Most mass scrapers, on the other hand, simply grab the raw HTML underneath. ShieldFont exploits this difference through an automated process called OpenType glyph substitution.
That said, because the whole defense rests on scrapers reading code rather than screens, taking a screenshot of a shielded page and running OCR on the image can still recover the real words.
Screen readers used by blind readers also work from the code, so they read the decoys aloud. ShieldFont ships with a beta feature that provides those readers with the real text instead.
You must log in or register to comment.
10 hourslol anus bi
(love Anubis, have it fronting my client’s websites)
- shirasho@feddit.onlineEnglish1 day
Protection through obfuscation is not real protection. This has been an ongoing thing in the security world and is especially relevant for software. All obfuscation does is protect you from script kiddies (which AI isnt) and make the actual process slower for legitimate users. Like all DRM it only really hurts the people legitimately using your software.
- cley_faye@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
A terrible idea that will hinder everyone and not serve it’s original purpose in a flash.
- anything that parse the page is broken, this includes screen reader, but also indexing, searching, and people that replace fonts locally for accessibility or other reasons
- the “solution” for accessibility is pure trash
- it can be trivially detected and reversed. I suspect LLM would be incredibly better at adapting to this than anything done manually too
It’s basically a kid playing with “encrypshun” client-side, giving both the cipher and the key to the client and hoping it’ll work. Or, as other put it, DRM that don’t work for any of its original purpose, but create an additional layer of complexity and missing features, a common trend in modern projects.
Speaking of flash, serving your content in Flash keeps scrapers at bay
/hj don’t do that, it does work though!
If this gets any adoption, it will work for about a week, after which scrapers will just detect the font, and do a reverse lookup of its mapping table.
Ironic that the repo of the font is also AI slop. If the author had asked any competent person how viable the solution is, instead of a sycophantic AI, they would have just gotten a laugh instead.
Thinking more about it, even if the mapping would be generated dynamically (let’s say you could generate them secretly on your server), the scraper could just parse the font file and reverse lookup the words.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish1 day
And if you ask an AI to be critical, it’ll also tell you why this is useless lol.
- 1 day
Nah. Gregg Shorthand Anniversary Edition is practically indecipherable to AI.
It uses human intuition heavily.
Per the article, yes:
Screen readers used by blind readers also work from the code, so they read the decoys aloud.
But:
ShieldFont ships with a beta feature that provides those readers with the real text instead.
- ViatorOmnium@piefed.socialEnglish1 day
ShieldFont ships with a beta feature that provides those readers with the real text instead.
AI scrappers will just pretend to be screen readers then.
And if the approach becomes popular they will just OCR the text instead.
- Zarobi@aussie.zoneEnglish1 day
Per the GitHub:
Accessibility layer:
<Shield>hides protected regions from assistive tech and ships ana11yprop that renders a real alternative beside them —mode: "text"puts your words in the page encrypted behind a time-lock puzzle the reader’s browser opens (no link for a scraper to follow, no artifact for you to host), ormode: "audio"points at a recording you make. What remains: NVDA and JAWS verification (VoiceOver is done by hand, Windows is not), the focus indicator a sighted keyboard user loses to an invisible control, and the non-React tiers shipping none of it.In summary, they have two ways to get around this.
- By default, blind people are fucked as usual. Most everything is unusable via screen reader just due to the way modern websites are designed.
- Audio mode pre-records an audio file of your text, and plays that, bypassing the screen reader. This is extremely horrible UX for screen readers, for anything more complicated than a wall of text, but at least it’s something.
- Text mode will do some sort of computational challenge, using CPU on the blind person’s machine for a few seconds, then revealing the original unmolested text. Assuming this works properly, because screen readers are extremely fragile beasts.
Sounds like an overly convoluted way to do exactly what Anubis does…
- Zarobi@aussie.zoneEnglish1 day
Yeah, if you care about screen reader users, functionally it’s just “Anubis but worse”. Unfortunately, most people don’t care, so for them and all visual users, it has the benefit of no additional “load time” computational check — the page appears instantly without the Anubis step. Though I’m not sure how long it takes the page to do the de-scrambling.
The primary purpose of this project is to mutilate your HTML so bots can’t scrape it, rather than preventing bot traffic in the first place. The screen reader stuff is a bolt-on.
- cley_faye@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Unfortunately, most people don’t care
There are laws about accessibility, at least for public websites, and probably for larger websites as they have such a large audience that disability can’t be ignored (as much).
- Zarobi@aussie.zoneEnglish1 day
In my experience, those laws aren’t followed much in reality. The biggest sites, sure, but most smaller sites are a mess under the hood. As long as something is “technically usable”, even if very awkward and annoying, it’s often hard to sue or anything like that. Maybe it’s different in other countries though, I live in Australia.
