>Because it's a computer that automatically does it. That's the entire problem here. Humans are not in the loop, except collecting the paychecks.

I don't see how "Humans are not in the loop" is a relevant factor for whether something is a "criminal enterprise" or not. Humans are often not in the loop in approving loans/credit cards either. That doesn't make equifax a "criminal enterprise" for blocking you from getting a loan because you can't pass a credit check. Even in jurisdictions with laws against automated decision making by computers, you can only seek human redress in specific circumstances (eg. when applying for credit), not for whether a website blocked you for being a suspected bot or not

>I need to go to a coffee shop and use an entirely different computer to trick cloudflare into letting me order parts on digikey. And I must repeat that my work computer is doing absolutely nothing interesting. My job and livelihood depend on this.

1. At least looking at the response headers, digikey.com is served by akamai, not cloudflare

2. I can visit the site just fine on commercial VPN providers. Maybe there's something extra sus about your connection/browser, but I find it hard to believe that you have to resort to getting a separate computer and making a 10 minute trek to visit a site

3. like it or not, neither cloudflare nor digikey has any obligation to serve you. They can deny you service for any reason they want, except for a very small list of exceptions (eg. race or disability). "browser/configuration looks weird" is an entirely valid reason, and them denying you service on that basis doesn't mean cloudflare is running a "protection racket".

>What about an edge case like 'using your bone stock phone to visit a site once'?

that's clearly not an edge case

>What about all the poor suckers that installed an app that loaded legal software designed specifically to use their phone's connection for scraping a la brightdata? Residential proxies are big business.

That's a false negative, not a false positive. Maybe the site operator has a right of action against cloudflare for not doing their job against such actors, but you have no standing when you're blocked and they're not.

>Yes. Their entire business model is "we have a magic crystal ball that only stops 'the wrong people'™ from your website".

And do they actually claim 100% accuracy?

>They quite literally don't have that agency.

They can go with another anti-bot vendor. Competitors such as imperva or ddos-guard use similar techniques because it's the state of the art when it comes to bot detection.

>This goes back to "define bot". There are zero websites that would want to block me from making purchases from them and yet that is exactly the result in the end. I had to change vendors for a five figure order because I was up against a deadline and couldn't get around the cloudflare block from my office, and the vendor had closed for the night so I couldn't call them and bypass the whole mess.

>Afterwards we spent nearly a week trying to figure out how to let me buy from them again and they were willing to keep going back and forth with CF on my behalf but I was over it and not going to spend any more time. Now I'm using the non-CF vendor to their disappointment. So much for agency.

I'm sorry this happened to you, but any anti-fraud/bot system is going to have false negatives and false positives. For every privacy conscious person that's making a legitimate purchase using TOR browser and delivering to a different shipping address, there's 10 other fraudsters with the same profile trying to scam the site. This is an extreme example, but neither the business or cloudflare has any obligation to serve you.

>Good for you? I have a bone-stock computer on its own connection just to try to work around this BS and yet I still sometimes get an infinite loop where the checkbox never goes away.

What OS/browser (and versions of both) are you using?

>When I have my VPN to our euro office on I am 100% unable to access CF sites whatsoever. Been that way for as long as I can remember.

sounds like their residential proxy detection (that you were asking about earlier) is working as intended then :^)