Why does Lit use cookies? Why sextracker?

[KillerMuffin]

Do you think bandwidth is free? For 375,000 unique hits a day, and well over a million page hits a day? What about the servers the site is hosted on? Are those free? What about the electricity that powers the servers? Is that free? How about vBulletin itself? Is that free? What about scripts that they had to have someone program for them? Was that free?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, you're irretrievably stupid.


How does Lit pay for itself? Are Laurel and Manu independently wealthy? Other Lance "I wanna be site admin!" Castor, do you honestly expect L & M to pay for Lit out of pocket when most everyone one here wouldn't pay a dime for the service?

How does Lit pay for a bandwidth bill that's about three times bigger than the average litgoer's paycheck? Good looks? Donations? Your generosity?

You guessed it. Advertising! You know all those neato-burrito stories all over the place here? They have advertisements on the top of the page and the bottom of the page, right? Well, how do they know what to charge? How do they even know they have 375,000 unique hits a day?

You guessed it. Sextracker. Whenever you hit Lit, you're tracked so that L & M can sell the advertising that keeps this place running. You don't like it, no doubt. Think of it this way, if there were no advertisements, there would be no Literotica.

Why does Lit use cookies? Because they have to. Why does Lit advertise? Because they have to. Why does Lit use sextracker? Because they're a pornosite and most trackers have rules against them. Because sextracker is one of the largest and most reputable names in the porn side of the tracker business. Don't believe me, though. Type in "tracker" in Google and start doing a TOS search.

Why does Lance want you to distrust Laurel and Manu so much? Why does he keep saying that they're irresponsible and have no accountability? Why does he keep harping on "security" issues that are a fact of Internet commerce? Why does he have such a "vested" interest in a private--not public--website that he recently came to, made tons of enemies in right off the bat, and insults everyone for? Because he's a "good" person trying to "help" you out? He could have done that by doing a little search, just like I did, and found out exactly what Laurel has to say about sextracker.

"Sextracker is a counter service which serves banners as part of their counter. They use the same technology as Doubleclick, L-90, ValueClick, and every other major banner-serving network that I know of. If your counter doesn't use cookies, then it is not as accurate as it could be. The last time I checked, Hitbox, Webtrends, and every other major counter service also uses cookies.

All a cookie is, is a text file saved on your computer so that a website can tell who you are. For example, without cookies, you would have to log in to every single website you visit every time you visit them. In fact, many mainstream sites won't function at all anymore if you block their cookies.

Spyware, the way I understand the term, is a program (a cookie is NOT a program) which you must manually install on your computer - often as part of another program - which monitors your actions. I am paranoid of real Spyware myself. However, if you're trying to find any major website that doesn't use cookies in the year 2002, good luck and may the force be with you. "

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65818

Why does Lit use Sextracker and cookies? Because you don't pay an entrance fee.

 

[HeavyStick]

What kind of dog is that?


(P.S. I agree with your post)

 

[KillerMuffin]

3/4 chihuahua, 1/4 yorkie

 

[agezinder]

3/4 chihuahua, 1/4 yorkie

Cute doggie!

 

[Spinaroonie]

Thanks for posting my business model and all.

Thanks.

 

[HeavyStick]

3/4 chihuahua, 1/4 yorkie

TY, I got two long hair chihuahua's.

 

[sunstruck]

Why does Lance want you to distrust Laurel and Manu so much? Why does he keep saying that they're irresponsible and have no accountability? Why does he keep harping on "security" issues that are a fact of Internet commerce? Why does he have such a "vested" interest in a private--not public--website that he recently came to, made tons of enemies in right off the bat, and insults everyone for?

I've been wondering that for weeks now. Is he just a random troublemaker? Seems pretty consistant and one track about it.

I'd love to see him answer those questions.

 

[Guru]

 

[HeavyStick]

Re: Re: Why does Lit use cookies? Why sextracker?

I've been wondering that for weeks now. Is he just a random troublemaker? Seems pretty consistant and one track about it.

I'd love to see him answer those questions.

He knows those questions.

He's an attention whore, who likes the spotlight.

 

[sunstruck]

Yeah there's that. Won't last though. Paranoia is boring.

 

[Chicklet]

Luckily I think the majority of us trust and love Laurel and Manu for having this site, and for getting the advertising so that we don't have to pay out of the ass to use it.

THANK-YOU

Chicklet

 

[bluespoke]

Luckily I think the majority of us trust and love Laurel and Manu for having this site, and for getting the advertising so that we don't have to pay out of the ass to use it.