Next time you use a website, try only using your keyboard to navigate it and accomplish your task, and you’ll see what I mean. It’s a rough test of how much they value accessibility. For example, many websites disable the border around what you’re highlighting, so you have no idea what the tab button is about to click. Or popup windows don’t actually change your tab selection, so you have to tab through literally the entire page in the background to get to the popup window. Stuff like that; technically usable but annoying as hell.
- cley_faye@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
AI scrappers will just pretend to be screen readers then
There’s a fair chance they’re already doing that. It provides better insight on the content, less formatting to handle, and even visual stuff gets text alternatives.
- Sims@lemmy.mlEnglish1 day
It is also very easy to detect surprising text by looking at the perplexity levels by feeding it to a very small model. If there’s a problem, OCR/‘screen read’ it instead…
- cley_faye@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
screen reader, SEO, indexation, in page search, etc.
Basically, it breaks everything except people… unless they block/substitute fonts for accessibility reasons, in which case fuck people too.
This is a terrible idea, and it won’t even achieve it’s original “purpose” as it is trivially detectable. Only negatives in this.
- T156@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Presumably the AI scraper would also have OCR, and would sidestep things like this?
- sudo@programming.devEnglish2 days
A scraper has many more ways around something like sheildfont than just OCR. The question will be if it was actually programmed to check for such measures.
- gex@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Yes, the decoy text is marked aria-hidden, so it won’t be read out loud. The real text is sent to the browser encrypted, and the decryption process takes ~20 seconds, roughly the same as running ocr.
- ren@reddthat.comEnglish1 day
I bet you could even get some foaming-at-the-mouth anti-AI activists to endorse Israel’s right to resist if Israel decides to ban all AI. Worth a thought, Bibi.
- Rothe@piefed.socialEnglish1 day
What a laughable strawman from a coglover. On the contrary LLM lovers will happily give money to techbro oligarchs who directly supports Trump and Israel. They will also eagerly burn down the planet just for the sake of some sloppy code.
- Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish1 day
Clanker wankers will invent just about anything to convince others they are correct. Just like their sloppy overlords.
I want to follow that project. The only thing that I don’t like is how heavily reliant the person who runs the github is on AI-gen
Normally, I don’t really care about it because I know that it’s something that is just a part of the industry now, but they’re using it even on their responses to people on the issue requests, and it’s to the point where it’s hurting my head trying to read it due to how drawn out and detailed it ends up being.
It’s really hard to follow along a project where something as simple as someone opening an issue about how it doesn’t work with screen readers turns into a multi paragraph essay about the project and possibilities on how it works.
White knights already complain about screen readers being too stupid to interpret Thorns, while simultaneously claiming Thorns don’t fool AI because it’s trivial for software to replace it. ¯\(ツ)/¯
I can’t imagine þe sort of hate I’d get from using homography.
- ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
Both things are true. I don’t understand why you think thats a gotcha of some kind.
- AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
If the underlying text says one thing but the font makes it appear to say something else, which version does the author own the copyright to?
- ViatorOmnium@piefed.socialEnglish1 day
The human readable text. Copyright applies to the actual content not to how it’s stored or encoded.
Who cares if gibberish text is copyrighted? Putting your work in a funky text doesn’t make what you wrote no longer copyrighted.
- AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Say someone else takes the visual result of the font’s output and re-posts it as plain text.
If anyone searches for that text, their version will come up as the first (and only) published version. Anyone who tries to reference it will cite their version instead of yours. You’d have to convince the court that a clearly different text you published earlier is really the same thing, as long as you view it with a special font that magically transforms it into the text you’re trying to claim—the judge would just as likely think you’re a copyright troll.
I’m not sure who told you posting things online is how you prove copyright, but it’s not.
- Aqivex@fedinsfw.appEnglish1 day
You entirely sidestepped the scenario and issue. In the example given, the copyrighted work is being produced directly onto a medium that obfuscates its provenance, literally. Yet, gives an opening for another to publish it in such a way, that they could claim it’s their copyrighted work. They would be lying, and they would be wrong, but then you would have to prove to a body composed of ancient mummies who uphold an ancient code, why one of the few ways they thought they understood technology and codified into their verification process, isn’t actually showing them the truth this time. Do you know how to defend a copyright claim?
they really cooked with that video, got me more excited than with most trailers
- 1 day
Learn shorthand. AI can’t read it. Gregg Shorthand Anniversary Edition is practically indecipherable to AI. And it allows you to write at up to 300 wpm.
- 1 day
The problem with that is that shorthand relies a lot on abbreviations: B = Be or By. But, at the end of a word, it can be ble, like tab. J can be J, or -age. A uses a single dot. So does -ing.
Because of that, I’m curious whether it would catch on or not.
