Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But my username gives me complete anonymity.

halonachos wrote:But my username gives me complete anonymity.

So does your serial number and your MAC address because nothing about them tells anyone anything about you.

IP's are pretty much phone numbers and are more identifying but hardly compromising or secret.

My point is that EA's data collection does nothing to compromise anyone's identity and doesn't collect information that isn't already available to most people who know about the internet. The data can't identify anyone. EDIT: Now I'm getting side tracked. There's no evidence other than assumption that they even collect MAC's and ID's. The EULA was worded vaguely and people started jumping up and down about and EA tightened it up so people would quit whining. There's no practical reason anyone would want collect or store your MAC or your any other number that can specifically identify your computer.

They don't store your IP. They register an IP from Raleigh, Virginia, and add a tick to the number of users in Raleigh, Virginia. That information is then used for marketing or sold for marketing purposes but no one is harmed by being the 567678th origin user in Raleigh, Virginia because being #567678 doesn't identify you at all.

In other news, the ME3 demo will be released in less than a month from now, and it even includes multiplayer. :O

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/324/index/9006820/1

Do want.

Mmm, that soon. Forced to look I shall.

BaronIveagh wrote:Read how again and again Valve adds 'with permission' and 'agree to receive' additionally requiring the 3rd parties to conform to the PP, which EA does NOT do.

So your argument now basically rests on counting the number of times two phrases appear in a document?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Most people don't even know what MAC addresses are, or that PC's have serial numbers (technically that's the motherboard but whatevs) and IP addresses don't identify you at all. IP's aren't personal in the sense they are secret. EA could just mine for that information (hell I could) and what would it tell me? Nothing but where you live and just about anyone can find that in a phone book. That information is not a secret.

One thing that I think people often fail to understand is that privacy is essentially just how hard it is for people to find information about you.

Those walls to your house aren't invulnerable, I can break them down if I want to see you on the toilet.

Privacy is an illusion manufactured by a culture that has increasingly devoted itself to various shades of independence and civil liberty which is all well and good but it is an illusion. Not that I suggest we give everyone free reign to do whatever they want. Privacy has a useful purpose for many things but its not something that can be insured, especially not in the information age (the word "information" is very important in that sentence). Frankly, a lot of people have become paranoid about privacy to the point of being completely irrational.

I don't think its an illusion, per se. And, really, even my equation is basically is just a plucky one liner.

As a "right" privacy is all about people not looking where you don't want them to. As a physical concept, its about instituting consequences and barriers that anyone looking to deprive you of your privacy must suffer.

The reason people are now paranoid about their privacy is both legitimate and illegitimate. The legitimate reasons are primarily centered on identity theft, and partially centered on a lack of self-confidence regarding the judgment of others (Basically, the porn objection.). The illegitimate reasons are predicated on assuming that because something is in your house (So to speak.), it should be private.

LordofHats wrote:Nothing but where you live and just about anyone can find that in a phone book. That information is not a secret.

Never heard of an unlisted phone number, have we? Or the Do Not Call list, apparently.

LordofHats wrote:
Have you ever used punk buster?

Nope.

LordofHats wrote:Tell me in straight terms. How does this hurt you?

Depends on the information, but can range from job loss to arrest, depending on what they see you doing. And not from obvious things: workers could lose their jobs if they're caught going to Union websites, for example. People spoofing IPs could use yours to visit illegal material and get YOU arrested (this has already happened on several occasions). Would some of these practices be illegal: YES. Would it happen anyway: YES, as it already has happened.

LordofHats wrote:
They don't as I've explained (They can pull all the info they want from your installed register which is a single list stored by your OS). If you want to live in your fantasy world where your homework is so important that EA absolutely wants to know about it be my guest but it is a fantasy. They are not scanning your computer and copying every file on it. Technically they aren't even scanning they're just calling up a list that you look at every time you open install/uninstall.

I don't know about the homework bit, but here in the shop I've got a PC that they are having me set up and it includes BF3 and Origin: guess what: process monitor says it's having windows scan every single directory in the machine. Not copying them, but I don't doubt it could. Looks like it pulled a full file list.

