Kimmykim

Ah good old Brightmail.

Within a week some people had better thruput on their spam mail than they'd had in 6 years ;)

Mr.Fiction

Here lies one possible problem. Suddenly you aren't looking for illegal conent, now you're looking for people that you think might be trying to trick people into thinking they are promoting underage content.

Are you looking to solve the probelm of child porn, or are you trying to be the moral police?

Someone with the word "young" on their page is not breaking the law or harming children. Someone with a picture of child sex is. Which one are you going after?

If you are strictly going after child porn, that's one thing. If you are going to use your Big Brother machine to try to be the moral police, then you're no better than the Christian Coalition or any other group like that.

LeeNoga

In simple terms, "Yes". If the image is cropped or is resized it will be given a different MD5 string [MD5 strings are 32 characters], if Sniffy does not recognize the MD5, it treats the image as a new image and it needs validated.

Our database is not of the images, but instead the hash strings.

So the image is not really a duplicate at the bit and byte level, just to humans who reason the similiarities :-)

Side note: If image is renamed, the md5 is still the same. Only by changing the bits of the file, not the filename, will the md5 value be different

dj_sniffy

When Senator McCain used the word "obscene", it caused such a debate as you just said. what is "cp", what is "adult" and obsene?


We have our own guidelines, and absorbing other ideas for determing what is CP, but it's like this, the average person knows when they see p*rn. People who make the arguement about art being seen as porn, etc... is valid, but it comes down to what is the intent of the imagery.. using Sexual Harassment guidelines, if it is of sexual intent, or creates an uncomfortable environment, then it is objectionable or obscene.

corporate america has gotten to the point where pics of women in bikini's and victoria secret catalogs are not allowed and possible grounds for sexual harassment lawsuits for women who feel those pcitures make men look at them in a sexual way, etc.

For sniffy, the issue is about CP, and determing if an image is CP, where the image shows a person that is young but really 18, is the place where guidelines are to be followed. we could say that if someone is exhibiting or promoting images that makes one believe they are underage, then that could be flagged as CP. Our guidelines are basically the ones that ASACP uses, so we look to them for guidance.



-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

dj_sniffy

We are targetting sponsors as the people who would pay for this service. The webmaster doesn't gain anything about being "certified" to not have CP, since most are clean anyways, and if there was CP, they were the ones that put it on there.

As someone wrote before, that couldn't some tgp scripters do the same as we are proposing? yes, they could, but no one has done it, and the answer is most likely, not worth their time. it is a huge undertaking as many have commented on, but we feel we want to tackle the mt. everest of images, so it is with our folly that we chase the wind mills, but.. being rational and logical people, we do feel it is possible to do our task, but such a task is expensive and has a cost.

if there was grant money from the governement, then such a service could be for free, much like how gov't gives money to the arts endowment so we can see exhibits of the cross in urine.

not sure what you mean by people making billions off of porn and being negative. consumers want to see pictures, webmasters provide it to them and make money. sponsors provide affiliate dollars, and make money. our service is targetted towards the sponsors, who wish to look after their legal and moral issues of supporting potential CP. the stigma of negativity comes with the CP related stuff that dirties up the image of the adult industry.

So for sponsors, they could decide that spending X amount of dollars to ensure non-CP compliance will get them Y. There is no Y, you can't put a value on it...all a sponsor can choose to decide with their dollar, is to say they feel that spending X will go towards a bigger good that is good for everyone from A to Z.


For those that just hate the idea of what sniffy is doing, you could rally up and protest with your sponsors and boycott them should they elect to use the service. One spin could be that trying to boycott a sponsor because of sniffy, means support for CP, but let's not go there.

Our capital marketplace will determine if sniffy is to be a successful venture. Your opinions certainly do matter, and you have ability to support or boycott your sponsor should they elect to use sniffy. This kind of thing goes on everyday, so it's no different in internet-space.

we do stand by our integrity and purpose, and we look to the sponsors to support the efforts, otherwise, there is no sniffy.

if that happens, then, we will always say that we tried, but the problem wasn't worthing paying to solve.



