Sigh...people can just use a Root kit and remove the process from being shown in the task manager. So this does absolutely nothing to catch RMT.
From a Privacy Rights Issue, the more you let someone take away your rights because you have nothing to hide, the less rights you will have when you do care that they took something away.
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XI
- General Discussion
- POL System Scan Privacy Issues? OP Updated 5:39am EST Mar 9
POL System Scan Privacy Issues? OP Updated 5:39am EST Mar 9Follow
#28
Mar 08 2007 at 1:37 PM
Sioux wrote:
I must agree with some others here who have said 'if you have nothing to hide, who cares'. It's not 24-hour monitoring, and you don't HAVE to play the game if you're this worked up. How many other programs would you have running anyway?
I am, for the record, an American citizen living in Canada.
I like to think that I have some very sound ethics and ethical beliefs.
Among those I wholeheartedly believe I have the right to my privacy, that neither the government nor any business has any right to dig through my belongings, virtual or not, for any purpose you can concieve, without my consent.
If they'd bothered to disclose this in their policy (again, see Blizzard's WoW policy), I'd be fine with it.
Disclosing it means that it's then my responsibility read the (hypothetically, in this instance) updated policy, and then to agree with it and log on, or to not agree with it, uninstall their software, and cancel my account.
As the policy was not updated, and this action was not disclosed, I was given no choice in the matter.
#29
Mar 08 2007 at 1:41 PM
Quote:
You are renting an appartment, and the owner decides to install spy cameras in your appartment without telling you.
Lol would you just say "if you dont like it then leave the appartment"?
Lol would you just say "if you dont like it then leave the appartment"?
And this analogy would work, if SE were installing 24/7 visual/audio monitoring equipment on your computer. It's not the same thing at all.
It's scanning the system while you're playing, looking for specific known hacks and cheats. What's the goddamn problem, is everyone running childporno.exe or what?
You're using their service. It's your computer, in use to access their service.
Is it a massive violation of your privacy to have to walk through a metal detector in an airport? Do you scream and cry and call the better business bureau or whatevertf?
Or do you go through the detector, knowing on the other side that everyone is less likely to be running around with a weapon or some other death-spawning thing?
As far as I'm concerned, hacks are as dangerous to the game as weapons on planes are to people. Look at Diablo if you doubt it. I dislike knowing others are using them, and I don't want the game to tank because of RMT and outrageous hack use.
It's not George Washington dying in the middle of the Delaware for the liberty and ultimate justice of the entire freaking world, it's just a process scan.
I'll go through the f-ing detector if I want to fly on the plane.
Erawyn wrote:
As a paying customer, I have the right to see an amended contract when they decide to add new goodies to it. Otherwise, I am not accepting their amended contract when I click the "Accept" button, I'm only accepting the one available to the public. I can't, legally and lawfully, accept a contract with new amendments I know nothing about.
Well, I understand this (don't let my tone get to you, I have a nastier tone than I mean to online).
But as I see it, to get upset about it to this extent is acting on principle, which isn't usually a good thing at all, even though people will tell you it is.
It's principle to get mad when someone does something and doesn't necessarily tell you, but it's also important to keep in mind the perspective of the thing. Is it better to have the scan and know there's a boot up the RMT's butt, or to not have the scan, deal with the RMT, and deal with fleehackers and vokebots while competing in mines and at NM pops?
I absolutely agree they should have it in the policy. The thing I don't agree with is the outrage.
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 3:48pm by Sioux
#30
Mar 08 2007 at 1:41 PM
If true, this is truly incredible. Nice work OP. It's a HUGE violation of privacy to scan running processes on a computer without disclosing that such scans occur, or without disclosing the precise nature of the information gathered from such scans. Of course, SE has every right to scan and record all data that you send them from your computer, not to mention the data involving you on their own network. But to assume that they can scan and monitor all running applications on your computer, and then associate the results of such scans with particular individuals, is not only likely inconsistent with the privacy laws of California, but probably just about every other State in the US, and most countries in the Western world.
