3140 réponses à ce sujet

[Vegos]

Arcian wrote...

I don't think I have ever seen a person over-exaggerate more than you just did.

I didn't exaggerate. If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't have a problem with it. You pretty much said so yourself. "Evil people want privacy, good citizens don't need it."

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 12:09 .

[Savadrin]

Arcian wrote...

Vegos wrote...

Arcian wrote...
You want total privacy? Yeah, so does that father who rapes his 5 year old daughter every night, and that woman who synthesizes meth in her basement, and those guys who meet up every sunday to plot terrorist actions against the government.

So predictable.

Those people are breaking the law. The government can show on their doorstep with the paperwork that makes their privacy void for the duration of their search. They don't have to infringe upon mine to nail the scumbag.

By the way, can I see all your credit card bills from the last year? I PROMISE I won't show them to anyone? No? What do you mean, no? Are you asking for PRIVACY? What are you HIDING? Were you buying something ILLEGAL? Are you PLOTTING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT!? If you don't SHOW me those bills, that means you're HIDING something, and that makes you EVIL!

Note: Any person with half a brain cell tell that above paragraph is basically what you're saying, just more specific. Any person with half a brain cell can also tell it's pure nonsense.

I don't think I have ever seen a person over-exaggerate more than you just did.

i have to agree with her. if you don't post your name, address, SSN, phone number and a couple email addy's on the open web then you have something to hide...  hmmmm... what could you be hiding...

[psiasterisk]

Arcian wrote...

I think it should go both ways. Privacy, when unchecked, is as much of an evil as government/corporate surveillance. The idea that people aren't willing to abuse the system for their own gain is as idiotic as thinking the government or the corporations aren't willing to abuse the system for their gain.

Your last sentence is of course the reason why most states maintain a public police force and while I have to concede that it would be very difficult (even though I wouldn´t claim that it couldn´t be done) to set a limit to what society´s right to safety would give the government a right to infringe your right to privacy. It is, on the other hand, fairly easy to argue why I would rather have the government looking over my shoulder than a private company. The reason, of course, is, that the company is private while the government is public. If I live in a democracy, I don´t give up my power over my information completely once it is in the government´s hands. I could, conceivably, through vote, make the government destroy what sets of data it has on me. With a private corporation (unless I have the money to buy a significant amount of stocks), I am at the mercy of those who have a say in it. This, incidentally, is the reason why, in most western countries, private police forces do not exist and vigilante justice is outlawed.
Relating this to your other examples: Rape victims don´t hire hordes of bounty hunters to rummage through countless basements of men who might be rapists. They go to the police, who will then begin a large scale investigation and whose authority stems from society´s rightul disgust with rape and whose efforts to arrest the perpetrator are sanctioned by us all.
Don´t get me wrong, EA has a valid interest and a right to protect their investment, but claiming the right to infringe their customer´s privacy is akin to vigilante justice. I do not know how resolve this conflict of interest at the moment, but seeing that it has been a long established principle in most legal systems that a person could not be subjected to observation before intitial evidence to suggest that they might be involved in a crime, I think that there would, at the moment, be no other recourse than to hope that pirates, through stupidity or by chance, will give themselves away and then charge them accordingly. Well, maybe they could ask the respective government to take care of the data collected through Origin and act accordingly. That possibility still wouldn´t fly with me, arguing against that would be more difficult, however (see my first sentence), but has to be included for completeness´s and honesty´s sake.

As before, however: If the reason they´re interested in peronal data to sell or even to use in order to "make better games", all bets are off. That´s a no-go.

~edit: fixed grammar in one spot~

Modifié par psiasterisk, 09 novembre 2011 - 12:26 .

[Vegos]

Arcian wrote...

But where do you draw the line? That is the question I want answered. I even said that in my last post, but you left it out of your quote because it served the argument you were going to use. Right now, all I'm getting from you is a vibe that screams "Governments and corporations are evil by default and should not be trusted."

I told you where. The government has all the legal tools at their disposal to nail the scumbags without having to infringe upon the others' rights. Show up with a warrant, and my privacy is void for the duration. I can argue all I like, it's been overriden and you're free to prance around my house, back yard, and computer, as long as you tell me what you're after. And I'm not allowed to interfere, if I do, you can run me in.

Governements are some good, some better, that's why we have elections.

Corporations are usually amoral, yes.

[Vegos]

Arcian wrote...

Such is the life of peasants, always dealing in extremes.

Awwww, veiled insults, how cute.

[Vegos]

Arcian wrote...

Vegos wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Such is the life of peasants, always dealing in extremes.

Awwww, veiled insults, how cute.

It's not veiled, it's actually very blunt.

It's still cute!

Though, "peasant" is more of a word one uses when they want to insule AND come across as intelligent/superior, so all the emphasis can't be on the insulting attributes.

Hey, at least you didn't try to use "peons" and misspelled it "pions". That one was funny.

[Savadrin]

yeah, sarcasm is lost somewhere deep in the bowels on online anonymity. see, i hardly care if they try to scan my computer, due to my own situation, most people i know don't consider lawldialup as even being online. my issue with a computer game using a DRM system that requires you to be online to play is that i then cannot play that game. and all Origin boils down to is invasive DRM. DRM as a whole is a failed idea. digital piracy is a vast continuously flushing toilet that corporations keep pissing money into in the hopes that it'll clog up and stop draining. there is no result other than pissing off consumers whenever it puts annoying restrictions on gameplay or invades privacy in the slightest way.

and that's the best case scenario. until EA gives better disclosure, we don't know that they aren't a malicious corporate entity out to steal our personal data.

[Vegos]

Just to clarify, I don't believe they have evil and malicious intentions with our personal data, because that would be a bad business plan. But we have a saying here, "Good intentions pave the road to hell".