LordofHats wrote:
Something actually harmful.

You have a very naive idea of what could constitute harmful then.

LordofHats wrote:
No you've imagined it is legal because you've imagined they're doing something they are not with this data.

Nice double speak for saying that doing nothing is legal, but doing something would be illegal. Guess what: it's legal either way, because the EULA specifically states that you are allowing them to do this, which is your right. You seem to not understand that you can, legally, give someone the right to monitor your activities and inspect your personal data of any sort. The implied permission alone is the reason that most IT firms require a non-disclosure agreement of their employees, in the event that in the course of their permitted access to your personal data, they see confidential information.

LordofHats wrote:
You cannot legally agree to an illegal contract clause.

It's not an illegal contract clause because the contract is about you waiving your rights. If they did this WITHOUT gaining your permission, then, yes, it is illegal. With your permission, it's right as rain.

LordofHats wrote:
Such waivers regularly fail to protect entities in civil suits rendering them mostly useless.

True. However, such suits are rare as most people do not have the financial wherewithal to take on EA in court, right or wrong. Further, most cases such as the one suggested usually result in an undisclosed settlement, rather than have EULA's put on trial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Privacy is an illusion manufactured by a culture that has increasingly devoted itself to various shades of independence and civil liberty...

Yes, because we all know that Americans should never be about Liberties and Independence...



After all, we clearly have too much Freedom. Should we get rid of that Democracy thing too, while we're at it, there, Your Magesty?

BaronIveagh wrote:Never heard of an unlisted phone number, have we? Or the Do Not Call list, apparently.

Here's the funny thing. I'm on the Do Not Call list and I still get solicitation. These things get found.

LordofHats wrote:Depends on the information, but can range from job loss to arrest, depending on what they see you doing.

So people get fired for doing things they shouldn't do and imprisoned for illegal things? How's this bad? Unless you're doing something wrong you have nothing to fear.

And not from obvious things: workers could lose their jobs if they're caught going to Union websites, for example.

Horrible example. That's illegal under US Labor laws.

People spoofing IPs could use yours to visit illegal material and get YOU arrested (this has already happened on several occasions).

Why would EA do that? More important I could do that in about an hour if I wanted to.

What about your bank? Your employer? They have access to your name, address, bank accounts, and SSN. Are you afraid of them? They have more information on you than EA ever will. Probably a million people have immediate access to your SSN right now. Are you scared of them?

LordofHats wrote:You have a very naive idea of what could constitute harmful then.

No I'm just not paranoid.

LordofHats wrote:Nice double speak for saying that doing nothing is legal, but doing something would be illegal. Guess what: it's legal either way, because the EULA specifically states that you are allowing them to do this, which is your right.

The EULA would probably be counted unenforceable by a court if they actually did what everyone says they did. Civil courts are fickle with legal agreements. You're imagining a feeble contract giving EA protection and rights it doesn't.

LordofHats wrote:It's not an illegal contract clause because the contract is about you waiving your rights.

You can't legally waive a right that results in something illegal happening. It makes the contract legally invalid.

LordofHats wrote:So people get fired for doing things they shouldn't do and imprisoned for illegal things? How's this bad? Unless you're doing something wrong you have nothing to fear.

REALLY? You know, I've head that whole 'You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' line before. Now where was it...



Oh, right!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/apr/26/news.health

So, tell me if that affected those guys. Did they commit a crime? No. Did they likely suffer and lose business? YES.

No one has 'Nothing to Hide'.

LordofHats wrote:
Horrible example. That's illegal under US Labor laws.

LordofHats wrote:Here's the funny thing. I'm on the Do Not Call list and I still get solicitation. These things get found.

Happens every day in the US. Also happens because of race, creed, and political affiliation, all illegal. Why? Because it's hard to prove, and most of the time, companies get away with it.

And, frankly, calling a person on the NDNCL is technically a crime and companies have been taken to court for it.

LordofHats wrote:
What about your bank? Your employer? They have access to your name, address, bank accounts, and SSN. Are you afraid of them? They have more information on you than EA ever will. Probably a million people have immediate access to your SSN right now. Are you scared of them?