For precisely this reason, I'm surprised that SE would leave themselves so vulnerable to crippling civil litigation. My gut feeling is that you are incorrect: they probably just monitor all data sent back and forth between your computer and their servers, but, if you're correct, then they might want to slap their lawyers in the head and ask them to start doing their jobs.
It's good that you got the privacy commissioner involved in CA, but I might also suggest contacting your member of the State Assembly (who could embarrass them publicly or contact the Justice Dept), as well as some privacy interest groups who have the resources to get more attention than a lone individual.
...if this is indeed a violation of the privacy laws in California (I know nothing about CA law), then SE at the very least needs to hear that they aren't covering themselves too well in the event of a future civil suit (read class action, god Forbid, if anything malicious were to happen to this information).
Good job OP.
And SE doesn't need to scan running processes on your computer to detect cheating. If you can manipulate it on your computer and SE doesn't want you to manipulate it, then they should move that information server-side. If it's already server-side, then recording the data from and to your computer is more than enough to detect abnormalities--but to conclude, I'm quite confident that this is how they manage cheat/hack detection in any event.
Oh, and Pornography isn't even close to the only application that people run that they might not want other people to detect, let alone be able to associate with a particular name, address, age, phone number and credit card number.
Lastly, the airport security comparison fails for the simple reason that one involves an unnecessary intrusion to detect cheating in a video game, and the other involves a necessary intrusion to prevent plan hijackings/bombings etc. In cases such as these, the common legal standard involves a comparison of the gravity of the violation, the necessity of the violation, and the purpose of the violation. That said, I agree with Sioux that the cameras in your house analogy is unfair as well.
Basset
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 2:51pm by basset
For precisely this reason, I'm surprised that SE would leave themselves so vulnerable to crippling civil litigation. My gut feeling is that you are incorrect: they probably just monitor all data sent back and forth between your computer and their servers, but, if you're correct, then they might want to slap their lawyers in the head and ask them to start doing their jobs.
It's good that you got the privacy commissioner involved in CA, but I might also suggest contacting your member of the State Assembly (who could embarrass them publicly or contact the Justice Dept), as well as some privacy interest groups who have the resources to get more attention than a lone individual.
...if this is indeed a violation of the privacy laws in California (I know nothing about CA law), then SE at the very least needs to hear that they aren't covering themselves too well in the event of a future civil suit (read class action, god Forbid, if anything malicious were to happen to this information).
Good job OP.
And SE doesn't need to scan running processes on your computer to detect cheating. If you can manipulate it on your computer and SE doesn't want you to manipulate it, then they should move that information server-side. If it's already server-side, then recording the data from and to your computer is more than enough to detect abnormalities--but to conclude, I'm quite confident that this is how they manage cheat/hack detection in any event.
Oh, and Pornography isn't even close to the only application that people run that they might not want other people to detect, let alone be able to associate with a particular name, address, age, phone number and credit card number.
Lastly, the airport security comparison fails for the simple reason that one involves an unnecessary intrusion to detect cheating in a video game, and the other involves a necessary intrusion to prevent plan hijackings/bombings etc. In cases such as these, the common legal standard involves a comparison of the gravity of the violation, the necessity of the violation, and the purpose of the violation. That said, I agree with Sioux that the cameras in your house analogy is unfair as well.
Basset
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 2:51pm by basset
#31
Mar 08 2007 at 1:46 PM
Sioux, you're totally missing the point.
K nevermind. Your edt proves otherwise.
No "outrage" on my end. I just like taking an active role in knowing what all goes into the products I pay for. Consider it "active consumerism" if you will.
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 4:53pm by Erawyn
K nevermind. Your edt proves otherwise.
Quote:
I absolutely agree they should have it in the policy. The thing I don't agree with is the outrage.
No "outrage" on my end. I just like taking an active role in knowing what all goes into the products I pay for. Consider it "active consumerism" if you will.