-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

LeeNoga

Sniffy has the capability of reporting back to the Sponsor information they deem important. If a sponsor wants to know who is promoting certain trigger words, we can tell them. We are not going to base the flags on the findings of one or two images. There are other checks and balances. If the webmaster is wanting to promote underage content, there will be more than images on that site to sugget this, and we will be able to key in on those areas as well.

If this is what the sponsor has asked us to Sniff, than its the sponsors that want to know this, not us passing moral judgement.

We are a suite of tools, that can give a sponsor, SE or linklist specific feedback. We believe Sniffy can be part of a multi-part solution to CP. If a sponsor wants to know who is using underage marketing promotions, we will report that info back.

The sponsors decide what they want and they decide what they will do when Sniffy gives it to them.

We are not going after anyone. Some sponsors may decide not to have affiliates who use certain trigger words on their site or in their URL's. If we come across CP images, we will be acting under the guidance of the ASACP on how to handle this finding. We report data to our clients, we do not take action against any webmaster.

Our mission is to combat CP, report back to sponsors data based on set criteria they choose. If the sponsor wants a deep scrub and review of their affiliates, are you not going to do business with this sponsor who has some potential liability?

If a webmaster gets pinched, challenged etc, the site becomes a snapshot to the enforcers, no sponsor wants their banners on a high risk site because the beer may spill out of the glass onto their shirt.

All the features and potential of Sniffy will be a direct response to the needs of the sponsors and our clients.

How can this be a bad thing and have a negative impact on our industry?

Kimmykim

Well, not to throw another wrench in the works here, but who's definition of CP are you going to be using in this process?

There is the legal definition and of course then there are varying degress of moral definitions... as discussed in this thread the other day...

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...ighlight=asacp

richard

Call me a cynic, but do you think sponsors really care about their traffic sources?

Enforcing t&c is great for retaining revenue that you dont pay the 'cheating webmasters', but a sale is a sale.

If an entity gets pissed off with a sponsor, and has some clout, the sponsor turns around and says "it wasn't me, it was an affiliate, i will cancel his account without pay".

I don't know a sponsor that assumes liability for the activity of its affiliates.

__________________

MrPopup

Why would anyone go there when you just did?

__________________
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" border="1" bgcolor="#008000"><tr><td><font size=3>Gone</font></td></tr></table>

Mr.Fiction

Maybe someone will invent a script to track down spammers and then all sponsors will ban them.

Kimmykim

Holy shit, that's a good point you make Richard.

Quite frankly if a sponsor takes it upon themselves to assume any liability for anything their affiliates are doing, then does that not open the door for them to be liable for the rest of their affiliates and their marketing?

For instance, had the CEN vs AOL case regarding email spam not been settled, and had it actually gone to court with a win for AOL, I always said you would see the demise of the system as we know it -- courts would then have precedence to hold sponsors and processors that made affiliate payouts responsible for actions that their non-employees had made supposedly on their behalf -- knowingly or unknowingly.

Boy wouldn't that have been the end of the affiliate system.

XYCash

Pedo develops website. The cops bust the site. The media throws it up on the front page of their website and makes it their headline on the 6pm news. The public becomes outraged and sends in more money to organizations to combat CP. Someone develops more software to hunt it down. It's a giant circle. Yes..it sounds cynical, but people make money off of CP without ever selling it.

The other side of it is that every day I have to verify new webmasters websites to make sure they don't have any crap on it and god forbid someday I come across one that has CP. The sponsor gets stuck in a situation of either checking each webmasters referring URLS and taking the chance there might be CP on there that is then is then cached on their computer, or just ignoring it altogether. For me I guess I would be a lot more comfortable in using the software if you just came out and said something like...

"The software works like a dream and yes we want to make a shit load of money too."


-joe

__________________
XYCash Gay Affiliate Programs - Making Money For Webmasters Since 1999 - click here to sign up

LeeNoga

In last months issue of AVN in the legal column it talked about the pill pushing prescriptions websites, and that some states like Nevada will prosecute affiliates. This particluar case was in CA., and CA, does not believe in contributory prosecutions. The article went on to infer there are other states like Nevada but did not mention them. Case of if sponsor gets pinched, so do the affiliates.

I know this is not the same thing..