Well, one, I'm self employed, and am currently working as an IT consultant (CHA-CHING). My only accounts are in small, local credit unions, meaning that the most people could have access to even part of that data is around 20. And NONE of them have a complete set of that data.

LordofHats wrote:
The EULA would probably be counted unenforceable by a court if they actually did what everyone says they did. Civil courts are fickle with legal agreements. You're imagining a feeble contract giving EA protection and rights it doesn't.

Doesn't matter, it's very, very rare to see it ever come up at all, because most people don't fight back, and if it looks like they'll lose, most of the time the companies offer a big undisclosed settlement so that it doesn't create precedent.

LordofHats wrote:You can't legally waive a right that results in something illegal happening. It makes the contract legally invalid.

Ok, deep breath...

What happens afterward is NOT illegal BECAUSE you waive your right. It's like this: say yes and it's fun, say no and it's rape.

This is a gross simplification of a waiver, but is accurate enough for this discussion.

BaronIveagh wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/apr/26/news.health

Because UK health care controversy relate to US law how?

The big brother stuff is a load of crap and it always has been. Try a real argument.

Doesn't matter, it's very, very rare to see it ever come up at all, because most people don't fight back, and if it looks like they'll lose, most of the time the companies offer a big undisclosed settlement so that it doesn't create precedent.

As you've s elegantly pointed out the Germans disagree. You also have still failed to offer any evidence that EA's data collection will result in harm to anyone. All you have is slippery slopes and "but they could do this." This issue has nothing to do with what EA is doing but rather on the perception of EA as a company which is very negative. Steam does the EXACT same thing and no one complained about it even though they've been doing it longer than EA has.

LordofHats wrote:What happens afterward is NOT illegal BECAUSE you waive your right. It's like this: say yes and it's fun, say no and it's rape.

Deep breath.

If a contract requires that I do whatever Bob tells me to, and Bob tells me to kill his wife Geogia, then fulfilling my obligations under the contract results in an illegal act which invalidates the contract. You cannot legally agree to something illegal (well you can but you're under no obligation to fulfill the agreement).

BaronIveagh wrote:
Never heard of an unlisted phone number, have we? Or the Do Not Call list, apparently.

Reverse directories are a thing, you know, and a thing that is legal in the US.

Also, the Do Not Call list does not apply to political organizations, NPOs, surveys, companies you have done business with within 18 months of the call, bill collectors, and people that cannot afford a legal challenge.

BaronIveagh wrote:
REALLY? You know, I've head that whole 'You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' line before.

It is, however, true. If you do nothing that violates the law, then you have nothing to fear. The trouble comes when you skirt the law, violate it, or the law is deliberately construed to induce violation.

I'll be honest, your posts read, in summary, to me as "ZOMG this vaguely reminds me of 1984!111!!!1111!!"

BaronIveagh wrote:
Depends on the information, but can range from job loss to arrest, depending on what they see you doing. And not from obvious things: workers could lose their jobs if they're caught going to Union websites, for example. People spoofing IPs could use yours to visit illegal material and get YOU arrested (this has already happened on several occasions). Would some of these practices be illegal: YES. Would it happen anyway: YES, as it already has happened.

Which is why you use a sterile computer, and alternate IP if you think that you're at serious risk.

Privacy costs money, and it has always cost money.

I've already ordered my PC collector's edition from Amazon. I don't care about Origin. I intend to open it when I want to play a game, and close it when I do not just like I already do with Impulse. I don't think there is any real fundamental difference between Steam and Origin.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, deep breath...

What happens afterward is NOT illegal BECAUSE you waive your right. It's like this: say yes and it's fun, say no and it's rape.

This is a gross simplification of a waiver, but is accurate enough for this discussion.

It really isn't. Simply waiving your right to X is not sufficient.

For example, if I'm hammered I can't waive my right to anything. A legal waiver is not just saying something, signing on to a document, or doing a thing which someones else says entails a waiver of rights.

LordofHats wrote:

Because UK health care controversy relate to US law how?