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 4:53pm by Erawyn
#32
Mar 08 2007 at 1:49 PM
Erawyn wrote:
Sioux, you're totally missing the point.
I edited my post above. But seriously, Erawyn, look at my sig, if I didn't miss the point at least sometimes I'd have to remove it.
#33
Mar 08 2007 at 1:50 PM
basset wrote:
If true, this is truly incredible.
Phone POL. Hell, ask for Charles in the information center :P
basset wrote:
For precisely this reason, I'm surprised that SE would leave themselves so vulnerable to crippling civil litigation. My gut feeling is that you are incorrect: they probably just monitor all data sent back and forth between your computer and their servers, but, if you're correct, than they might want to slap their lawyers in the head and ask them to start doing their jobs.
Charles' initial reply was a huge misstep on his part, IMO. He should not have stated that they were scanning for 3rd party applications. I believe legal liability is why call centre employees have scripts.
Despite quoting California law regulation titles and numbers as suggested by the OPP, neither person was unable to tell me what information was being collected (it's required to be disclosed by law, and I'm apparently entitled to a copy of it if I request). I was directed to the legal department and then told that I would have to send snail mail.
basset wrote:
It's good that you got the privacy commissioner involved in CA, but I might also suggest contacting your member of the State Assembly (who could embarrass them publicly or contact the Justice Dept), as well as some privacy interest groups who have the resources to get more attention than a lone individual.
I honestly am so out of touch with "back home" politics, I've no idea who my current representative is, lol... Hey, if anyone knows who represents Henderson County, Texas, speak up :P
More after next snippage
basset wrote:
...if this is indeed a violation of the privacy laws in California (I know nothing about CA), then SE at the very least needs to hear that they aren't covering themselves too well in the event of a future civil suit (read class action, god Forbid, if anything malicious were to happen to this information).
This is why I originally called California - the agreement's with Square Enix, Inc. (not Square Enix, Ltd.), SEI's based in California, and every agreement at the bottom mentions California law... it seemed logical to me & also to the people at the OPP >.<
basset wrote:
And SE doesn't need to scan running processes on your computer to detect cheating. If you can manipulate it on your computer and SE doesn't want you to manipulate it, then they should move that information server-side. If it's already server-side, they recording the data from and to your computer is more than enough to detect abnormalities--but to conclude, I'm quite confident that this is how they manage cheat/hack detection in any event.
Basset
Basset
QFT, though I'm still on disclosure issues, not purposes :D
#34
Mar 08 2007 at 1:52 PM
Sioux wrote:
[I absolutely agree they should have it in the policy. The thing I don't agree with is the outrage.
I'd have picked "OMGWTFBBQ" or "shock" before I'd have picked "outrage" to describe my anger :P
Sioux wrote:
(don't let my tone get to you, I have a nastier tone than I mean to online).
Me too, apparently :D
EDIT: I did want to comment on this tho
Sioux wrote:
Quote:
You are renting an appartment, and the owner decides to install spy cameras in your appartment without telling you.
Lol would you just say "if you dont like it then leave the appartment"?
Lol would you just say "if you dont like it then leave the appartment"?
And this analogy would work, if SE were installing 24/7 visual/audio monitoring equipment on your computer. It's not the same thing at all.
It's a decent analogy, but you're right, it is lacking.
So I vote we replace it with "You're renting an apartment, and the owner decides to install a camera in your apartment without telling you, then takes a picture every time you enter your apartment."
I haven't run POL longer than it took to reread the policies since before the update, and I don't really intend to play until they update their policy. (Kind of sitting at wait and see. Would be easier if I could just casually say "Hey guys, respect our privacy rights and disclose now and in the future and I'll keep tossing you my $13, k?")
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 4:57pm by Arketa
#35
Mar 08 2007 at 1:56 PM
WOW OP, nice work! This is really surprising.
#36
Mar 08 2007 at 1:56 PM
Please scan the letter once you receive a copy. I'm sure many of us would like to see it.
By the way how did you determine that POL was scanning? I haven't ran POL since the update (still at work), did something tip you off?
By the way how did you determine that POL was scanning? I haven't ran POL since the update (still at work), did something tip you off?
#37
Mar 08 2007 at 1:58 PM
There have been known issues where people have been banned for running anythign in that background that SE may not recognize. It coudl be virus protection, then you log onto FFXI and you are banned because they did recognize the app and considered it third party.
And SE has no right to tell you to open your computer up to potential threats.
I also hate the argument, that we just dont have to play, that is so weak, we are the customers, they bend over backwards for us, not the other way around.
What I think what will happen, they will get their report, say o crap 90% of pc users are running windower, so do we ban them all and destroy our game causing us to lose 10's of millions of dollars, or do we use this as a sign that maybe we should have put window function in along time ago.
There is also a rule that a tos cannot over ride illegal activities. They can put something in saying we can do this and that, and if the basis of it is illegal, it cant be enforced even though you agreed to it.
And SE has no right to tell you to open your computer up to potential threats.
I also hate the argument, that we just dont have to play, that is so weak, we are the customers, they bend over backwards for us, not the other way around.
What I think what will happen, they will get their report, say o crap 90% of pc users are running windower, so do we ban them all and destroy our game causing us to lose 10's of millions of dollars, or do we use this as a sign that maybe we should have put window function in along time ago.
There is also a rule that a tos cannot over ride illegal activities. They can put something in saying we can do this and that, and if the basis of it is illegal, it cant be enforced even though you agreed to it.
#38
Mar 08 2007 at 2:00 PM
The only thing i'm afraid of right now is if their scan isn't "Built well"....like, say you have a 3rd party program running, but the scan will only send this information back as "3rd Party software"...
Then again, i don't know...i'm just a little worried that if i have limewire running music if it'll confuse that with windower in the process. Hmmm....i really hope not....i'm an actual legit player ><.
Then again, i don't know...i'm just a little worried that if i have limewire running music if it'll confuse that with windower in the process. Hmmm....i really hope not....i'm an actual legit player ><.
#39
Mar 08 2007 at 2:00 PM
Quote:
Who @#%^ing cares. Don't @#%^ing cheat morons and you won't have to worry about a damn thing. I am HAPPY they're scanning my processes. Because it's obvious Windower does not flag them at all. So too bad on the "OMGz! I GOT the Banstick for using Windower!" naysayers. Stop @#%^ing cheating.
So, if SE decided to jump from Scanning Memory to Scanning the entire computer, would you object?
What about if they scanned your entire computer and transmitted it in the clear? User names, Passwords, Bank Accounts, Websites you visited, etc.
Where do you draw the line?
Personally, If SE wants to scan any part of my computer, I should know about it. If SE wants to transmit the scanned information, I should know about it and how they are doing it. If SE uses that information, I should know what its used for. If SE shares that information, I should know who its shared with. It doesn't matter if its for scanning for 3rd Party tools or just statistical data.
Any privacy data has to be disclosed - is the main reason why you hear so many companies getting into trouble lately. They record information and share/release it to anyone. They profit off it, and you don't get any money off it. And when some identity theif gets a hold of it, the ones to suffer are the individuals who have no knowledge of this happening.
It is not your decision to determine what happens with my personal data.
And if I were you, I would question what SE is doing with it.
Are you 100% sure its for 3rd Party Tools? No.
Are you 100% sure its not going to be shared? No. (and chances are it will, most companies do NOT locally crunch huge numbers - They either send it out or bring in a team to do it. In each case, once they are done they are not bound by any agreement unless it was done before hand. If SE doesn't tell me they are collecting data, how can I believe they are safeguarding it properly?)
Are you 100% sure its not going to be sold? No.
Oh, and might I add, even if people are afraid of getting caught cheating, it still doesn't allow SE to break US privacy laws. Personally I could care less that someone is cheating in a game when it comes to a huge company mishandling personal data illegally.
