3140 réponses à ce sujet

[Lukertin]

Xeranx wrote...
They have no right to any files that does not pertain to their product.  That means they can't open and close any ebook files I have.  Pictures, music, text, doc files, video (movies), etc.  They also have no right to programs that are on my computer.  My free copy of DAZ has nothing to do with them.  It doesn't have anything incriminating there, but they have no right to look into anything there than they do if the door to my house was wide open to see inside.

This will be the new way to "legally" harass people.  If you don't see that then what can I tell you.  I won't sign up for it.  They want me to re-download origin.  I'm not doing it.  I have Arkham Asylum that I won't play because I have to install Steam.  I don't care about offline mode.  I care that it's there, period.

They don't have the right because you don't want to give it to them. It doesn't get more complex than what you'r emaking it out to be.

[Lukertin]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
I was under the impression the US goverment know everything about everyone already, maybe thats just what want people to believe I guess. I am not a US citizen so not sure about your own laws but I find it unbelieveable that they don't snoop on all Americans 24/7 via various means.

They don't. The NSA may spy on Americans but they aren't law enforcement and they don't regularly cooperate with law enforcement except for things related to terrorism.

Random snooping by government agents is barred by the 4th Amendment. Any data collected by that method cannot be used to convict you for any crime. Putting computer viruses on to private computers is something the German government does. Doing that to a computer in the US is protected under 'unreasonable search and seizure of papers without warrant'.

[Dragoonlordz]

Lumikki wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Surely the only aspect that actually matters is what data is actually "sent" back to EA not what it looks it but does not send back and noone has shown me the exact information that is being sent back.

You are right that what really matters is actual send of data to EA, not as what files the software is scanning. Basicly software can scan hole computer and every file and do nothing illegal. As for sending files, that would requires connection snooping assuming the data is not crypted, what it could be for security reasons. How ever, it's not even needed as it is still in EULA. They say that they are collecting data from customers computer.

2. Consent to Collection and Use of Data.

Remember collecting ANY data from players computer what is not directly related game what is played, requires permission and that permission can't be connected to ability play the game.

My point is the only way I would even consider Origin an affront or offensive to me personally is depandant on exactly what information is being sent back and this does not include what people think is being sent, what people say might be sent or what people claim could of sent ~only what IS sent. Noone has actually shown me what is actually sent back so I'm sorry but I cannot get annoyed at something that to the best of my knowlodge until proven otherwise is merely looking at most of things but only sending information that is not personal imho. I do not count my hardware specs, my software structure or my registry information to be personal enough to offend me and noone has shown (that I have seen yet) that what is being sent back is anything more than that at this moment in time.

[Lumikki]

Does it matter if we see the transmission, when they say in EULA that they can do it. It's break of law it self allready.I count everyting inside my computer as personal or statical data. Including hardware and softwares. They have no permission to know that information without my permission. It's statical data and there is laws agaist collecting it without permission.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:12 .

[Dragoonlordz]

To me yes it does. The EULA means very little to me. If come into conflict with it then regardless of whether I consider it legal or whether I consider it not is completley irrelevant. The reality will present itself upon any action try to take against me or vice versa with the result shown through court. I care very little about this bickering about whether people consider the EULA legal or not. As it stands right now to my knowledge they do not extract any data I consider personal in nature of that is so personal it would offend me in any way.

The only thing that would make me annoyed, angry or offended by EA's Origin and same applied for Steam or any digital client would be the reality of exactly what they do take regarding information from my system and not what people think they might do. Hence why a sample of exact data being transmitted is what would be needed for myself to make me offended dependant on nature of the real data being sent. The difference between what it looks at and what it actually sends.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:07 .

[Lumikki]

Yeah, there is many/some people in this forum who doesn't care what ever EA does as long they can play the game. The people who care is complaining the situation, because what EA does is illegal. Do you personally accept the situation is irrelevant, because front of law it's still illegal.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:09 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, there is many/some people in this forum what doens't care what ever EA does as long they can play the game. The people who care is complaining the situation, because what EA does is illegal. Do you personally accept the situation is irrelevant, because front of law it's still illegal.

Whether or not you consider it illegal or legal makes no difference. A court decides what is legal not the customer and not the business. Until one party either customer or corporation tries running through the court against each other with it; all this bickering is pointless.

Like I said your interpretation of what is legal or their interpretation of what is legal means very little when it's the courts (dependant on judge, dependant on nation even dependant on county) decide what side is right or wrong through actual conflict arising that requires either party to be taken to such.