You clearly did not really bother to read. The controversy was that personal information was released, damaging people's careers and livelihoods without them having committed any crimes or done things they are not supposed to have done.

LordofHats wrote:
As you've s elegantly pointed out the Germans disagree. You also have still failed to offer any evidence that EA's data collection will result in harm to anyone. All you have is slippery slopes and "but they could do this." This issue has nothing to do with what EA is doing but rather on the perception of EA as a company which is very negative. Steam does the EXACT same thing and no one complained about it even though they've been doing it longer than EA has.

While all I have is slippery slopes, all you apparently have are false analogies. I don't particularly like steam, I don't use it, but I've seen both of them in action on computers, and you are dead wrong. The actual mechanics of what both do is very, very different, and the data that could be being collected from the files I see Origin accessing are much different, much more intrusive.

LordofHats wrote:
If a contract requires that I do whatever Bob tells me to, and Bob tells me to kill his wife Geogia, then fulfilling my obligations under the contract results in an illegal act which invalidates the contract. You cannot legally agree to something illegal (well you can but you're under no obligation to fulfill the agreement).

Yes, but if Bob's wife contracts you to kill her, you can legally do so (see Oregon's Death with Dignity Act). If you are Georgia's attending physician and Georgia is on life support with no hope of recovery, you can also do this legally with Bob's written consent. In the case of Origin's data mining, it's is legal because you gave permission. The part that makes it illegal is doing it without consent, not the data mining itself.

dogma wrote:
It really isn't. Simply waiving your right to X is not sufficient.
For example, if I'm hammered I can't waive my right to anything.

Yes, there are exceptions, and so you can argue, for example, that you agreed while impaired, and that might stand up if all you did was install Origin and never played any games on it at all, or ran the program after that. And, while yes, you can take someone to court regardless of having signed a waiver, however, you are the one with an uphill battle because you have to prove that you were impaired or that for some other reason the agreement is invalid.

dogma wrote:
It is, however, true. If you do nothing that violates the law, then you have nothing to fear. The trouble comes when you skirt the law, violate it, or the law is deliberately construed to induce violation.

Again, see the above example. Given the right information, some of which is included in what EA is taking, it's quite possible to ruin lives, break marriages, destroy careers, bankrupt companies, and crash economies. You don't have to be doing anything illegal to get screwed by this. Let use an example: remember the Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee video? Did they do ANYTHING illegal?

And even if EA doesn't do it themselves, how long before they're targeted by people who would?

BaronIveagh wrote:You clearly did not really bother to read. The controversy was that personal information was released, damaging people's careers and livelihoods without them having committed any crimes or done things they are not supposed to have done.

Except you have no evidence that EA is even collecting information that can harm someone. Let alone, what information they do collect can be gather in ways that are easier than taking them from EA. You're comparing a database loaded with everything needed to steal someone's identity to a data collection program that collects nothing that personally identifies you.

dogma wrote:Again, see the above example. Given the right information, some of which is included in what EA is taking, it's quite possible to ruin lives, break marriages, destroy careers, bankrupt companies, and crash economies.

Except I fail to see how EA's data mining will result in your doomsday scenario. You're arguing a position about privacy as a general concept and applying it to EA's more limited data collection. Origin doesn't collect the information to do anything of things you claim can happen. EDIT: More importantly, you fail to recognize that they are not going to collect data in the way that you claim. I again bring up the scenario of EA data mining a computer of an Activision Blizzard executive. That opens EA up big and wide for a infringement suit from someone with just as much money as them. All Origin has to do is brush a proprietary file and they risk losing hundreds of millions.

And even if EA doesn't do it themselves, how long before they're targeted by people who would?

YOu mean people who can get the information more easily through other means? Seriously listen to yourself. So you're afraid someone will spoof your IP and do something illegal. You really think they're going to steal your IP from EA rather than get it from the numerous other infinitely easier ways to spoof IPs? Hell why would anyone even want to spoof your IP to set you up to avoid punishment for their own crime? That's what proxy servers are for and they take no work at all to use. Your position is based in absurd paranoia with no grounding in reality. EA gains nothing by "framing" its customers and I can think of no practical reason why they'd even want to and what data they are collecting is benign or can be collected by bad doers in much easier ways than taking it from EA. EDIT EDIT: More importantly it's easy to prove when an IP has been spoofed. You can do it with a simple call to your ISP or by checking the connection of the spoofer.