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 5:03pm by Asmoranomar
#40
Mar 08 2007 at 2:03 PM
ZOMG SE isn't doing anything to stop RMT, botters or 3rd party hackers.
ZOMG why is SE even trying to stop them with updates, they'll just adapt and be back in ten minutes.
ZOMG SE tried to stop them and the changes affect my <mining, quest, crafting, income, farming habits, etc> so now I'm pissed.
ZOMG SE shouldn't nerf anything, they should just ban all RMTs, botter and hackers and I don't care if they can't figure out who they are, they should just know!
ZOMG SE made the missions too hard and take too much time.
ZOMG SE made the missions too easy and now everyone can do them and I'm not as cool as I used to be.
ZOMG SE is scanning my processor list to find hackers onto their system and they didn't tell me. I hate them ONLY becuase they didn't tell me.
Okay the last one I'm actually on the side of players - but I think we can cut SE a little slack because:
A) SE is probably going to release an update of the TOS to take into account this new action.
B) SE is doing so much to meet everyone's needs that I think we can cut them a little slack.
C) It's possible their legal team is still drafting the updates. It's possible that they just didn't post the update yet.
D) Considering how much WIN this update had, we should be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
ZOMG why is SE even trying to stop them with updates, they'll just adapt and be back in ten minutes.
ZOMG SE tried to stop them and the changes affect my <mining, quest, crafting, income, farming habits, etc> so now I'm pissed.
ZOMG SE shouldn't nerf anything, they should just ban all RMTs, botter and hackers and I don't care if they can't figure out who they are, they should just know!
ZOMG SE made the missions too hard and take too much time.
ZOMG SE made the missions too easy and now everyone can do them and I'm not as cool as I used to be.
ZOMG SE is scanning my processor list to find hackers onto their system and they didn't tell me. I hate them ONLY becuase they didn't tell me.
Okay the last one I'm actually on the side of players - but I think we can cut SE a little slack because:
A) SE is probably going to release an update of the TOS to take into account this new action.
B) SE is doing so much to meet everyone's needs that I think we can cut them a little slack.
C) It's possible their legal team is still drafting the updates. It's possible that they just didn't post the update yet.
D) Considering how much WIN this update had, we should be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
#41
Mar 08 2007 at 2:06 PM
33 posts
Quote:
Is it a massive violation of your privacy to have to walk through a metal detector in an airport? Do you scream and cry and call the better business bureau or whatevertf?
Or do you go through the detector, knowing on the other side that everyone is less likely to be running around with a weapon or some other death-spawning thing?
Or do you go through the detector, knowing on the other side that everyone is less likely to be running around with a weapon or some other death-spawning thing?
This example is flawed. Ignoring the fact, by definition, a metal detector indicates a scan is going to be performed, there are signs posted everywhere saying that you and your baggage will be scanned. At that point you have the option to choose not to enter and not to fly or to agree to their terms.
The point is, they are letting you know beforehand what they are going to do so that you can make the choice. I do not agree with 3rd party programs or hacks of any kind and do not use them. But I do want to be informed. I want to know what is being done to my personal property so that I can then decide if I wish to proceed or not. I am in full agreement with the idea behind it, but I do not agree with it being done without my knowledge or consent.
#42
Mar 08 2007 at 2:10 PM
Aniclator wrote:
By the way how did you determine that POL was scanning? I haven't ran POL since the update (still at work), did something tip you off?
I started my update around 3pm EST yesterday, it didn't complete until around 10pm EST (my connection is teh poopy for big downloads - they get speed capped after a short time >:( grr), so I got bored.
Then someone posted this and I thought "haha another thread about 'In Soviet Vana'diel, FFXI hacks you!'" hell, a few posts in IN says he sees it every update, then some seeming conspiracy nut comes in and talks about SE keylogging you, and I even posted a picture of the 'suspected' ZOMG Super Secret Key Logging Program.
Haha, fun and games, right?