THANK-YOU

Chicklet

What she said!

 

[Draco]

I have to agree with the FREE part.

An easy way to avoid these dreaded cookies.

Go to the Forum Page and create a shortcut to it. (Bookmark it or Add it to your favourites list)
Close your browser then re-open it and select the new shortcut and load the page. That way, you get straight to the "Front-door" of the Lit Bulletin board, without having to go into any of the ADVERTISED pages. This way AVOIDS the SexTracker cookies. Only one you'll get is a LITEROTICA.COM cookie.

(These you can not avoid)

This only works if you only surf the Bulletin boards, if you read a story, or check your submissions or whatever, you'll get them cookies. As KM said, thats what pays for the services we all know and love.

I for one, like to extend a warm THANK YOU to Laurel and Manu for their, time, effort and the good work they do here. Where else but LIT would I have met such a bunch of freaks as you lot? (I mean this in a GOOD way)

 

[Guest]

 

[Cheyenne]

Good explanation, KM. I avoided Lance's cookie thread since I already knew all of that, but I assume he was true to form as usual.

I still think Lance is really unemployed so he can be here the 10 hours a day, 7 days a week average for months on end that Ishmael posted about in another thread. Maybe he is just bored and trying to cause trouble at Lit is his real entertainment in life. Sad, I know. But it takes all kinds, doesn't it?

 

[Ishmael]

Good explanation, KM. I avoided Lance's cookie thread since I already knew all of that, but I assume he was true to form as usual.

I still think Lance is really unemployed so he can be here the 10 hours a day, 7 days a week average for months on end that Ishmael posted about in another thread. Maybe he is just bored and trying to cause trouble at Lit is his real entertainment in life. Sad, I know. But it takes all kinds, doesn't it?

Maybe it's the internet equivalent of penis envy. He can't stand the thought that Laurels dick might be bigger than his. Just a thought.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

PS. As I pointed out when I posted the sextracker code in another thread, there are business reasons. Like perhaps the advertisers want to see if they're getting their monies worth? Seems to be the prudent thing to do don't you think?

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

The use of Spyware by Sextracker & Doubleclick is an interesting topic for discussion on an internet General Discussion Board linked to a circle of porn sites, I'd have thought.

Questions of Privacy, Disclosure, Identity Theft and Freedom struck me as quite topical.

Now granted, it's not as interesting for Muff, Ish & Chey to discuss as the topic of Sweet Wonderful Lance...but we can't talk about me me me all the time, kids.

Here's an older reprint of a good summary of the issues behind what became the Doubleclick case and the subsequent drafting of bills now before the House and Senate in the USA. As Muff says, Sextracker is the porno equivalent of Doubleclick and since Lit issues both cookies, it's a good issue for people to be aware of, I think.

Cheers

Lance








Brills Content, July 2000
DoubleClick watches Porn/Medical Sites
By Mark Boal


We all know by now that when we log on to the Internet and surf the World
Wide Web from the privacy of our homes, such privacy is largely an
illusion. After all, websites keep track of their visitors, bulletin-board
postings are archived, and even e-mail is not safe from prying eyes.


But the state of privacy on the Web may be worse than you imagine. A new
generation of technology is making it easier for marketers and Web hosts to
track us without our knowledge. Moreover, these tracking devices are
showing up in places where many people may be most sensitive about guarding
their privacy: pornography and medical sites.


I realized how hard it is to keep up with the rapidly changing online
privacy terrain when I paid a visit recently to Richard Smith, an expert on
computer privacy who prides himself on uncovering Internet practices he
considers abusive. Turns out even Smith was surprised by what we would
discover.


Smith was tutoring me on what you might call online countersurveillance,
giving me a lesson in how to watch the watchers on the Web. We were in his
of ce overlooking downtown Boston. Our laptops were on. On screen, we were
looking at a popular porn site called iFriends. We looked at the coding
that creates the page, when suddenly a line jumped out at Smith:


IMGSRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/activity;


src=104085;type=views;cat=ifdpge;ord= 00509100200118?"


WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1 BORDER=0


"It s a Web bug!" he exclaimed. Web bugs are the latest innovation in the
art of monitoring people moving through websites. They are computer code,
nearly identical in structure to the code for a picture or a banner ad.
Except they are invisible, due to that last line: WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1
BORDER=0. That describes an image one pixel wide and one pixel high, with
no border. (The period at the end of this sentence would be represented on
a typical screen as a four-pixel square.) A one-by-one pixel square can not
be seen by the naked eye.