LordofHats wrote:
Except you have no evidence that EA is even collecting information that can harm someone. Let alone, what information they do collect can be gather in ways that are easier than taking them from EA. You're comparing a database loaded with everything needed to steal someone's identity to a data collection program that collects nothing that personally identifies you.

They flat out said they're collecting browser histories. I've seen more then one company that will fire employees based on that alone.

LordofHats wrote:
YOu mean people who can get the information more easily through other means?

Not on this scale. If you want personal information on people, you hit a casino or a game company, for the same reason that if you want millions of dollars you rob a bank, not a grocery store.

LordofHats wrote:Hell why would anyone even want to spoof your IP to set you up to avoid punishment for their own crime?

Dunno about 'to hide thier own crime' but to try and ruin people's lives...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/hacking-neighbor-from-hell/


EDIT:

On the EA/Activision thing: you do realize that to be SOX complaint, the executive would not have any proprietary information on his/her laptop, right? Never mind that it would be pointless because the corporate firewall would block the connection to EA.

On the spoofing thing: not always. It's fooled the FBI before, so...

BaronIveagh wrote:They flat out said they're collecting browser histories. I've seen more then one company that will fire employees based on that alone.

Probably because people shouldn't be surfing the internet at work? EA is a software development company. Not a security firm. They aren't selling your internet history to your boss hoping you'll get fired. They're looking to see what websites people visit so they can target marketing. EDIT: And hell, your internet history is probably the most well known thing about you in Corporate America. That's what cookies are for. It's practically all they do. Yahoo, Google, Bing? Any search engine you've been to has probably planted a tracker cookie on your computer as have any onlines stores from major corporations you've visited.

LordofHats wrote:Not on this scale. If you want personal information on people, you hit a casino or a game company, for the same reason that if you want millions of dollars you rob a bank, not a grocery store.

What information does EA have? This is where you're falling into absurd paranoia. So EA knows your IP 1.2.3.4. I can totally see your going to be ruined by them knowing this, not that everyone else on the internet can't find that out. So they know you have a Pentium Core Duo and a Radeon 5500. Yeah that information can ruin you as can EA knowing that you have TeamSpeak3 installed and a Logitech joy stick. Heaven forbid if someone else actually learns those things!

Dunno about 'to hide thier own crime' but to try and ruin people's lives...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/hacking-neighbor-from-hell/

Thanks for proving my point? EA had no hand in that and the Mr. Aldorf didn't need a big company to collect your information so that he could do it. You've also further proven my point that cyber crime isn't some big mystery that can't be solved. It's pretty simple for anyone with the slightest amount of tech suave to figure out.

Oh and maybe YOU should read the articles you post?

After the husband explained to his law office superiors that he had no idea what was happening, his bosses hired a law firm that examined his network and discovered that an “unknown” device had access to it. With Kostolnik’s permission, they installed a packet sniffer on his network to try and get to the bottom of the incidents.

Then, in May 2009, the Secret Service showed up at Kostolnik’s office to ask about several threatening e-mails sent from his Yahoo account, and traced to his IP address, that were addressed to Biden and other politicians. The subject line of one e-mail read: “This is a terrorist threat! Take this seriously.”

“I swear to God I’m going to kill you!,” part of the message to Biden said.

A forensics computer investigator working for Kostolnik’s law firm examined the packet logs, and found the e-mail sessions sending the threats. In the data surrounding the threatening traffic, they found traffic containing Ardolf’s name and Comcast account .

Yeah this guy was ruined for life and no one believed him at all. He had a rotten neighbor and a bad episode but EA didn't do it, no data collection did it, and now he's getting on with his life. Aldorf even had immediate access to their IP which is a lot more than anyone who can't get right next to your wireless router can do. This has nothing to do with EA's data collection and whether or not it can hurt people it has to do with "I don't like EA" and "but my privacy is in danger!" You're being irrationally paranoid.