HOWEVER, they also have no business with it, and they're not even legally entitled to collect it, so it's a bad business plan already.

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 12:41 .

[psiasterisk]

Arcian wrote...

Yes, and that is why I said I believe Origin is the completely wrong way to approach the problem, just like so many other forms of DRM in the past.

Ah, yes, but then the "Nothing to hide..." argument is part of this accountabity problem. Meaning: If the accountability (or vigilante) argument is valid, then the "nothing to hide..." argument is void in this context and the question whether there should be total privacy goes nowhere.

Which is why I´m not thrashing Origin because I believe there should be total privacy, but because I think there should be no forced waiving of privacy rights with respect to corporations, them being subject to law just like myself.

Note that the "nothing to hide.. is void" argument also holds with respect to governments, since the negation of it calls for the abolishment of privacy rights.

Modifié par psiasterisk, 09 novembre 2011 - 12:42 .

[Vegos]

Arcian wrote...

are you willing to give up your own privacy to know what your government and the corporations in your daily life are doing?

I wouldn't be a good shadow broker, if that's what you're asking.

On a more serious note, I'd consider each possibility individially. Yes, I know you have to give something in order to get something. But when what you give is worth more than what you get, you'd be stupid to give it.

[Sircaptainking]

zip

Modifié par Sircaptainking, 09 novembre 2011 - 01:27 .

[Vegos]

Sircaptainking wrote...


You are literally the stupidest person i have ever had the displeasure of reading  a post from.

I'm not going to even waste my time typign a response because you are so pants on head retarded.


good day.

I must be hallucinating. If he wasn't going to waste time typing a response, what am I reading?

There's also something to be said about how insult hit'n'runs make one look, but since I'm hallucinating I'm not sure I could be saying it without making a fool of myself.

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 01:23 .

[Shammybaby]

Origin is required for ME3?

Origin is the only reason I have not already purchased another EA product: BF3. As a guy who sunk hundreds of hours into BF2, I wasn't about to let another third party corporate program embed its self in my registry files, doing a free-for-all binge and grab for selected data.

The same reason why I won't buy an IPhone- a 24/7 active GPS that keeps personal billing records on the phone, on a constantly connecting wireless network? You may as well ask me to roll my sleeve up and place an RFID chip on me. Origin has been said to be by many of its users as a corporate PATRIOT act.

[Sethan_1]

Eh, one more before I wander off.

Don't have anything to hide?  Lots of folks have personal information on their PCs that, while not illegal in any way, is not a good idea to have in the public domain.  Most people don't have any need to keep the contents of their hard drive private from Bioware/EA.  If you're not pirating their games, its a pretty good bet they don't have any interest in your banking information, tax records, or pr0n collection.

There are however, a few other things that need consideration.

1) Once they have your information, whatever it is, there is no guarantee what will happen to it.  They can give or sell it to "affiliates" for marketing purposes, and should they go out of business or be purchased by another company, literally anything could happen to your information regardless of any prior assurances they have made.

2) Any private data you have on your internet-connected computer is certainly at risk, but as an individual your value as a target is pretty low.  Hackers don't spend a lot of time targeting you in particular.  They do however love breaking into large online services to steal information or upload malware.  Had the wonderful folks who hacked Bioware/EA six months ago waited a bit, they could have picked up not just usernames, passwords email addresses and CD keys from the Bioware site, but also the account data of the 4 million Origin users... along with any other data Origin collected on you.  Why should the hackers bother targeting you as an individual when Origin is already doing most of the work for them?

3) I'm sure there will be regular updates to the Origin client.  It isn't uncommon for hackers to upload malware or altered software to compromised sites.  So imagine for a moment that they upload an altered version of Origin when they hack into EA next time (and there will be a next time).  You download it the next time you bring up your machine, just like you would any other Origin update.  This is a program you have already allowed past your firewall and virus protection, and is already expected to scan all your files and send data back.  ...only now it is sending back data to people who absolutely intend to misuse it.

Personally I don't pirate games or music.  I've been in IT for nearly 35 years, used to work in the software industry, and I respect the right of the people who do to make money off their work.  However, I take some pains to keep as little useful information about myself on the internet as possible, precisely because I know that anything out there will eventually fall into the hands of someone unscrupulous.  I don't see any good reason to accelerate the process.

Modifié par Sethan_1, 09 novembre 2011 - 02:47 .

[Vegos]

-gah hit the wrong button somewhere-

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 02:47 .

[Soul Cool]

Arcian wrote...
Such is the life of peasants, always dealing in extremes.

Because binary extremis isn't present in academia or the nobility.

Arcian wrote...
Well, if you want to stay paranoid and fear governments and corporations for the rest of your lives, be my f***ing guest.

I don't fear corporations. I am annoyed that they do things that make me want to buy something of theirs that I previously wanted. I express myself by not buying their products until they change.

And I definitely don't fear the government. How someone could fear such an incompetent entity as that, I have no idea.

Arcian wrote...
It's literally my job to put goverments and corporations under scrutiny, but why that should not extend to regular people is beyond me. They are capable of equally great crimes.

Individuals are much less capable of enforcing their will on other people. A government or a corporation posses extreme amounts of coercive force compared to individuals. A good thing in the case of most "westernized" governments, and sometimes a good thing in corporations. But both are also capable of much more extreme versions of crimes than individuals.

Modifié par Soul Cool, 09 novembre 2011 - 03:03 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

An inept government still possesses the force of a goverment, and less wisdom and discretion in using it. Few things are more dangerous than powerful stupidity.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Would you be OK with giving Maytag or LG a key to your house as a condition of buying one of their appliances?

If not, why are you OK with giving EA a key to your computer as a condition of buying one of their products?

If you are OK with giving Maytag or LG a key to your house...wow.