Smith had found a Web bug, but what really struck him was that rst line of
code: IMGSRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/activity.


That clued him in to the fact that DoubleClick Inc., the most successful
Internet advertising agency, was collecting information about our visit to
a porn-related site.


DoubleClick is an online advertising agency that buys and places banner-ad
space for its clients. But it adds another layer of service, too it keeps
track of who views and clicks on those banners, and now, with Web bugs, it
can track people on pages without banner ads. DoubleClick s pioneering role
on the Internet has earned it the adoration of Wall Street, but the enmity
of privacy advocates, who are concerned that the company is building a
mammoth database that pro les people s lives on the Web in elaborate detail.


"In general, DoubleClick s whole strategy of tracking Internet users
invades the expectation of privacy people have when they re browsing," says
Andrew Shen, a policy analyst at the watchdog Electronic Privacy
Information Center. "But when you re talking about particularly sensitive
areas such as health or pornography sites, which are only accessed under
the assumption that the person s visit remains unknown, tracking is
especially objectionable. These are places where the preservation of
privacy is vital."


Indeed, DoubleClick s reach is so broad that even casual browsing in the
most sensitive corners of the Net leaves a data trail the company can
follow, as Smith and I discovered.


Head over to the search engine at the Internet portal Lycos, the
fth-most-popular destination on the Web in May, and type the word sex into
the query box. DoubleClick takes note. Or click on About.com, a site that
gathers many pages under one umbrella and is one of the Web s most popular
destinations, with about 4.4 million visitors in April. Thousands of sites
are listed under About.com s adult section, and DoubleClick has the ability
to monitor many of them.


Smith and I also discovered that DoubleClick operates Web bugs at
procrit.com, a site for the HIV-related drug Procrit, and that it monitors
mentalwellness.com, an online resource for schizophrenia. Both sites are
owned by Johnson & Johnson.


The question for privacy advocates is what does DoubleClick do with the
data it collects? Company of cials say emphatically that it won t link
information about an individual s website visits with his or her name. Yet
the sort of Web bug coding Smith found DoubleClick using on various porn
and health sites is ideally suited to linking a person s name to his or her
computer.


This use of Web bugs, also sometimes called transparent GIFs (for graphics
interchange format) seems to violate DoubleClick s own privacy pledge to be
"fully committed to offering online consumers notice about the collection
and use of personal information about them, and the choice not to
participate." (The italics are DoubleClick s.)


Jules Polonetsky, DoubleClick s chief privacy of cer and a former New York
City consumer-affairs commissioner, says the company s privacy policy was
"in no way" contradicted by DoubleClick s deployment of Web bugs, because
names are not linked to sensitive online activities such as health and porn
sites.


Polonetsky stresses that the company has "made a commitment that we won t
ever use sensitive information to target ads or to build a pro le,"
although he says that could change with the development of government
standards. In the meantime, he adds, it s the clients responsibility to
disclose DoubleClick s Web bugs. "All the sites we do business with," he
says, "we wish [them] to be as transparent as possible in explaining what
happens on their site."


However, none of the sites where we found Web bugs revealed that fact in
their privacy policies.


When asked about this, iFriends initially denied that DoubleClick had Web
bugs on the sensitive parts of the site. But when presented with a log le
showing that DoubleClick recorded a visit to a "girl-girl" fetish room,
labeled in the computer code as room "5," Allan Rogers, a company
spokesman, replied by e-mail, "While DoubleClick does indeed record, [it]
does not know that room 5 is equivalent to girls home alone." This
explanation comes down to saying that while DoubleClick collects the
information, it does not have the technical skill to understand it an
assertion that Smith and others nd hard to believe.


The other sites where Smith and I found Web bugs also downplayed their
privacy implications. A Johnson & Johnson spokesman says the information
gathered by Web bugs is used in-house to help the company re ne and manage
its sites. Consumers have nothing to worry about because DoubleClick is
contractually prohibited from using the information for any other purpose,
says the spokesman, Josh McKeegan. "The contract that Doubleclick signed
with us speci cally stipulates that they won t use it for any of the
purposes which have gotten them into trouble which is tying the aggregate
data to speci c cookies. That is speci cally banned within our contract,"
says McKeegan.


Similarly, John Caplan, general manager of About.com, acknowledges that
DoubleClick collects data on About.com users, but said "DoubleClick does
not have the right to use any data it has on About.com users in any way.
They serve our ads that s it."