On the spoofing thing: not always. It's fooled the FBI before, so...

You can find out if an IP has really accessed what you think it has simply by going to the ISP and asking for the connection history. ISP spoofing doesn't use the real IP address.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, there are exceptions, and so you can argue, for example, that you agreed while impaired, and that might stand up if all you did was install Origin and never played any games on it at all, or ran the program after that. And, while yes, you can take someone to court regardless of having signed a waiver, however, you are the one with an uphill battle because you have to prove that you were impaired or that for some other reason the agreement is invalid.

You can also argue that the agreement was written unfairly, or deliberately designed to mislead.

It is an uphill battle, but to that my response is "Welcome to the real world, where people with more power have easier lives."

BaronIveagh wrote:
Again, see the above example. Given the right information, some of which is included in what EA is taking, it's quite possible to ruin lives, break marriages, destroy careers, bankrupt companies, and crash economies.

If you have any information on a computer with Origin, Steam, or any other potential risk, that can bankrupt a company, or crash an economy, then you're a moron. I work with sensitive information all the time. I have a computer specifically designed to prevent external access which is only connected to the internet when absolutely necessary. If I put any kind of game client on it, or accessed facebook, or did basic web browsing, I would be an idiot and likely lose my job if it was discovered.

The same applies to anything that can ruin your career, and if you're doing anything in your private time that can break your marriage, then your marriage has serious problems and you either need to be more open with your partner, or your partner needs to be more understanding.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You don't have to be doing anything illegal to get screwed by this. Let use an example: remember the Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee video? Did they do ANYTHING illegal?

Did it ruin their lives?

I'm sure they were absolutely heart broken over the publicity, and I'm sure Pam was horrified that everyone knew she has, on occasion, had sex with her husband.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
What information does EA have? This is where you're falling into absurd paranoia. So EA knows your IP 1.2.3.4. I can totally see your going to be ruined by them knowing this, not that everyone else on the internet can't find that out. So they know you have a Pentium Core Duo and a Radeon 5500. Yeah that information can ruin you as can EA knowing that you have TeamSpeak3 installed and a Logitech joy stick. Heaven forbid if someone else actually learns those things!

But the scandal! A Saitek employee prefers Logitech joysticks!

LordofHats wrote: EA is a software development company. Not a security firm. They aren't selling your internet history to your boss hoping you'll get fired.

Can't say I've ever seen EA do it, but I have seen it done to eliminate rivals in the corporate sector. Wouldn't surprise me in the least though if a EA employee did. After all, it's happened to casinos:

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2010_2nd/Apr10_SenecaSuit.html

Kesel and Cutler made off with the customer database, among other things, if I recall correctly from my time there. Are there lawsuits flying thick and fast over this? Yes. Is the information out there now anyway for sale? Yes, though I hear SGC is trying to get a judge to block it.

LordofHats wrote:
What information does EA have?

Well, none of mine, I cancelled my CE pre-order.

LordofHats wrote:
So EA knows your IP 1.2.3.4. I can totally see your going to be ruined by them knowing this, not that everyone else on the internet can't find that out. So they know you have a Pentium Core Duo and a Radeon 5500. Yeah that information can ruin you as can EA knowing that you have TeamSpeak3 installed and a Logitech joy stick. Heaven forbid if someone else actually learns those things!

Yeah, but you leave out they will also know your name, address (from the registry scan or from the browser), and browser history. Did you know that dakka is actually on some companies watch lists for employees? I gak you not.

So, again, even assuming EA are the saints you seem to think they are, let's suppose that someone pulls a Sony and drops all that data on the internet. You, if you work at such a company, are in trouble now.

LordofHats wrote:
Oh and maybe YOU should read the articles you post?

It wasn't anything to do with EA. You asked why anyone would do something like that, I provided an example to show how far it could be taken. Never said it had anything to do with EA or data collecting.

BaronIveagh wrote:Yeah, but you leave out they will also know your name, address (from the registry scan or from the browser), and browser history.

And they didn't find that out when you registered an account in the first place? Furthermore you continue to throw around the "they'z scanzing our filz!" when they are not. EA doesn't need to scan your files to know your name or address. If you ever registered a credit card with them they already know, and I assume most people use their real names when they register accounts.

Are you just going to keep throwing out "maybe this could happen" or will you drop the slippery slopes and actually talk about what is happening? You're still arguing about privacy and data mining as a generalized idea, NOT about what EA is actually doing. EA doesn't have any info that can compromise anyone's security. Everything they're scanning for is benign or already easily available to anyone who wants it.

Did you know that dakka is actually on some companies watch lists for employees? I gak you not.

And why should that shock me? Companies pay people to work not to surf the internet.

So, again, even assuming EA are the saints you seem to think they are, let's suppose that someone pulls a Sony and drops all that data on the internet. You, if you work at such a company, are in trouble now.

Maybe my neighbor will hack my router and try to frame me for downloading child porn. Lets condemn him and arrest him now just in case.

How American of you

EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I LOATHE EA. I loathe them with a burning passion alongside Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard, the Screen Writer's Guild, professional sports unions, commies, hippies, clowns, and long words that I can't spell properly! But I choose to loathe EA for an actual reason not some fake conspiracy theory created by people who just want to hate EA because its hip. EA has been doing this since 2006 and no one even noticed until late 2011 and when they finally notice they blow what is going on hugely out of proportion and then they all get Origin anyway. I just have no sympathy for the situation because I don't think this particular issue actually is an issue worth getting worried about and the people who complain about it don't have a leg to stand on in the first place (as a general rule).

BaronIveagh wrote:
So, again, even assuming EA are the saints you seem to think they are, let's suppose that someone pulls a Sony and drops all that data on the internet. You, if you work at such a company, are in trouble now.

...if you were foolish enough to use your work computer to access Dakka.

LordofHats wrote:
And they didn't find that out when you registered an account in the first place? Furthermore you continue to throw around the "they'z scanzing our filz!" when they are not. EA doesn't need to scan your files to know your name or address. If you ever registered a credit card with them they already know, and I assume most people use their real names when they register accounts.

And never mind the minor detail that you may have done neither of those things before this sucker starts scanning.

LordofHats wrote:
Are you just going to keep throwing out "maybe this could happen" or will you drop the slippery slopes and actually talk about what is happening? You're still arguing about privacy and data mining as a generalized idea, NOT about what EA is actually doing. EA doesn't have any info that can compromise anyone's security. Everything they're scanning for is benign or already easily available to anyone who wants it.

"EA also reserves the right to edit, refuse to transfer and/or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in EA’s sole discretion." EA EULA, section 3 (BF3 version)

Really, so the fact it checks if you have programs relating to medical conditions (proven) gives it information that is both benign and easily attainable? Tell me what IP logger tells you that, I'm curious.

And as far as what EA is doing: they are (still, despite various management statements) banning people from single player games they bought due to forum douchebaggery (either on their own part or for being quoted in the douchebaggery of others). They are currently being sued for violating anti-trust laws and have been attempting to trick people into giving up their right to claim membership in a class in an ON GOING class action suit against EA in California. They're also in front of a judge for fraud and false advertising (related to offers of free copies of BF 1943 with BF3 for PS).

So, have they taken your personal info and sold it on the street corner yet? No. Does their track record inspire confidence they won't do so in the future? No.

LordofHats wrote:
And why should that shock me? Companies pay people to work not to surf the internet.

dogma wrote:
...if you were foolish enough to use your work computer to access Dakka.

Sure, if it was limited to 'at work' you'd have a point. However, I was talking 'at home'. If they find out that you visit it 'at home' you get flagged (at work you'd get fired). A guy in an IT department I worked for was actually terminated for mentioning he played 40k. It was considered a threat of violence.

BaronIveagh wrote:And never mind the minor detail that you may have done neither of those things before this sucker starts scanning.

Why would anyone get it if they have no intention of using the service?

LordofHats wrote:And as far as what EA is doing: they are (still, despite various management statements) banning people from single player games they bought due to forum douchebaggery (either on their own part or for being quoted in the douchebaggery of others).

