Political parties drop cookies on you, study your behavior, and then tailor their ( []spam, []spin, or []message -- choose one) to suit.

If you wonder why the EU took the anti-cookie position in the sweeping new EU e-privacy directive this has to be one reason for it ...

Quote:

The campaigns have planted software known as cookies on voters’ computers to see if they frequent evangelical or erotic Web sites for clues to their moral perspectives. Voters who visit religious Web sites might be greeted with religion-friendly messages when they return to mittromney.com or barackobama.com. The campaigns’ consultants have run experiments to determine if embarrassing someone for not voting by sending letters to their neighbors or posting their voting histories online is effective. “I’ve had half-a-dozen conversations with third parties who are wondering if this is the year to start shaming,” said one consultant who works closely with Democratic organizations. “Obama can’t do it. But the ‘super PACs’ are anonymous. They don’t have to put anything on the flier to let the voter know who to blame.” While the campaigns say they do not buy data that they consider intrusive, the Democratic and Republican National Committees combined have spent at least $13 million this year on data acquisition and related services. The parties have paid companies like Acxiom, Experian or Equifax, which are currently subjects of Congressional scrutiny over privacy concerns. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/us...anted=all&_r=0

On the bright side -- I don't have these asshats calling me on the phone ... (VOIP unlisted?) Have you noticed any effects? Will they start using Skype to solicit in 2016?

Quote:

Originally Posted by potter Cookies cannot see what other websites you have visited. They cannot track your browser history. How can misinformation like this be posted on a webmaster forum.

How amusing ... "They cannot track your browser history." You are kidding right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808 Speaking of strange things on websites, did you see this thread, Barry? "I just discovered that when i visit www.xlovecam.com it automatically opens scoopers.com. Any webmaster promoting them did noticed that? Do you think it is ok?" https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1087727

Yeah I saw it. It's just an advertisement to a non-competitive website, non-competitive to us or anyone affiliated with us. I can't see why it would really matter considering how common traffic networks are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signupdamnit Because it's like stealing. Your affiliates aren't sending you traffic so that you can make money on other ventures or sell that traffic to others. They are sending you the traffic with good faith that you will honestly try to convert it in a direct manner. If you want to do stuff like this then start paying your affiliates per impression or per unique. At the very least the ethical thing to do is to send out a mailer admitting that you are doing this. Suddenly sneaking it in there without notice is crap and is part of the reason why many affiliates are leaving the industry. Even if it hurts affiliate conversions by 5% that can be significant. It's also the principle of the matter. If you do this what else are you doing? What's next? It's like catching a thief.

The affiliate link is loaded there is no redirect. A customer can just close the pop-up and continue on

Well, even if actually harmed our own conversions from AdWords and traffic that we buy -- it would be significant. Fact is, it has not negatively affected our purchased traffic sales conversion rates nor our affiliate referrals or payouts for xlovecam.com last month.

So, I'll pass along your response for its due consideration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z Cookies have been the boogie man of internet security over the past several years. Non-techies hear the word TRACKING and just freak out. No website can access your internet history without planting an illegal trojan horse to send personal data from your computer back to them.

Browsing history not the local browser file -- I didn't take that reply literally and if it was meant so then it is not true.

To Name some common tracking cookies:

24/7 Media
Audience Science
ChartBeat
Clickability Beacon
Disqus
DoubleClick DART
Dynamic Logic
Facebook Connect
Facebook Social Plugins
Google +1
Google Analytics
Gravity Insights
InsightExpress
Lotame
NetRatings SiteCensus
Omniture
Outbrain
ScoreCard Research Beacon
ShareThis
Taboola
Twitter Badge
Twitter Button
Visual Revenue

I got these blocked on 2 news sites in the USA.

Many of the the above will sell this information supposedly only in aggregate form.
I have personally spoken with companies that obtain this information or whose members share this sort of information with analytical programs.

Associating a person with an IP Address with cookies is not that reliable but with the right data, and from the web not court ordered subpoenas, it's better than 65% right.

Every e-commerce transaction you make on a PCI-DSS Billing Server stores your name and IP address used (as well as your full credit card data) this data may be shared with credit bureaus.

Bottom line there is enough data out there to make the scenario plausible.

https://www.rapleaf.com/how-it-works/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...web-monitoring

Anyway, The New York Times, the EU Parliament, and the US Congress have all showed an interest; they are not the typical "tin foil hat types."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam Browsing history not the local browser file -- I didn't take that reply literally and if it was meant so then it is not true.

My statement was meant and don't patronize me.

As for the pop up issue; if this bothers you can use one of our white labels -- there are no pop-ups. (Branding not included.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F Barry, stop acting like a fucking retard.

OK

There is no such thing as browser tracking?