GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

dj_sniffy · 06-10-2003, 02:30 PM

In response to FarleyHiggins:

You are right in your statement that you have the right to monitor who comes to your site, and you can and should, block those that abuse your site and ban their IP.

As far as the big brother comment about using the info gleamed from your website and presenting it to a sponsor to determine what sponsors you are using, your traffic , etc... our sponsors don't get any of that information. The output of the use of sniffy is simply a red flag that points to one of their affiliates that has CP material. Nothing more. Now the broad analysis of data that you mentioned is very much like what banner companies like double click, gator, etc use to their advantage... we don't mine that kind of data. our db schema is looking at files and files only, we aren't into spying data analysis. if someone else is, then they will write their little scripts and do their own spidering of your websites.

Sniffy is indeed a commercial venture, but it's existance is not to create unfair competitive practices for sponsors, or to spy on a webmaster. It's purpose is to ensure compliance to a no-CP tolerance policy that a sponsor has put in place.

When you asked about what's going to keep us from being abusive with our data, in relying on our good name.. yes indeed, Lee Noga has a solid reputation in the industry and her own personal drive to remove CP. Yes, it is her integrity that is combined with technology (our low, low technology) that is a service that is meant to serve and to deter, not cause paranoia or division.

To your point about hackers wanting to steal our data, as with any computer that is connected to the internet, there is always that risk. our solution is what we deem necessary to protect the data (ie. database isn't internet connected). The images are deleted once they are validated, so on one hand, we could be the world's largest collection of adult content that some adult=content loving hacker would want to set his targets on us, but nothing here to see after it has been seen.

I understand your issues about using "hacker" tactics to access images. The only tactic so far, is to use the referer, but that's what all web browsers do anyways when retrieving images so it is legitimate.

I can certainly agree that any guerilla-vigilante style approaches will not justify the means. We already have the RIAA and MPAA trying to get congress to allow them to hack back at people, which in my opionin is riciculous to think that one illegal activity deserves another.

If a webmaster makes their content available for viewing via the web, then it is fair game for sniffy to retrieve, afterall, he acts just like a surfer, so it isn't fair to put up a discriminating stance. now if sniffy were causing you harm, and downloading your images every second and causing you to have server slow down, denial of service, etc... then i could certainly understand trying to proactive in shutting sniffy out. If that ever were to happen, then i would be the first one to deal with this out of control spider, but the way it is built, there is containment and not a viral spreading approach of jumping to each and every link....

If you feel that because you know a "non-surfer" is visiting your site, and indexing your images, and you feel some kind of invasion of property, then of course you are entitled to do what you think is right. But sniffy isn't intended nor designed nor implemented to cause damage.

i don't have any rebuttal for a webmaster's moral issue of wanting to block sniffy, not because they may be hiding something, but because of the principal... that would be your issue.

there are far more other websites to index, then worth a few hand full of paranoid webmasters to try to find hacking methods to get to their data.

i think the posts here have been great points, and i hope that Lee and i have answered them, afterall, this was the reason for the public forum to discuss our solution to a problem.

Given no chatter on the position about the problem, then maybe the problem is real and does exist, so now the analysis is on what solution or solutions will solve the problem.

There will be many solutions, all useful in their common goals. Sniffy is not the only way to do things, But if each of these efforts do their part, then the collective goal is achieved.

I believe there is little to be loss other than a few webmaster's moral ground issues, and a tremendous amount to be gained.

-dj

06-10-2003, 02:30 PM
dj_sniffy Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 47	In response to FarleyHiggins: You are right in your statement that you have the right to monitor who comes to your site, and you can and should, block those that abuse your site and ban their IP. As far as the big brother comment about using the info gleamed from your website and presenting it to a sponsor to determine what sponsors you are using, your traffic , etc... our sponsors don't get any of that information. The output of the use of sniffy is simply a red flag that points to one of their affiliates that has CP material. Nothing more. Now the broad analysis of data that you mentioned is very much like what banner companies like double click, gator, etc use to their advantage... we don't mine that kind of data. our db schema is looking at files and files only, we aren't into spying data analysis. if someone else is, then they will write their little scripts and do their own spidering of your websites. Sniffy is indeed a commercial venture, but it's existance is not to create unfair competitive practices for sponsors, or to spy on a webmaster. It's purpose is to ensure compliance to a no-CP tolerance policy that a sponsor has put in place. When you asked about what's going to keep us from being abusive with our data, in relying on our good name.. yes indeed, Lee Noga has a solid reputation in the industry and her own personal drive to remove CP. Yes, it is her integrity that is combined with technology (our low, low technology) that is a service that is meant to serve and to deter, not cause paranoia or division. To your point about hackers wanting to steal our data, as with any computer that is connected to the internet, there is always that risk. our solution is what we deem necessary to protect the data (ie. database isn't internet connected). The images are deleted once they are validated, so on one hand, we could be the world's largest collection of adult content that some adult=content loving hacker would want to set his targets on us, but nothing here to see after it has been seen. I understand your issues about using "hacker" tactics to access images. The only tactic so far, is to use the referer, but that's what all web browsers do anyways when retrieving images so it is legitimate. I can certainly agree that any guerilla-vigilante style approaches will not justify the means. We already have the RIAA and MPAA trying to get congress to allow them to hack back at people, which in my opionin is riciculous to think that one illegal activity deserves another. If a webmaster makes their content available for viewing via the web, then it is fair game for sniffy to retrieve, afterall, he acts just like a surfer, so it isn't fair to put up a discriminating stance. now if sniffy were causing you harm, and downloading your images every second and causing you to have server slow down, denial of service, etc... then i could certainly understand trying to proactive in shutting sniffy out. If that ever were to happen, then i would be the first one to deal with this out of control spider, but the way it is built, there is containment and not a viral spreading approach of jumping to each and every link.... If you feel that because you know a "non-surfer" is visiting your site, and indexing your images, and you feel some kind of invasion of property, then of course you are entitled to do what you think is right. But sniffy isn't intended nor designed nor implemented to cause damage. i don't have any rebuttal for a webmaster's moral issue of wanting to block sniffy, not because they may be hiding something, but because of the principal... that would be your issue. there are far more other websites to index, then worth a few hand full of paranoid webmasters to try to find hacking methods to get to their data. i think the posts here have been great points, and i hope that Lee and i have answered them, afterall, this was the reason for the public forum to discuss our solution to a problem. Given no chatter on the position about the problem, then maybe the problem is real and does exist, so now the analysis is on what solution or solutions will solve the problem. There will be many solutions, all useful in their common goals. Sniffy is not the only way to do things, But if each of these efforts do their part, then the collective goal is achieved. I believe there is little to be loss other than a few webmaster's moral ground issues, and a tremendous amount to be gained. -dj __________________ i can type, but i can't spel.