I'm sorry but what matters to me about whether I continue using Origin or Steam as examples is the EXACT data they will actually take and not what people think they will take. The proof is in the pudding the rest is assumption. No document they produce, no opinion of you or others makes any difference until tested by actual court appearence (dependant on judge, dependant on nation even dependant on county) as already mentioned, until such happens I don't care what the customer thinks it means or what the corporation thinks it can do. So the only thing until that time that matters to me is what data is actually being sent and not what people think is being sent by assumption.

The result of what actually being sent will be reflected in whether I use it or not. If I do not use it due to results being unfavorable then there is no real issue for me because I won't be using it anymore. If the results show nothing I consider too personal being sent then I will continue using again no issue for me.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:24 .

[Lumikki]

Conflict is allready raised in Germany. Even I have reported this to my goverment allready. Issue is that it can take long time to solve this in real life law jungle. So, if EA would fix situation without this legal BS, that would be nice.

It doesn't require much from them, just make extra question in Origin does someone want to be part of data collection, what isn't conneted to ability play game. That's all what is required to make it legal. That would allow player to say no to data collection and still play the game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:25 .

[SalsaDMA]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Just go look up the info yourself before making such comments.

The data is widely available on the net by now and have been brought up plenty of times. I'm not gonna bother pointing it out anymore as debating evidence that clearly resides on the net is not a debatable point, depsite your attempt to make it one.

Nice to know you got inside knowledge about what origin does or doesn't do, since you so adamantly can tell us what it doesn't do despite evidence on the web pointing to the countrary. Feel free to release the source code to the public if you got access to it so we can peruse it ourself;)

Link it or you have no proof. Same principle of screenie or didn't happen. It's not my job to do your work for you, you want to counter a point then back it up yourself.  If you don't like how I view it then it's your responsibility to prove/show me I'm wrong, not mine.

Because spamming the thread with links that have been posted multiple times already by multiple persons is surely a good way to keep a discussion proper.

Sorry, I'm not gonna point out again what has already been pointed out several times. And you're the one claiming you know more about the capabilities of the program than those providing videos and screenshots all over the web. How about you come up with some proof of your claims about what Origin doesn't do instead?

Your problem, ofc, is that you can't. Cause doing so would require access to and ability to release the current sourcecode of the program. And we both know that's not gonna happen as EA already now has issues about people circumventing it with BF3.

Like I said if you are not going to back up your claims then don't make them. You seem to lack understanding of what opening a file means. It does not mean looking at a "filename", "date created" and "date modified" or even "filesize" just like others have stated that is just attributes of a file not content. Opening means actually opening the file looking at it's content which according to you it does when does not plus which is also fallacy you claim sends EA it's contents.

You wish to make claims like that then it is your responsibility to back it up. You choose not to therefore don't pretend your right through total lack of evidence which you failed to show. You mention screenshots yet show none of Origin doing such. I am sorry but I am a programmer too and those commands could merely be used to open a folder as part of the search. It could also merely mean the file 'stream'. Both of which you have failed to show any proof of it doing either.

That you can't be bothered to read through the thread isn't my problem. There already have been linked to such stuff several times.

Ther'es plenty of evidence, you just choose not to follow up on it. Your loss.

[Dragoonlordz]

SalsaDMA wrote...

That you can't be bothered to read through the thread isn't my problem. There already have been linked to such stuff several times.

Ther'es plenty of evidence, you just choose not to follow up on it. Your loss.

Your right I am not reading 66 pages of bickering about a EULA. Feel free to link the pages such evidence is on. The evidence I require is exact data captured being sent to EA and does not include crap about what it merely looks at. My patience is wearing thin, for the most part all I seen in recent pages is a lot of huff puff blow your house down relating to the EULA legallity of which not a single person here and not EA know if stand up in courts because there EULA has not been put to the test in every single nation for every single clause, each nations courts differ aswell as even depending on judge at time can rule one way or the other regardless of what either party thinks they might do.  So no I don't care as much about this bickering over EULA because until they try taking me to court they don't know and I don't know which side will come out a winner, only then once been put to the test will I or they know.

When I ask for actual evidence of what is being transmitted to EA none has actually shown any and that is the only thing I care about because it decides whether I wish to use Origin or not, until that time everyones assumptions are just that. The only thing I have seen is images of what it looks at and none has shown me via links or images what it actually send outgoing to EA via recording it doing such.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:43 .

[Xeranx]

Lukertin wrote...

They don't have the right because you don't want to give it to them. It doesn't get more complex than what you'r emaking it out to be.

Are you saying they automatically have the right if I don't voice an opinion either way?  

If the country you live in works that way then I'm not going to tell you what's good for you.  Where I live, people don't get access to whatever's on your hard drive (in your house) without a warrant which means they need probable cause.  Heck, they don't get ready access to anything on your person without consent or probable cause.  As that's the case, no one has a right to anything of my own without my expressed agreement.  They can go and kick rocks for all I care.