But why did Lightspeed and Lens take a stance with their affililates sceening for certain triggers? Everyone applauded this.

dj_sniffy

Mr. Popup,

i can't believe you just fell for the old trick of throwing out the bait and waiting for someone to pounce.

well since you brought it up..... *getting up on the soap box*


just kidding!

-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

dj_sniffy

in order to not plagerize joe:


The service works like an ethereal trance and yes we want to make some kind of living from it.


-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

dj_sniffy

I understand your point, there was a prior AOL case where AOL said they don't monitor email, so therefore they can;t be liable for email contents.

I agree that a laissez-faire attitude is what most are going, but it doesn't seem reasonble to say just because you have your head in the sand, that a problem doesn't exist.

Being proactive does not mean condoning the CP acitivity, or placing one in liability, but then again, i don't have a law degree.

Yours and Richard;s points are very valid points, ones that the sponsor's attorneys will be able to answer.

Attention attorneys for sponsors, the question is:

By subscribing to a service that looks to scan the sponsor's affiliate websites, does that put the sponsor in any liability for being proactive?

I think that as you pointed out, there is a disconnect between the activities of the affiliate and the sponsor. the feds will bust the the CP violator, and may not have a case to mess with the sponsor...

but ignorance of their activity may not be excusable in the eyes of the law.

so sniffy proposes to be on one side a potential proactive deterrant to federal sniffing by the feds by showing an attempt to not support CP, and then on the onther side, a moral issue of just not wanting to know that the sponsors $$ are supporting CP.

A previous post wrote that why would sponsors care if an affiliate was supporting CP and sending them traffic?

Great question for the sponsors seeing how our entire proposal is based on this very question and belief that sponsors would care.

Sponsors? your feedback?

-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

Theo

it's an effort trying to reduce a problem and if it's done properly i'm sure it will be more than welcome by everyone.

There are too many concerns though.

"We are not going after anyone. Some sponsors may decide not to have affiliates who use certain trigger words on their site or in their URL's."

I'll raise some questions to consider.

We have a sponsor X submitting you a request to report all affiliates you trace that use the keyword "young sex" in their sites. Ok? Your scripts find let's say 15 violators which you report in detailed back to the sponsor.

Do you share with the rest members of your service the specific violators of the TOS of the sponsor X or not?

Policing the industry is risky and has more than one side.

"Young sex" keyword might be against the TOS of some sponsors (i dont know), but it is considered a legal and ucceptable keyword under all major pay per click search engines like overture and adwords, under yahoo directory and so on. On the other hand you see MOST major per signup sponsors hiting the surfers with exit and entrance consoles advertising escort sites and animal-girl-farm sites. These major traffic sources in case you submit a paysite having such consoles decline your submission and if you further speak to them about such cases they tell you that the sponsor people should pay few more hours with their legal representative before adding such type of advertising in order to make few extra bucks.

Now pay attention on the difference:

These reputable traffic sources decline your keyword or your sponsor, but do not discontinue any business activity with you. On the other hand, the affiliate program will cancel your account and probably share your info with other sponsors.

How fair is it to have a sponsor program that might cancel your account for a such keyword violation (im not reffering to CECASH,it's a hypothetical case) while in the past the SAME sponsor decided to add "girls fucking animals"?

The "girls fucking animals" is a real case that happened few months ago and made me look like a fool towards the SE representative when I told him none major adult sponsor is stupid enough to do such thing. Of course I was wrong.

Let's switch roles now and get the case that PPC engines decides to cancel accounts that violate their TOS. Exactly same cases with sponsors. Do you have an idea in what position can you bring someone when he will have his mainstream and adult accounts canned because one of you decided to put up again some escort or fake beastiality site?

As far the content cases there will have a lot of fun. Two major content providers cannot decide a whole week here if they have the right to resell or not part of their content, although they have in hands the legal papers. We have sponsors buying content, building paysites and taking them down because they find out later that the content provider was illegal reselling the content.

Decisions on the fly in similar cases will cause more problems than you can imagine.

Libertine

Without having read the whole thread, this seems like an impossible project. Here's why:

Your bot will "sniff" for words like underage, child porn, etc.

Something you will find on many, many sites (if not most):

<i>This site and it's owners strongly condemn child porn. None of the images used on this site contain any underage models.</i>

or maybe:

<i>If you are underage you are not allowed to enter this site.</i>

Now, ofcourse you are using human reviewers as well. The problem with that is that you will get way too many false positives to even consider reviewing them all, unless you are planning to use a huge army of reviewers.
Ofcourse, there's also the problem of those reviewers having to be able to watch cp legally (otherwise, you will end up with a huge army of imprisoned reviewers), so, now you need an extremely large amount of reviewers who are able to watch cp legally. Fat chance of that happening.


One thing you *could* do is use md5 hashing on known cp images, and just search for those. Ofcourse, it would require the support of law enforcement, but it seems like the only viable option.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Kimmykim

Nope, this is not the same thing. For starters you are talking about someone selling a purported medical product without a license and while making false claims for that product. That falls under about 5 different federal statutes and agency acronyms.

Website subscriptions are a very different animal, Lee, so let's just pretend that you didn't compare the two.

CP is enforced technically by one office at the federal level, US Customs, though the FBI can and does take a proactive approach in attempting to wrest control of the situation from them, as they do with anything else they dip a finger into.

The question still remains unanswered regarding just what definition you are using as a baseline for your 'flagging' and 'reporting' with your 'watchdog' -- are you truly using the legal basis for this? Keep in mind I am not making a moral instance out of the whole thing, since my personal opinions are just that -- I am talking about a direct correlation with the law as it is written and enforced at the federal level?

Why did Lightspeed and Lensman make changes to their programs TOS? Well, my guess would be because they own those programs and have the right to do so in their very own terms. Beyond that I will not speculate on why they make their decisions, my name isn't Mrs Lightspeed or Mrs Lensman, and its not any of my business.

Robocop

the only weapon todays webmaster needs.



State of the art ED-209.

dj_sniffy

I deleted part of your text, but do agree with all of your points.

One major factor for which sniffy differentiates itself from other solutions, is that it is not based on KEYWORDS. Your post was referring to using keywords to segment and tag websites, and potentially leading to problems.

There are plenty of scripts that scan for keywords and will give these kinds of false-positive results are pointing out.

in sniffy's case, the website will be judged by many levels of testing, the most important being the actual validation of the image. I think that using keyword searches is a good first level check, but that just helps to focus your attention and priorities, rather than as THE solution to use.

So if sniffy finds CP images, and the reviewers deem the image is CP (ASACP guidelines, etc), then it's CP on the site! There are no false-positives in this approach. I do see there is a potential gray area about what is "CP", but as long as the guidelines are followed, then that keeps things atleast predictable.

Sniffy would simply tell the sponsor that a URL in their program has CP. The sponsor will check it out for themselves, using the facts that sniffy created, then make their judgement whether to warn the webmaster, or turn them into ASACP.

That's all that sniffy gives to the sponsor. So if the sponsor wants to rail a webmaster for having CP, it's not because of sniffy, it's because when the sponsor went to take a look, they saw the CP themselves, and took whatever course of action they deemed necessary.

so, sniffy isn't a cop, it's not policing, policing means enforcement, sniffy doesn't enforce, it informs.

-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

dj_sniffy

there is certainly alot of text to read, alot of my very verbose responses, so i can understand not being able to read the entire thread.

what you missed was that sniffy searches based on human validation of images... we don't use keyword searches.

your idea about taking a known collection of CP material and using those hashes to help validate is a great idea. it does require convincing the FBI, the largest collector of CP images, to allow us to index their images.... this is already a consideration point for us to track down.


-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

LeeNoga

True. If sponsors had the ability to be informed via our offerings would they change their TOS?

We have no idea, but if they want to we have a suite of tools. We provide information, they do what they want and its NONE of our business :-)

Your answer to the CP standards in in DJ's post, the guidelines are the guidelines of the ASACP.

Robocop

You have the blessing of Omni Consumer Products to undertake this mission.

richard

Perhaps with something as emotional as CP, sponsors may feel as though it is their duty to be proactive (or at least block traffic from such sites). However, extracting a domain from an HTTP_REFERER header is not exactly rocket science, why weren't sponsors doing this X years ago?

(and in that vein, spidering an http_referer is equally trivial).

Ask me no questions, and i'll tell you no lies.

Another technical point - what stops me framing someone, by faking hits from 'lolita.com' into his sponsors account? Or conversely, that same person claiming that he is being framed?

__________________

easyjesus

we as webmasters have to right to do anything and everything we can, to block programs like yours from downloading the contents of our servers...

it was just a few days ago i came across a thread where someone made a program that goes in and downloads images/videos off websites, and then people with this program get free access to it... everyone was outraged at this program, and I dont see much difference in yours....

I am against CP, but im also against anyone or anything that is going to download my site and burn my bandwidth, like your program will do.

__________________
Loved By Some, Hated By Most....
<a href="http://www.unclejimsporn.com">http://www.unclejimsporn.com</a>
<a href="http://www.cousindirty.com">http://www.cousindirty.com</a>
<a href="http://www.drunkspringbreakchics.com">http://www.drunkspringbreakchics.com</a>

Kimmykim

Don't take my questions as an attack Lee, they are not. I am simply looking at points that I find to be very flammable, so to speak, down the road.

If we go back and refer to the thread above that I linked to, if I recall correctly, that ASACP did not like the site that was mentioned, and had reported it multiple times to Customs but were told it was not illegal. Therefore it stands to reason that possibly the guidelines on ASACP's site are not in perfect alignment with those of the law?

I want YOU to tell me what YOUR guidelines are, unless ASACP owns this product and will be the ones assuming liability for any damage done to either webmasters or sponsors from its use...

optikalz

Based on Lee Noga's description it seems that this technology is similar to the tech developed by www.plagiarism.org (for a different purpose altogether)

Good job on the innovations and keep pushing the limits of tech

notion

So you guys are going to have a HUGE database full of stolen content?

__________________
sekz.

LeeNoga

Hold that thought Richard, Dj will want to respond to your post.

I think we are getting 2 products mixed up here.

Sniffy Jr. will be a tool on loan to the ASACP, they are already under the umbrella of the FBI, which keeps us out of prison stripes.

Sniffy who I guess is the senior is a suite of tools to scrub a sponsors affiliate program for triggers they request from us. We look under their hood with the capability of reviewing images.

It would be great if eventually the ASACP umbrella would protect Sniffy Senior in the event we accidently find an unethical site.

Not all sponsors have any clue or the time to crunch the data to determine where all their banners are etc. We are suited for sponsors, Search Engines, Link lists etc.

I would love to sniff Sextracker.

In 1999 my old resource site put some heat on AVS, and alot of good came of it. They removed the search words, "lolita" and others. I also put some heat on Sextracker to stop the ability to search on unethical search terms, they complied under pressure.

That was a start back then, 4 years have gone by and we still had no monitoring tools. Its a cumbersome job, its mammoth and who wants to do it?

But if a third party can do it for you, does it have value?

If nothing else, we have at least developed Sniffy Jr. for ASACP use, the rest of the tools are a start [Sniffy, fee based service] as well. Don't get ASACAP Sniffy Junior mixed up with what we are offering sponsors etc.

Does it matter to some webmasters whether a sponsor has opted for a compliance check by Sniffy. Would that compliance build a better relationship between a sponsor and affiliate?

Personally speaking, if I had an affiliate program I would use every tool available. It would be my moral fabric that dictated how my program operated.

But thats me, and you are you :-)

LeeNoga

We have a database of hash strings, not content. We are not out to validate where the content came from. Once we validate an image, it gets deleted and the hash string is all thats left.

dj_sniffy

nothing..people will do these kind of deceptive practices, much like singing people up for spam email.

we don't do any of these things.

people today send ASACP leads of suspected Cp sites. it is possible that some people could put one of their competitors in as a lead.

ASACP investigates these leads, then then make some determination as to whether the lead was accurate or not.

Sniffy searches websites based on the URL that the sponsor gave to us...so it's not quite the same thing as you are talking about.


-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

LeeNoga

There are already things you cannot control that burns your bandwidth.

Look at the bandwidth has your contribution towards the fight of CP.

Unless you have some other idea how we can monitor 10 billion pages of websites, I am all ears.

We are not exactly getting paid to join the fight either and we are standing front and center...developing and building ain't free ya know :-)

sarettah

dj and/or Lee.... Could you drop me an email real quick...

I have a couple of ideas I would like to throw at you NOT for public consumption. Could be very worth your while.


sarettah at hatterasdesigns.com

thanx

__________________
All cookies cleared!

Robocop

Do ASACP and the FBI know you are selling this software to adult webmasters?

dj_sniffy

I fully understand your point and i certainly understand that if you wish to put measures in place so that sniffy can't spider your site, you have that right.

If one of your sponsor asks us to validate your site, then we will try to validate it. If we can't because you were clever enough to block sniffy, then we just tell the sponsor we couldn't spider the site, and let them figure out what they want to do.

In this whole thread, understand that yes, sniffy downloads images from your website,and analyzes the images, and the only return that we give to the sponsor is if the site is CP, or can't be accessed.


As far as the "leeching"/ download issue, i am sure that if you check your logs, you will find web surfers going through every page of your site, and by the hundreds and thousands depending on your traffic. some may be linking to your images, bypassing your pages, etc... those are the kind of ppl i would think are more of a concern than sniffy.

-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

Kimmykim

Hmm, you are still avoiding some answers here Lee. You said that the product would be following ASACP guidelines, but now you are saying they are two separate products.

You talk about legal issues like CP, and now you introduce words like unethical, which has nothing to do with legal in any sense of the word.

Then you talk about pressure on Andy (and remember, I was in that room in New Orleans putting the pressure on Andy in person, along with our brouhaha on topniche) and now you've gone beyond the scope of legal again.



Last but not least, what do you with sponsors from countries outside the US? Sponsors who live under a different legal system. Should sponsors in Canada be told about affiliates who have sites that show bondage and penetration in promoting another sponsor because thats against the law in Canada?

After all, you keep talking about the relationships here, surely if you can categorize photos, you aren't just doing it with a yes or a no?

dj_sniffy

thanks for the compliment...

one point that i need to bring up, since it is a key point to this thread, is that plagiarism.org uses keyword searching to find copycats of other people's textual work.

sniffy does not use keyword searching.

thanks for the compliment on sniffy.

-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

dj_sniffy

more like a huge collection of data, since images are deleted once they have been validated.

if you are referring to the downloading of images for processing as being "stolen", then you should turn your attention to the millions of web surfers who visit websites and have the website images stored in their cache.

all of that p*rn, stored distributedly across millions of desktops... boggles the mind.

-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

LeeNoga

I do not take your point of views as any form of attack babee :-) its all good.

Quote:

If we go back and refer to the thread above that I linked to, if I recall correctly, that ASACP did not like the site that was mentioned, and had reported it multiple times to Customs but were told it was not illegal. Therefore it stands to reason that possibly the guidelines on ASACP's site are not in perfect alignment with those of the law?

I can see where there are inconsistencies, but Sniffy Jr. is being loaned to the ASACP, and we step back, so I am not in the know how Joan Irvine and company are going to handle findings.

Quote:

I want YOU to tell me what YOUR guidelines are, unless ASACP owns this product and will be the ones assuming liability for any damage done to either webmasters or sponsors from its use...

In all honesty, ASACP is our starting point and we hope as a result of Sniffy Jr. within their agency [ASACP] some of these holes can be closed. We hope law enforcement opts to use our tools as well, and further define some guidelines.

But there has to be something universal several agencies can use and we hope to be that solution. This evolution we hope corrects alot of the "grey"....especially with alot more agencies using the tools..

What we are offering sponsors [Sniffy Senior] AKA "Sniffy", is information and flags based on several criteria, what the sponsor does with this information will not be known to us.

We of course understand we need to have this reviewed by counsel.

The techy stuff is always done before guidelines and internal checks, and we have not entered the finite stages yet.

But as we do, we will start a new thread :-)

Thanks KimmyKim for all your input.

We are determined to take this on, or at least start and let time evolve this into a greater welfare for all.

dj_sniffy

We went to ASACP first and have been in constant communication since we are looking to provide them with our Sniffy Jr. technology to assist them in their current efforts of finding CP websites.