Anyway I was too tired last night to want to play so I went to sleep, woke up this morning, had a Dr Pepper browsed some websites, remembered the bit about the whole scanning thing and went "I wonder..."
Mostly I figured the screencap of ProcGuard was a photo manip. So, I blocked everything I had running from being read, and ran pol, and sure enough, pol seemed to care that I was running MSN, Thunderbird, Photoshop, and IE, none of which have a damn thing to do with FFXI.
But that doesn't mean anything, mind you. I mean, for all I know, it's scanning PIDs to make Windows ensure that it's running properly.
But still being a curious kitty and stubbornly unwilling to comply with Occam's Razor (and possessing more than my fair share of free time), I phoned POL and straight up asked.
I asked if pol.exe was scanning my processes, and was told yes, it was scanning processes and virtual memory looking for third party applications. At which point we get to the OP-OP I made above & me saying "but that's against the policy"
So, in short: about 1% suspicion based on other users' posts, and 99% me asking outright.
#43
Mar 08 2007 at 2:14 PM
Props to you, Arketa.
This is about our personal freedoms people. One of the major things that make us Americans. Our freedoms are being stripped more and more everyday under many different guises.
Some very smart people wrote some extremely well thought out documents many many years ago on all of our behalf. I wonder what they would think of our current situation today.
This is about our personal freedoms people. One of the major things that make us Americans. Our freedoms are being stripped more and more everyday under many different guises.
Some very smart people wrote some extremely well thought out documents many many years ago on all of our behalf. I wonder what they would think of our current situation today.
#44
Mar 08 2007 at 2:15 PM
youssarian wrote:
ZOMG SE is scanning my processor list to find hackers onto their system and they didn't tell me. I hate them ONLY becuase they didn't tell me.
Okay the last one I'm actually on the side of players - but I think we can cut SE a little slack because:
A) SE is probably going to release an update of the TOS to take into account this new action.
B) SE is doing so much to meet everyone's needs that I think we can cut them a little slack.
C) It's possible their legal team is still drafting the updates. It's possible that they just didn't post the update yet.
D) Considering how much WIN this update had, we should be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Okay the last one I'm actually on the side of players - but I think we can cut SE a little slack because:
A) SE is probably going to release an update of the TOS to take into account this new action.
B) SE is doing so much to meet everyone's needs that I think we can cut them a little slack.
C) It's possible their legal team is still drafting the updates. It's possible that they just didn't post the update yet.
D) Considering how much WIN this update had, we should be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
"Yes, Mr. Corporation, I am willing to bend over and grab my ankles while you thoroughly violate me because a) you lack foresight b) you have an iota of customer service set up c) you're lazy and/or have lawyers who weren't pushy enough to make sure you had your *** covered before you stuck it our there and/or d) you updated your game."
Pardon the sarcasm here, but when the entire US lacks any firm, well drawn out legislation regarding your privacy rights (and otherwise) in the digital world, I'd prefer that, 20 years from now, we not all be screwed over because people like you didn't want to speak up over a violation because of "how much WIN this update had".
#47
Mar 08 2007 at 2:26 PM
I should point out, that anyone being banned from the game due to any use of "Third party applications" while POL is being operated would have a legitimate cause for a lawsuit. At least until they update the ToS.
I'm cool with not using Windower. It'd be an annoyance to me, but one i lived with for a year before i realized there was such a thing as windower. But i need to be given the opportunity to KNOW that SE is scanning for it. Because there is no real information about the addition, it could be scanning my CPU for my bank records, for all i know. And why wouldn't it be? Because SE "wouldn't do that?" Really, how do you know? I mean, they never mentioned they were putting the scan in there in the first place...
Scanning the CPU for anything, without informing the owner of the CPU about the scan, is in violation of US Privacy Policies. While it might be legal in Japan and other areas, it's not here.
The outrage is not that they did it (although it might be for some), but rather that they did it without informing anyone.