But critics note that DoubleClick s deal with its clients could change and
it could acquire the right to disseminate data it currently collects.
Moreover, a subpoena in a divorce proceeding, a warrant from a law
enforcement agency, a malicious hacker, a mistake on DoubleClick s part to
name just a few scenarios could drag DoubleClick s les into public view.


And regardless of who uses the data under which circumstances, the practice
of covert data collection violates standards of online privacy endorsed by
the Federal Trade Commission and by the industry-supported watchdog group
TRUSTe. These guidelines specify that data-mining ought to occur only when
the user is fully informed, and individuals are given some control over the
information gathered about them.


One popular medical site, drkoop.com, took these concerns so seriously that
in March it severed a long-standing relationship with DoubleClick. "We had
a lot of concerns. There was also a perception problem," explains Laura
Hicks, a spokeswoman for drkoop.com. "So we made a decision...that for the
protection of our consumers, we would not use any third-party ad networks."


For many privacy advocates, the very existence of Web bugs and the data
collection they facilitate constitute an invasion of privacy, leaving aside
questions about how that information could be disseminated. Think of a
Peeping Tom who installs a video camera in a clothing-store dressing room.
Even if he never views the footage, the people captured on lm will feel
invaded.


"It s unacceptable for DoubleClick to be monitoring people s movements
without their consent," says privacy advocate Jason Catlett, of the
Junkbusters Corp., a group that opposes the proliferation of commercial
messages. "If they tried this in the physical world it would be like having
men in white coats standing outside X-rated movie theaters taking down your
license plate number."


Catlett is particularly concerned about the lack of disclosure at porn
sites, but a lawsuit led against DoubleClick in California alleges that the
rm s deployment of Web bugs at a great many sites is a violation of
consumer-protection statutes. The class-action suit, led in January by San
Rafael, California, lawyer Ira Rothken, seeks an injunction to force
DoubleClick to stop data mining via Web bugs and to give people a chance to
see their dossiers.


"If DoubleClick doesn t change their strategy of attempting to tie name and
address information with private click stream data...it will have a
chilling effect on all Web users no one will take risks in viewing
sensitive sites, and Web users First Amendment rights will be impaired,"
Rothken says.


While the suit has garnered little press attention, it is being closely
watched by privacy groups. If the case gets to the discovery stage,
DoubleClick could be forced to reveal the business deals and strategy
behind its data warehousing, and the nature of the les it has gathered on
millions of Californians. That, in turn, could open the rm to a host of new
questions that the lawsuit raises. What is in the log les? How far back do
they go? Do they contain every website you or I have ever visited on the
DoubleClick network? When asked for a response to these questions, a
company spokeswoman repeated DoubleClick s assurances that it is
"absolutely committed to protecting the privacy of all Internet users."


Why would a Wall Street darling like DoubleClick get involved in monitoring
porn sites and health sites at the risk of alienating privacy advocates
even more? To answer that we need to rewind to 1996. That was when Kevin O
Connor founded the rm, with the idea of cashing in on the rush to all
things e. Back then, companies were curious about advertising online, but
few knew how to navigate the Web. It was unpredictable and chaotic, and
choosing the right advertising format was like throwing darts blindfolded.


DoubleClick simpli ed the task by gathering hundreds of the most popular
sites in a network and then offering the ability to place banner ads across
all, or some, of the network. The idea t the times like


a latex glove. The Fortune 500 turned their ad accounts over to
DoubleClick, and soon it became the one-stop shop for online ads.


Today, DoubleClick s client roster reads like a who s who of corporate
America. The company places ads on websites for AT&T, CBS, Ford Motor
Company, Motorola, Inc., and hundreds of others. And its revenue is up
sharply; in the rst quarter of this year, it took in $110 million, a 179
percent increase over the same period last year, according to the company.


Every month, DoubleClick places 50 billion banner ads across its network,
which the company says covers about half of the Internet s total traf c. As
the company s annual report boasts, "Move your mouse over any ad on the
Web, and there s a good chance you ll see ad.doubleclick.net at the bottom
of your browser window. DoubleClick didn t create the ad, but we did place
it there."


And all of those ads are automatically monitored; DoubleClick gauges their
effectiveness by tracking the number of people who click on them versus the
number who view them. This so-called click-through rate is a metric only
the Internet can offer, and it is the argument for why online advertising
is more precise than TV, print, or radio advertising.


But click-through tracking yields another dividend, too. As DoubleClick
quickly discovered after it began marketing the service, click-through
technology opens the door to tracking individuals as they move from one
site to another. If you can track whether someone clicks on one ad, why not
track whether the same person clicks on any ad in a given network? Why not
see exactly what an individual does online, where she goes, what she buys?