ASACP has the relationship to the FBI. It is through the relationship of the FBI that sniffy looks to associate with.

We don't sell software, we are providing a service that utilizes our suite of tools to analyze images.

-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

Robocop

Lee, I think what Kimmykim is referring to are some of the quotes above. How does someone qualify as a "human reviewer"? The technology sounds great but as soon as you introduce the puny human brain to the issue, "errors" in judgement may arise.

Interesting so far though. Work on the marketing a bit more I think....

XYCash

Here's another thing that might make some webmasters a tad nervous. You are asking a lot of webmasters to put a lot of trust in you and your software, and I am not saying that trust in you isn't justified. But the idea that someone would be databasing or attempting to database every single adult website on the internet for the purposes of legal reasons, lends one to the idea that this could be used for other prosecutions (obscenity?) besides CP if the current administration decided to approach you with such an idea.

-joe

__________________
XYCash Gay Affiliate Programs - Making Money For Webmasters Since 1999 - click here to sign up

dj_sniffy

it's the same guidelines as ASACP uses for their own internal site reviewers.

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

LeeNoga

Sniffy Jr. will be on loan to law enforced approved reviewers of some sort, dunno the certification they go thru. Thats a question for ASACP.

Sniffy Sr. the one DJ and I are offering as fee based for the "nice to know" info for our clients, will be trained under our direction.

My background is content. Sniffy sets off flags not weapons :-) This is not an industry WMD :-)

I cannot believe this would make any webmasters nervous.

In an earlier post the gent that watermarked images and/or embedded a string in each image [I think thats what he did] was:

Mark Ishikawa, BayTSP

It was a costly service in the thousands if memory serves me right.

Theo

dj thanks for the reply

dj_sniffy

since our relationship is with the sponsor, we aren't asking webmasters for anything, therefore not asking for any trust type offering.

should be choose to go down some kind of conspiracy-theory idea, then lee and i will approach that when it comes.

there are countless number of spiders that crawl through websites. robot.txt is not the way to stop them. you can't complain to them about not visiting your site and indexing your site, and doing who knows what with the data gleemed.

in this forum, we have identified ourselves as being another spider that visits the site.

if one is paranoid at what we or other people may do with data gathered from visiting a website, then my suggestion is this:

-don't rent videos from blockbuster, they know you rented Glitter.

-don't use tivo, they know you record Hard Ball

=don't use digital cable, they know you channel surf to Cartoon Network and watch PowerPuff Girls

-don't use a grocery shopping card that gives you instant savings, they are tracking your consumption of pudding

-don't use a credit card, they know about the blow-up doll you purchased with the lifelike hair and the school girl outfit.

-don't turn on cookies in your web browser, they know you visited DrSpock.com and you don't even have a kid.

-don't answer the phone, the homeland security has all calls bugged, running them through a monster of a sniffy program that analyzes audio and will know you like to talk dirty on the phone.

-don't open your door, people will see that you hadn't showered in 5 days.




-dj

__________________
i can type, but i can't spel.

MrPopup

Anything new or different will do that.

I think people just want answers....there are going to be issues with any service like this....simply because it is new and relatively untested. I hope it does well.

When will you have more information, i.e. a site, or expected launch date, etc, etc.?

__________________
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" border="1" bgcolor="#008000"><tr><td><font size=3>Gone</font></td></tr></table>

sarettah

I find that entire post quite rude...

If the attitude through this venture is that webmasters must give up their rights for the good of the sponsor so YOU can make your money... Then good riddance...

There are many reasons, other than illegal ones or cheating ones that webmasters choose to control traffic through their sites...

First of all this is a commercial venture... You can go on all day about the Righteousness of it and all that but bottom line is it something to make YOU money... Not the webmaster, not the Sponsor, Not ASACP... YOU...

If you were in this for the morality of it then you would give the technology to ASACP, not be trying to market it...

So, if you want to get some webmaster buy in on it I would suggest you stop dismissing the privacy and rights concerns of the people in this thread as being unimportant because we can trust you guys etc....

__________________
All cookies cleared!

FATPad

I think this is good.

One more spider going through my sites once a week isn't going to break the bank, and at least it's for a good cause this time.

__________________
<a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>