 17 at 14:33
  • @nvoigt The most popular captcha implementations have built-in sight-impaired support (you click on a button to get an audible captcha), so there shouldn't be a need for the plug-in. But your point is well taken: if there's an offense, it's by the user, not the creator of the plugin.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jun 17 at 15:32
  • 1
    The usual test for whether the creator of a tool has liability is whether the primary use of the tool is illegal. E.g. the DMCA says that it's illegal to distribute a tool whose primary purpose is to bypass copy protection. The Sony Betamax case hinged on whether the primary purpose of VCRs was to infringe copyright of TV broadcasts; SCOTUS decided that time-shifting is fair use, not infringement, so Sony could sell the devices.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jun 17 at 15:36

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .