Talk:Cookie stuffing/Archives/2014

Biased introduction
The opening sentence of this article seems unfairly biased


 * "a blackhat online marketing technique" - The term "blackhat" is unsubstantiatedly pejorative, especially as it links to an article whose first line is "A black hat is the villain or bad guy" and goes on to say that "in computing slang, where it refers to a computer security hacker who breaks into networks or computers, or creates computer viruses". Cookie stuffing does not normally attract anywhere near the same level of opprobrium as breaking into networks or creating viruses!
 * "to generate illegitimate affiliate sales" - Which law is being broken? Or how otherwise is the term "illegitimate" justified?
 * "receives a third-party cookie from an entirely different website (the target affiliate website), usually without the user being aware of it" - What is the intent of pointing this out, when it is equally true that the user is normally unaware of the fact that they received a first-party cookie?

Similar biased terminology is used throughout the article: and so on.
 * "...often referred to as blackhat..."
 * "...generate fraudulent income..."
 * "...essentially stealing..."
 * "...scattergun approach..."
 * "...first genuine visit..."
 * "...and of course gives them..."
 * "...probably the most innocent form of cookie stuffing, but is still stuffing none-the-less..."
 * "...force a user to visit..."

Jalanb (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

...seriously? There is no legitimate use for cookie stuffing. The entire point is to steal affiliate revenue - i.e. get an ad to insert a cookie overriding one you might have gotten from a legitimate affiliate. (even when on that affiliate site!) This is like complaining that describing theft as removing someone's property without permission as biased against the thief...


 * Which law is being broken? Or how otherwise is the term "illegitimate" justified?

It doesn't have to break a law to be illegitimate. You visit a random site, flash ad stuffs a cookie for something like Amazon, then any future purchases you make trigger commission to the ad creator for no reason other than to siphon money out of the transaction. It is blatantly obvious how that's not legitimate at all. Furthermore, affiliate networks have rules against the practice, so even without the obvious nature, they violate the policies and are therefore illegitimate by that test as well.

Regarding the term "blackhat"; A Black Hat Hacker is a hacker who "violates computer security for little reason beyond maliciousness or for personal gain"

So the use of blackhat fits perfectly, IMO - cookie stuffing is secretly inserting of an affiliate cookie for personal gain. It has no other use at all.

Magus (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea that cookie stuffing is anything other than illegitimate is foolish. This link details several court cases where cookie stuffing was treated as felony and the perpetrators were convicted. 98.112.25.93 (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Seth
 * This should put any debate to rest: http://www.businessinsider.com/ebay-the-fbi-shawn-hogan-and-brian-dunning-2013-4?op=1 Hobbe Yonge (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the intent of pointing this out, when it is equally true that the user is normally unaware of the fact that they received a first-party cookie?

Opinion 04/2012 on Cookie Consent Exemption by the European data protection authorities, which was adopted by all EU states, asks websites to show a notice if they are storing first-party cookies. So, at least in the EU, users are indeed aware that cookies are stored. Gould80 (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)