It s no wonder that from the start, privacy advocates objected to such
tracking, but DoubleClick and other rms in the online marketing world
pressed ahead. To make the tracking work, DoubleClick used cookie les.
Cookies are random number strings like ngerprints that identify one
computer to another. As you visit a page with a DoubleClick ad, the company
places a cookie on your computer. After that, DoubleClick can track your
movements through its network even if you do not click on its banner ads.


And now, with Web bugs, DoubleClick can track you even when there are no
banner ads on a page. And if you make a purchase or ll out a questionnaire
on a site with a DoubleClick ad, the rm will more than likely collect that
information from the Web bug and link it to your cookie.


Last year, DoubleClick tried to take the next step, and link its cookie les
with actual names and identities. It merged with the consumer-database rm
Abacus Direct, and announced a new division designed to create elaborate
pro les of more than 90 percent of American households. The plan attracted
an army of critics, including privacy advocates, who said DoubleClick would
usher in a new age of surveillance. The Federal Trade Commission began
investigating the company; investors, who got skittish, started to dump
DoubleClick stock.


When the blows and bad PR had cost DoubleClick half its market value, CEO O
Connor backpedaled. "I made a mistake," he said. O Connor pledged to delay
the database until there was "agreement between government and industry on
privacy standards."


Despite its public disavowals, DoubleClick nevertheless continues to lay
the groundwork for the database by collecting vast amounts of information
about where people go online. And the news that they are employing their
invisible tracking devices on health and porn sites could cause them new
political, public relations, and legal woes. The FTC has asked Congress for
more authority to sue companies who are in violation of consumer privacy,
although Congress is not expected to enact new laws anytime soon.


If DoubleClick ever chooses to merge the data from the Web bugs and cookie
les with its existing consumer dossiers, it will create a database of
unprecedented depth. The rm will not only have purchasing history and
demographic information of some 100 million Americans at its ngertips, but
also information about their sexual preferences and health conditions. For
now, the records are not merged. But they lie there on servers, waiting. e

















_________________________________

 

[Beebeeblue]

Cookies arent too bad. They taste good with milk.



I think the real question should be:


Why dont we all have Lance on ignore?

 

[Lancecastor]

Amazing how Lance extracted this complex rant from KM.


KM the Lit Sheriff who gets her orders from 'above'

Why doesn't Laurel post this in her own name?


Seems as though Laurel has been quiet round here lately.

Muffie is Lit's director of Pubic Relations.

And neither she nor Ish nor Chey are capable of refuting my discussion points...because I'm right.

So, as always, they attack me instead.

Simpletons.



Lance

 

[Freya]

Cookies arent too bad. They taste good with milk.



I think the real question should be:


Why dont we all have Lance on ignore?

No kidding. Especially since he's so boring and everything.

 

[Purrde Flower]

How many people just scrolled down Lance's post and didn't read it because it was too long and the subject has been explained already.

 

[bknight2602]

KM I agree with you and it is up to the individuals on the board how the information can/is used.

 

[Lancecastor]

it is up to the individuals on the board how the information can/is used.

As Wierd Harold & Ishmael said "caveat emptor"....let the buyer beware, is the rule of the day on the unregulated Internet.

This means ask questions and don't blindly trust what people taking and housing your transcripts and personal information tell you.

In this respect, while I respect Killer Muffin's (and others') loyalty to Laurel & Manu...all should understand there is no disrespect in asking the questions and providing authoritative discussion links in support of increasing awareness...particularly when Laurel & Manu have been silent on the matter and have no Privacy Policy posted on the site addressing third party access to cookie profiling techniques.

However, it is not completely up to individuals on the board how our information is used...for the simple reason that Laurel & Manu have and control information about us.

I don't see that as a particularly provokative or emotional statement...that's just the way it is.

If others continually speak on behalf of Laurel & Manu to attack me for pointing out the facts regarding issues that affect all of us, I suggest that you not only question my motivations....but those of the people who resort to personal attacks in the "discussion" without speaking to the facts as well.

My posts stand on their facts...facts gathered from reputable, fully disclosed news and advocacy groups.

Let's see some facts in response....shall we?

Lance

 

[Rubyfruit]

Let's see some facts in response....shall we?

The blue eye gene is recessive. Two are required to make a blue-eyed baby. Brown is dominant. If there is one brown gene and one blue gene present, brown will win.

There are only two eye color genes, blue and brown. Green and hazel and grey and every other color are simply a mixture of the two.