Servermania Ad Stalking Lowendtalk.com and Lowendbox.com Visitors

[drmike]

Given colocrossings history of trying to hide acquisitions, and cvps's same tactic to avoid forum bans, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Either that or SM offered the most dirty cash for the honor.

Servermania is far worse than acquisition.  Unsure if SM has money in CC or CC has money in SM.

Upgrades in Buffalo have involved Servermania cash and I think we found the how the cash originated.

Biloh is and has been BEST FRIENDS with brothers Justin Blanchard and Kevin Blanchard, owners of Servermania for years. We can say their friendship is in real life.  

Forum bans and CC swiping LET/LEB ownership are a funny combination when you realize and finally see ColoCrossing owns and has owned ChicagoVPS.   I've liked punting Fabozzi as the idiot in Buffalo, but the actions, the direction and most of the shilling for CVPS shell companies has been orchastrated by and created by Biloh himself.

I wouldn't say all this if I wasn't in the know. I've seen multiple pieces of proof.  Day is coming when documents are accompanied by legal folks putting an end to the Buffalo circus.  It is just a matter of when now.

Might be other implications on failure to declare data breeches by ColoCrossing for the multiple CVPS hacks.

Since OnApp now owns SolusVM, perhaps now we can see some intellectual licensing enforcement against ChicagoVPS @NullMind  ?    Have the folks at OnApp read this:   ???

 

[toadyus]

Maarten admitted in the GVH thread that they know companies are impersonating / operating under a fictitious names and that he's not allowed to warn people, that my friends is very alarming to me.

Here's is he snippit from let:



hellogoodbye said: Out of curiosity since I don't think it's stated outright in the rules: are LET members allowed to use multiple accounts and pose as different people like that?      


mkpossen said: They always have been and still are. We keep track of who is who. I am going to reconsider this, though.

joelgm said: Can you give me one good reason why? Don't you think prospective customers ought to know that their host is impersonating/operating under a fictitious id?

mpkossen said:I cannot. It's something I inherited. I'm currently seeking to change that policy, but my staff will need to agree with that before I can.

Source: http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/35183/greenvaluehost-us-eu-high-storage-high-bandwidth-high-ram-20c-ips-9-plans-to-choose-from/p2

 

[coreyman]

Maarten admitted in the GVH thread that they know companies are impersonating / operating under a fictitious names and that he's not allowed to warn people, that my friends is very alarming to me.

Here's is he snippit from let:



hellogoodbye said: Out of curiosity since I don't think it's stated outright in the rules: are LET members allowed to use multiple accounts and pose as different people like that?      


mkpossen said: They always have been and still are. We keep track of who is who. I am going to reconsider this, though.

joelgm said: Can you give me one good reason why? Don't you think prospective customers ought to know that their host is impersonating/operating under a fictitious id?

mpkossen said:I cannot. It's something I inherited. I'm currently seeking to change that policy, but my staff will need to agree with that before I can.

Source: http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/35183/greenvaluehost-us-eu-high-storage-high-bandwidth-high-ram-20c-ips-9-plans-to-choose-from/p2

Just wow, that's rediculous - I always did wonder why I saw servermania ads everywhere all the time.

 

[DomainBop]

"Other Sites Policies

AdRoll has no control over, nor does it bear any of the responsibility for the privacy policies and/or content of any sites or advertisers linked to or on AdRoll’s website, or the cookies these sites might set in your browser. AdRoll requires that Advertisers that have elected to use AdRoll provide a descriptive privacy policy linked to from their website describing their practices regarding Online Behavioral Advertising."

What are your privacy policy requirements?
The link to your site’s privacy policy should be clearly visible on all pages where you’re collecting personal information—not just your homepage. A good practice is to provide a link to your privacy policy right below all forms where a visitor is entering their information, as well as in the footer. This will ensure your privacy policy is prominently visible to your visitors.

We require that your privacy policy, at minimum, does the following:

• Describe what personal information is collected.
• Describe how this information will be used by the company.
• Describe how this information will be transferred to third party companies.
• Describe how you use cookies.
• 
Provide instructions on how users can modify or delete their personal information.
• Provide instructions on how users can opt out of future communications.
• Finally, websites that collect sensitive personal information, such as bank details and credit card numbers, must use a secure processing server (https://) when collecting this information

•  

The placement of the ad code on two sites (LowEndBox.com, LowEndTalk.com) that don't have any privacy policy is a violation of AdRoll's terms of service.  The fact that ServerMania  there is documented proof dating back to July 2013 that ServerMania's ad code has been placed on sites without a privacy policy could get them tossed out of AdRoll for TOS violations. (FYI, AdRoll does give violators 7 days to cure most violations after they're reported before they pull the plug).

They've been the ColoCrossing IP collector brand (250k -> 300k) since mid-2013.

Mid-2013 (August to be exact) is also when Velocity Servers' operations went from being self-financed to financing their operations with a ton of secured debt (all those UCC's I've mentioned before).

 

[AnthonySmith]

Is the policy referring to the target or the site hosting the code, I assume it is the latter but would be worth checking?

 

[AndrewM]

Maarten admitted in the GVH thread that they know companies are impersonating / operating under a fictitious names and that he's not allowed to warn people, that my friends is very alarming to me.

Oh you have no idea how true this is, and how deep it runs. 

 

[DomainBop]

Is the policy referring to the target or the site hosting the code, I assume it is the latter but would be worth checking?

It's referring to the sites that host the "cookie stuffing" code like ServerMania/LET, etc. 

 

[drmike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHWX4pG0FNY#t=100