POL System Scan Privacy Issues? OP Updated 5:39am EST Mar 9Follow

Please dont flame me, but the fact still remains.. They are looking at information stored on our computers, without our concent.

That my friend, is illegal.. INLESS!

After 30 days of recieveing a complaint, they change there ToS.

Let me edit... As of right now, IF Arketa filed a complaint with OPP, they have a 30 day probation period, to edit there ToS.


Edited, Mar 8th 2007 11:07pm by Talzhemir

Edited, Mar 8th 2007 11:08pm by Talzhemir

Have you read the entire thread? It's not about "how deep the scan goes!" It's that they are doing a scan on our systems without first updating their contract information. This is not legal. What don't you understand?

Just because some of us take it more serious doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. If nobody cares about important issues, they never get changed/fixed. Our rights are being violated, even if it is just a video game. I dislike that.

You can do what you want. I hope someday your rights are stepped on so you realize how much some people work to protect people like you who just "don't care." Go to a different country where your have no rights. You'll appreciate things in America a lot more, I'd wager.

I dont believe SEI is doing anything harmful with this information, possibily trying to find out what 3rd party programs you may be using or other system information. But from a law stand point, it should have ben inplemented into SE (Playonline) ToS.

Argonaut,

Did you not read my post on the last page.... here I will copy~pasta for you.



Now how are they not collecting personally identifiable information again?? They got my full name just from the command string on one of my process'. That right there alone falls under this right here, that even YOU had quoted.



Sometimes I seriously wonder if people even bother reading the whole thread or just see one post they want to argue and skip everything else.

Actually I am kind of asking both, can they ban us for what they collect prior to editing the ToS. But also if after they update the ToS, if they make it vague or say they are only collecting information for reasearch. But then they ban us because we were using certain programs they do not want us to.

Hopefully I cleared that up.

Thanks Tal, though I'm still unsure if that's who I should contact stateside since it's still my legal US residence or not >.<

Like I stated before, I went with California's privacy office because of the paragraph at the end of the membership agreement where it says "This Agreement shall be governed by California law" - figured that was straightforward :D

Well, if they banned you right now, for say.. Using windower, and the evidice they provide was information collected from your computer, PRIOR to the ToS change.. Then you could turn around and sue them, for OPP breach.

Now if they edit the ToS, and you agree to allow them to scan for 3rd party background programs, and or other items. Then there would be nothing you could do about, legaly.

But i'm not sure if SEI has the right to with hold information from you, concerning a ban. Its somthing i'll look into right now.

Yes, you handled the situation properly. California OPP is who you need to speak with, nothing really a statesman could do with this, because the ToS was written and is enforced by California Law.



Not sure what CC'd means.. ???

Edited, Mar 8th 2007 11:33pm by Talzhemir

jegzus: Although I, as well as others love your avatar, it's totally NWS, so I's sorry if I went past something while trying to hide your avatar.

it "Was BLOCKED from reading" the information contained about the process created by that program. SE wouldn't be interested in the path of the file, more the file itself. If they were to collect information it would be at a level of process instance rather than process creation. Think of it this way, you are looking at a lineup picking the guy that just robbed you. You're not interested in where he came from, you're just interested at what he looked like so you can positively id him.

So yes you are right in saying that if they collect the full path of the file (extra weight on the data to be transferred) then they have your first/last name, but if they are doing it the smart and efficient way that won't effect gameplay, then they are only collecting limited data. You have to realise that if they are collecting and proccessing data then they are doing this to many more people than you at the same time, so bogging down their systems with file path's is just a stupid and inefficient way of doing things (then again they do double packet....)

They will have to specify what they are looking for, forget what section, in the Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 - Business and Professions Code, but I do believe it states, when collecting data, they (SEI), needs to specify what they are actualy looking for, and collecting.

I know what a carbon copy is, just didnt register.

And Carbon Copys are abreveated as C.C

Also know what BCC means? :D

Blind Carbon Copy.



Edited, Mar 8th 2007 11:44pm by Talzhemir

How the heck is process information 'personally identifiable information"?? It's the WRONG LAW to apply.

I believe the proper law is Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is what Sony was sued under with their rootkit. However, you have to demonstrate DAMAGE, and there is none.

I was originally told it was looking at process information AND information stored in virtual memory.

If have a text document open that, for some strange reason, contains all my personal data, SSN, banking information, etc, it's in my virtual memory.

SEI doesn't specify what they're collecting, and until they do, there's no way for us, without that information, or without their copy of the collected data, to even know if it is personally identifiable.



I'm just wondering if it's too much to ask to be told before such scanning occurs. (It's a simple matter of respecting my rights. See Blizzard's WoW agreement, yet again.) That would have superb, fantastic, and wonderful. My primary issue is the nondisclosure and therefore innacuracy of the privacy policy in regards to the scanning taking place and information being transferred, none of which is covered by the current policy.

The thread's evolved a bit since then though, but that's where I stand ;)