I'm cool with not using Windower. It'd be an annoyance to me, but one i lived with for a year before i realized there was such a thing as windower. But i need to be given the opportunity to KNOW that SE is scanning for it. Because there is no real information about the addition, it could be scanning my CPU for my bank records, for all i know. And why wouldn't it be? Because SE "wouldn't do that?" Really, how do you know? I mean, they never mentioned they were putting the scan in there in the first place...
Scanning the CPU for anything, without informing the owner of the CPU about the scan, is in violation of US Privacy Policies. While it might be legal in Japan and other areas, it's not here.
The outrage is not that they did it (although it might be for some), but rather that they did it without informing anyone.
#48
Mar 08 2007 at 2:26 PM
I think while SE probably means well, the fact they are trying to hide it bothers me. It bothers me a lot. While I mostly play on PS2, I do have a copy of the PC version, one of which is installed on my work PC with confidential data.
If they scan processes now, and nobody says or does anything, whats to stop them from scanning files on your PC? on your network? What if they look at your web browsing history to find what sites you visit, get email addresses from your address books, and sell the information? What if the data they collect gets hacked? What if their collection method gets hacked?
I'm not saying that any of this will happen, but it's all definately possible, and by not speaking up now, you make it easier for them to do it in the future.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If they scan processes now, and nobody says or does anything, whats to stop them from scanning files on your PC? on your network? What if they look at your web browsing history to find what sites you visit, get email addresses from your address books, and sell the information? What if the data they collect gets hacked? What if their collection method gets hacked?
I'm not saying that any of this will happen, but it's all definately possible, and by not speaking up now, you make it easier for them to do it in the future.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
#49
Mar 08 2007 at 2:31 PM
It really scares me that people would give up their rights for a cause. There is no cause worthy of losing our rights for. Once they're gone, they don't come back. Some day if you need one of these rights to protect yourself from censorship or some form of tyranny and you let those rights slip away, you'll be sorry. Even if you don't ever face that, would you wish that on your children?
#50
Mar 08 2007 at 2:33 PM
EDIT : I'm leaving the following post up, but be aware that i had started writing it before the OP had posted up his complete story :) The confusion was worked out on page 2.
I've been keeping up with this thread, and don't think i saw anyone mention any facts backing up that SE is doing this at all. the OP just started off with a phonecall to SE about privacy, he didn't really tell us what tipped him off. An no tech-savvy people have come on here saying "I checked and it's there, monitoring indeed" along with info on how to see the proof yourself.
I duno this thread is definitely one to watch, but I still have a nagging suspicion that this is just a SE representative's BS statement (just agreeing with whatever you ask to get rid of you) blown outa proportion. What hapened to this week's "Pics or it didn't happen" theme? I'd like some kind of substanciation that this scanning thing is hapening at all.
Point is, someone tech savvy check for this monitoring and report back! And OP if you did mention finding some kind of proof please point me to it cuz i missed it.
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 5:36pm by RattyBatty
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 6:14pm by RattyBatty
I've been keeping up with this thread, and don't think i saw anyone mention any facts backing up that SE is doing this at all. the OP just started off with a phonecall to SE about privacy, he didn't really tell us what tipped him off. An no tech-savvy people have come on here saying "I checked and it's there, monitoring indeed" along with info on how to see the proof yourself.
I duno this thread is definitely one to watch, but I still have a nagging suspicion that this is just a SE representative's BS statement (just agreeing with whatever you ask to get rid of you) blown outa proportion. What hapened to this week's "Pics or it didn't happen" theme? I'd like some kind of substanciation that this scanning thing is hapening at all.
Point is, someone tech savvy check for this monitoring and report back! And OP if you did mention finding some kind of proof please point me to it cuz i missed it.
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 5:36pm by RattyBatty
Edited, Mar 8th 2007 6:14pm by RattyBatty
#51
Mar 08 2007 at 2:35 PM
You are aware that far more companies than just SE are scanning your PC everyday, right?
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 735
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (735)
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XI
- General Discussion
- POL System Scan Privacy Issues? OP Updated 5:39am EST Mar 9
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC