Please tick the box to confirm you are not a robot.

You do seem to have to turn Adblock off, at least for that page, since otherwise the google widget seems to get blocked, and sends back a null token to SS, who then deduce you are inhuman(e).

 ... of course you did.

Should we start a thread with screen shots of the pictures. We can make an album.

Perhaps we could start a 'can you solve this captcha' thread, which'd be much cheaper than the usual methods of hiving it off offshore. 8>.

Mostly correct, fingers are not required to use it.

SavingStream would presumably consider responding along these lines:

"1. the previous situation severely disadvantaged people with intellectual, learning or other impediments that led to them being unable to practically write fully automated tools for accessing the site, making it in practice impossible for them to use the secondary market at all. We take seriously the need to deal with a broad range of impediments, not solely those relating to movement or the traditionally considered physical limitations.
2. we would welcome any reports of issues from those with physical or other capability restrictions who find that the site is difficult to use, so we can consider how we might in future develop the site to assist. For example, on receipt of appropriate medical evidence we may be able to disable certain checks on an account by account basis if those checks in practice can be shown to produce a material disadvantage compared to alternative solutions such as having carers carry out the activity at the direction of the person with the restriction. We would, of course, have to carefully evaluate any accommodations to ensure that they did not provide an advantage vs those with other limitations."

Access for people with restrictions is an important issue but it is also necessary to consider the broad range of restrictions and how the current system has greatly improved accessibility for those who cannot respond within milliseconds.

James
SS would certainly not be so stupid to respond that way - were they to do so in this day and age, they'd be named and shamed on social media, and likely fall victim to some idiot hacker who wants to join Anonymous.

Of course, you were only being sarcastic, but the law is real, companies simply cannot ignore it.

Incidentally, all SS have done is change the method by which bots must work. Before, they could operate as standalone apps, but now they must operate from within a browser, and if nothing more than a box tick is required, then the usual suspects will be up and running again in no time. In fact, I'm inclined to think that there's already one bot working successfully. And shrapnel has certainly been changing hands, as if testing has begun on others.

sunspot , I think your understanding of the legislation is incorrect.  Have a look at my post on page four of this thread - p2pindependentforum.com/post/84923/thread .  Particularly point 1b, which is directly copied from the relevant legislation.  IMHO "proportional" and "legitimate" are the important words here.