[SalsaDMA]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

That you can't be bothered to read through the thread isn't my problem. There already have been linked to such stuff several times.

Ther'es plenty of evidence, you just choose not to follow up on it. Your loss.

Your right I am not reading 66 pages of bickering about a EULA. Feel free to link the pages such evidence is on. The evidence I require is exact data captured being sent to EA and does not include crap about what it merely looks at. My patience is wearing thin, or the most part all I seen in recent pages is a lot of huff puff blow your house down. When I ask for actual evidence of what is being transmitted to EA none has actually shown any.

ah.. now you are bending it.

Cause a quick google on origin scanning will you quite clearly what it scans.

Sending?
You ARE aware that it would be quite QUITE silly to program a software like origin to send data straigth away, right? It would in practicality be a self induced DOS (Denial Of Service) attack on their own servers if done with reckless abandon.

Why have the ability and collect the data and even admit in the first EULA they wanted to collect it if they didn't have the capability to do so?

If they programmed it just a tiny weenie bit smart, it would include triggers for when to send data, possibly even wait with sending untill receiving a handshake fromt he server indicating it is ready for recieval.

Actually catching the sending as it occured would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

What we DO know is this:
Origin collects the data
It has the ability to send it
It was designed and intended to send the data as admitted by EA in their EULA

It doesn't get much clearer thatn that.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lukertin wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Bill of Rights wrote...Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words, if the government can't harvest any personal information off you without probable cause how can a company do that whichi the government is barred from?  EA is an American company.  They can't get away with stuff like this.  They might get away with this, but they sure as hell shouldn't.

They aren't getting away with anything. You say this like it is illegal for them to collect data in this manner.

Don't confuse "rights" with "laws", or "legal" with "moral".

[Dragoonlordz]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

That you can't be bothered to read through the thread isn't my problem. There already have been linked to such stuff several times.

Ther'es plenty of evidence, you just choose not to follow up on it. Your loss.

Your right I am not reading 66 pages of bickering about a EULA. Feel free to link the pages such evidence is on. The evidence I require is exact data captured being sent to EA and does not include crap about what it merely looks at. My patience is wearing thin, or the most part all I seen in recent pages is a lot of huff puff blow your house down. When I ask for actual evidence of what is being transmitted to EA none has actually shown any.

ah.. now you are bending it.

Cause a quick google on origin scanning will you quite clearly what it scans.

Sending?
You ARE aware that it would be quite QUITE silly to program a software like origin to send data straigth away, right? It would in practicality be a self induced DOS (Denial Of Service) attack on their own servers if done with reckless abandon.

Why have the ability and collect the data and even admit in the first EULA they wanted to collect it if they didn't have the capability to do so?

If they programmed it just a tiny weenie bit smart, it would include triggers for when to send data, possibly even wait with sending untill receiving a handshake fromt he server indicating it is ready for recieval.

Actually catching the sending as it occured would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

What we DO know is this:
Origin collects the data
It has the ability to send it
It was designed and intended to send the data as admitted by EA in their EULA

It doesn't get much clearer thatn that.

It scans aka looks at things oh dear god cry me a river already. It could look at everything on your system and not send a single part of it. That is why until you prove what is actually sent then it's nothing but fearmongering. You don't actually know what they collect because you haven't got any evidence showing what they are actually being sent. The reality is because you haven't seen them or collected/recorded anything being sent they have in fact not been sent/collected anything.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:47 .

[Lumikki]

Dragoonlordz seem to think that nothing exist unless person can prove it by actually seeing it them self. It's gonna be very difficult to show that, when the data trasmission is encrypted.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:48 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Lumikki wrote...

Dragoonlordz seem to think that noting exist unless person can prove it by actually seeing it them self. It's gonna be very difficult to show that, when the data trasmission is encrypted.

Everything can be unencrypted. show any evidence any at all of your data being sent and more importantly anything within that data. The fact is noone here seems to have any evidence that they have done anything more than look at your files. What they say they might do in the EULA makes no difference if they never do it. I am asking you to show proof that they are doing it. If can't do that then sorry but it seems I must reach the conclusion this thread is nothing more than fearmongering scared of what ifs not what is.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:52 .

[Sharizah]

it has been confirmed by PC Games (German Gamer Magazine) and a "hacker group" (don't know name) and by EA itself, that Origin actually scans only Origin relevant files.
Some screenshots published by people are fake (antivirus software renamed to origin for example).
Origin does not scan your personal data or anything other than Origin Games within the Program Data folder. They even want to re-program it, so in the future it will only scan the Origin Folder itself.
It does not check for non-origin-game licenses either, altough the EULA still is unclear at that point.