People get banned from a service for violating terms of use? Go figure.

They are currently being sued for violating anti-trust laws and have been attempting to trick people into giving up their right to claim membership in a class in an ON GOING class action suit against EA in California. They're also in front of a judge for fraud and false advertising (related to offers of free copies of BF 1943 with BF3 for PS).

So you admit your perception of the issue is clouded by bias about other things EA has done?

So, have they taken your personal info and sold it on the street corner yet? No. Does their track record inspire confidence they won't do so in the future? No.

As I understand it we don't convict people for something that might happen.

Sure, if it was limited to 'at work' you'd have a point. However, I was talking 'at home'. If they find out that you visit it 'at home' you get flagged (at work you'd get fired). A guy in an IT department I worked for was actually terminated for mentioning he played 40k. It was considered a threat of violence.

That's not a problem with browser history that's a problem with stupidity.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Sure, if it was limited to 'at work' you'd have a point. However, I was talking 'at home'. If they find out that you visit it 'at home' you get flagged (at work you'd get fired). A guy in an IT department I worked for was actually terminated for mentioning he played 40k. It was considered a threat of violence.

There are plenty of jobs in which certain off the clock behaviors can get you fired, I have one of them, in fact. Indeed, the guy I replaced got terminated because he liked to drink to excess in public places, which the company considers to be a security risk.

Part of working for someone is knowing what you're expected to do, and not to do, and understanding that if you choose to violate these expectations you place yourself at risk.

LordofHats wrote:
Why would anyone get it if they have no intention of using the service?

Because EA issued misleading statements about it being a requirement for some games pre-release? Or the buyer had no idea about games other then their boy/girl/just friend liked them?

LordofHats wrote:
People get banned from a service for violating terms of use? Go figure.

Yes, particularly when there are no terms of service what-so-ever in the games involved, or even a service at all, according to EA, who continue to insist that either it doesn't happen or they don't know why it does happen (occasionally on the same incident). Shocking.

LordofHats wrote:So you admit your perception of the issue is clouded by bias about other things EA has done?

Yes, I will not be able to be a juror in this case as I will grant that EA's various crimes in the past (some of which EA has been guilty of and fined for) do color my personal perception of them. I would not trust EA with my personal information in much the same way I would not trust Charles Ponzi to be my investment banker or a convicted serial rapist in charge of a women's shelter. Their track record pushes my disbelief in their good intentions from 'reasonable doubt' to 'common sense'.

Particularly when the CEO said on live television he was going to court as much controversy as possible. Somehow, I see this not ending well and a lot of people getting shafted.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Because EA issued misleading statements about it being a requirement for some games pre-release? Or the buyer had no idea about games other then their boy/girl/just friend liked them?

In the latter case, I sincerely doubt the purchaser is going to install the game.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, particularly when there are no terms of service what-so-ever in the games involved, or even a service at all, according to EA, who continue to insist that either it doesn't happen or they don't know why it does happen (occasionally on the same incident). Shocking.

What game that is currently produced doesn't have a TOS screen pop up during installation?

dogma wrote:In the latter case, I sincerely doubt the purchaser is going to install the game.

He didn't as why they'd install it, he asked why they'd buy it.

dogma wrote:What game that is currently produced doesn't have a TOS screen pop up during installation?

Most EULAs offer a license, not a TOS. The EULAs in ME2 and DA2, in their original install state, at no point mention a service. Just the terms of the licensing agreement. Which, BTW at no point give EA the right to turn them off remotely or mention EA's forums nor a code of conduct, though like all of them, they grant EA the right to change them at any time.

BaronIveagh wrote:Yes, because we all know that Americans should never be about Liberties and Independence...



After all, we clearly have too much Freedom. Should we get rid of that Democracy thing too, while we're at it, there, Your Magesty?

Hey! Don't poke us with that thing over here! We Brits are rather loving our tyranny. Her Majesty is lovely.

dogma wrote:It is, however, true. If you do nothing that violates the law, then you have nothing to fear.

Not everything people are ashamed of or wish to keep private is illegal.

In fact the overwhelming majority of it isn't.