Online shops that don't use captchas? (USA)

General security & privacy chat
#1
(This is not about the Purism shop)

Apparently, it is not necessary for a site to inform the user that captchas are used, not even in the privacy policy or terms of service agreement. I have been blocked numerous times now on sites when trying to place an order.

Here’s what happens:

  • add items to cart

  • proceed to checkout

  • input shipping and billing information

  • press button to place order

  • error message about failure to complete captcha

  • close tab

I check the privacy policy and terms of service for the sites using the Find in page feature, and there are absolutely no instances of the term “captcha” or anything similar (challenge, verify, human, bot, etc.). All instances of the term “google” mention advertising and analytics, nothing about captchas.

So I get to the very last step, after giving personal information, and then I am just not allowed to complete the purchase. I have also received emails from some of these sites informing me that I now have an account on the site. When I reply asking about the error message, I never get a reply back. So they get my personal information that they use however they want, and I get nothing.

Is anyone aware of a list of online shops that do not use captchas?

Obviously Purism does not require captcha completion, but what about non-tech shops? I have been trying to shop for clothes online for several months now with no luck.

Is it even possible anymore to buy clothes online in the USA without captchas?

1 Like
#2

I think I may have used this link before:

Recaptcha

1 Like
#3

That image actually looks like it was generated by a robot.

In all seriousness though, do you, or does anyone, know of any lists of sites that accept money as payment for clothes without the requirement to give phone numbers or do 3rd-party javascript-based captchas?

I can say from my own experience that Purism and Adafruit are great, but again, I am looking to buy clothes. This just seems insane to me that I can buy computers and accessories but not clothes. I could probably buy enough charging cables to hang myself, but I can’t buy a pair of socks to save my life! What the actual fuck?

#4

To be the bearer of bad news 2FA and captcha are a recent phenomenon that protects the merchant from fraud, ID and credit card theft. If I were an online merchant I’d probably be reprimanded by my accountant for not using either method.

There may be an odd vendor on ebay that will wait to ship until they receive a check. But then again eBay has its own capcha system. And again you don’t get underwear or socks on the used market, (or you shouldn’t anyway.)

I think the key word here is “online”.

You may have to get out of your abode and walk into a brick and mortar store. Most of them still take cash. Some of them get a kick out of the 2 dollar bills, 1 dollar coins, and 50 cent pieces I spend. Especially the clerks not yet out of high school, they’ll look at them carefully and call the manager. “Do we accept these!??” (There is also no spot in the cash drawer for them.) On the other hand old timers will get their purse and swap the 2 dollar bills for two 1 dollar bills. So they can give them to their grandkids. I get my 2 dollar bills from my credit union by the strap.

2 Likes
#5

I understand this, but I am interested in finding other companies like Purism that do not engage in this behavior. It is a risk for the company, for sure, but they otherwise lose my business forever and everyone else like me if they block us behind a captcha wall.

The most infuriating thing is the lack of any information in the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy informing of the use of captchas. Rather than attempt to make a purchase, only to be blocked, I am interested in knowing ahead of time if a business will serve me. I guess there is no one on this forum that knows of any such lists or is willing to share their own personal experiences with companies like Purism that do not engage in this behavior. That’s a shame.

1 Like
#6

As correlated: “The legal basis for the data processing is Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR”:

(f)  processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

Point (f) of the first subparagraph shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.
#7

See if you can fix the word wrap so we don’t have scroll right.

#8 
in particular where the data subject is a ...

IMHO, this wording looks like correlates to the fact that if/when I’m not using “their” communication device (with my purposely registered/chosen account) those think that I must be under prerequisite age, especially when I’d like to buy myself pair of additional socks in size of 10 and half (while I’m not some robot in question :wink: here), by using their auto-methodically based approach.