Sources:
http://www.pcgames.d...s-Tages-852501/

http://www.pcgames.d...-Kunden-852067/

Modifié par Sharizah, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:56 .

[Lumikki]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

show any evidence any at all of your data being sent and more importantly anything within that data.

Problem with you statement is that you require proof, what isn't needed when the EA has allready been confessing doing it in they EULA. Like in crime you don't need to gather evidence if there is confession.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:59 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Lumikki wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

show any evidence any at all of your data being sent and more importantly anything within that data.

Problem with you statement is that you require proof, what isn't needed when the EA has allready been confessing doing it in they EULA. Like in crime you don't need to gather proof if there is confession.

It is open to importantly grosse (mis)interpretation of what data is being sent. None of which anyone knows because noone has proven it one way or the other. It doesnt say what the exact data will be sent it merely specifys sources of the data that are open to vast interpretation such as "software" it may only send information about the "software" as example application Origin regardless of what it looks at even if looks at all your software if only sends information about Origin ~what it sends is whats important like i said without proof the rest is assumptions.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 11:04 .

[Lumikki]

It also says hardware and operating system, don't forget that.

[Killjoy Cutter]

That Origin sends scans anything or sends anything is the problem. That Origin exists is the problem.

[Dragoonlordz]

Put it this way I came in here on the fence not caring one way or other I asked for proof for clarity and basing a decision of whether I continue to use Origin or not and made clear that to me the EULA is nothing more than untested in courts piece of flap. Until taken to court I am hardly going to fear an untested new EULA for their new software application. It could turn around on single ruling and bite them in the arse here. I am not worried about it because it's fear for sake of fear and on single ruling here may be nothing more than bloated wall of text. Or it could turn out to be legal but until they take me to court it is no skin off my back and has zero effect on my life.

The only thing that matters is whether I choose to use software or choose not to use that does require proof one way or the other. The naysayers claim what it looks at EULA and what origin scans is proof, but assumptions of what is being sent based on nothing more then interpretations of what they 'might' mean even though could be incorrect in the naysayer interpretation. Because there is no clarity to what actually is sent and relying on assumption that is exactly why I wanted proof. On the other hand the other side have just now shown article from combination of three sources stating that the naysayers interpretation is indeed wrong, it is more proof than the opposing side has so far shown of which I asked for.

So which side do you think I am tipping towards now? The one with proof that has more than screenshots of what Origin looks at and EULA could greatly be interpretated or misineterpreted as.

Now I am not fully on the side of Origin because I still want the proof or best can get from the other side of the arguement/fence of which if supplied and indeed shows personal data is being transmitted that I consider shouldn't be then I will completely tip the other way.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 11:25 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

That Origin sends scans anything or sends anything is the problem. That Origin exists is the problem.

Send anything is your problem with it, sends anything is not my problem with it instead what that anything has inside of that anything is what will define if I have a problem with it. What I consider ok to send is different to what you consider ok to send.

I asked for evidence of what they do send and not assumptions or interpretation. Because then I can decide if that anything does indeed cause me to have problem with it. I am not being overly mean on purpose but it feels like people are stonewalling me for evidence to base my decision on. One side shown what origin "scans" and what their "interpretation" of the EULA is. The other side has shown a source comprised of content saying their interpretation is "inaccurate". This only leaves proof that it scans your system nothing more and nothing less.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 11:31 .

[SalsaDMA]

So in other words, as long as they don't tell you about it, it's alright for them to spy on you.

Got it...

[Dragoonlordz]

SalsaDMA wrote...

So in other words, as long as they don't tell you about it, it's alright for them to spy on you.

Got it...

Got nothing to do with what I am asking for or my statement.

I asked if anyone can show me evidence that they are indeed doing what naysayers side are claiming they are doing. They haven't. The otherside of the fence has shown that the naysayers interpretation is quite likley wrong.

A man walks down the street he says "I will open your shopping bag and take something out, what that something is I will give you a mere hint but you have to guess and if guess right you get a cookie", the person (A) says ok then guesses and the guy doesnt open his hand but turns says the person (A) is wrong, two passersby who have looked in the hand also say that the person (A) is wrong but the person (A) has yet to see inside the hand. I am asking you to tell me whats in that hand prove that your guess is right else sorry but I will beleive the two passerbys over your mere guess. The only thing you do know is that he looked inside your shopping bag, you do not even know IF he has taken anything out.

If you do not want not say yes ok and instead no because you [do not trust] the man then don't open your bag and let him look inside aka don't buy the game and move on with your life. For those of us who say yes we are the only ones that matter in this situation because we are the only ones who play take part.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 11:44 .