Concerns about the new EULA

So, you linked us to a piece of legislation that died in committee and was never voted on?

Hate to tell you this, but that's no law.

Well, yes, they do - If you explicitly give them permission to do that. By clicking the "Accept" button you do give them that permission.

*shrug* In the end, it's the price you pay for playing in their playground. If you don't like it, you can exercise Westley's choice and find a different playground.

Look at it this way - When you go to the ball park, they have a "no glass bottles" rule as well as a lot of other rules about things you can take in with you that are safe (purses, backpacks, sunglasses, big foam fingers) and things you can't because they're unsafe (glass bottles, pistols, Crocodile Dundee-size knives). They also have rules about bringing in outside refreshments. If you walk up with bottle of Bud, they're going to tell you to either toss it in the garbage, or wait outside and they aren't going to care that you spent $50 on skybox seats. Their stadium. Their rules. You can say "But I paid $10 for this beer!" and they're going to say "Please enjoy it outside of the stadium" (after they snicker at you for paying that much for a Bud).

If you attempt to carry a firearm into the stadium, they'll tell you to go away, even if you say "But I have a license to carry a concealed weapon and I don't trust you to protect me if a firefight breaks out. I'm not even sure that I trust that you won't mug me. I insist on carrying my own protection." They'll just tell you to protect yourself out on the sidewalk.

Their amusement park. Their rules.

If you don't like the rules, don't buy a ticket into NCSoft's amusement park. It's pretty much that simple in the end. How badly do you want to play?

In the end, it comes down to trust. From an intellectual standpoint, I'm not entirely satisfied with that answer, but since I DO trust NCSoft after nearly eight years of satisfactory service, I'm willing to let it slide. It would be nice if the world was all unicorns and teddy bears and they didn't feel the need to explicitly put language in their agreement that says "We have to defend against cheaters and thieves and so we have to insist that you allow us the freedom to do that and a lot more besides just to be sure we and our users are protected."

Unfortunately, it's an imperfect world. That said, I still do feel that people should read the EULA and understand what it says and just what they are agreeing to. The User Agreement on its face is a very unfriendly document and it's pretty easy to just complacently glance at it and say, "Oh, this is what everyone makes us agree to so why bother being concerned about it?" instead of making sure that you're actually comfortable with what it is that you're agreeing to.

No need to be concerned on my behalf. I don't share your concerns and I think the degree to which you seem agitated about the matter is absolutely ridiculous.

And you know what? That doesn't make me stupid, or a sucker, or apathetic, or willing to give up my rights. The EULA is just one more bit of nonsense in the wild world of the internet. I don't feel it's anything to be concerned about. I understand that you don't agree, but I don't care about your opinion on the matter. I HAVE read the EULA and have formed my own opinion of the matter.

Have nice day.

Internet Privacy Act *is* a hoax because there were no bills introduced in congress with that name. None of the links you provided suggested otherwise. It was started by websites engaged in illegal activities using it as a disclaimer in an attempt to thwart/fool law enforcement agents. Acts of that nature have been submitted many times in the past, none made it past the legislature. And it isn't just the internet giants that are lobbying against them. Many large corporations are also trying to kill them so they can retain the legal right to monitor their employees online activities.

The Federal Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997 you showed in another link was eventualy referred to the subcommittee on government management, information and technology. It never came back out. The same goes for the Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997 which didn't even get referred to a committee after its introduction.

As for the Data Privacy Act of 1997, it did a little better and actually made it to a hearing conducted by the subcommittee on telecommunications, trade, and consumer protection in 1998. Still, that was the end of it.

Finally we come to the last link you posted which is really just an internet attorney giving his opinion on a website. It cites a few Amendments of the Constitution and two individual cases regarding jurisdiction but it makes no mention of any specific laws regarding internet privacy.

Look, I work for one of the top three financial firm in the country which happens to be obsessed about compliance so I have to deal with consumer privacy in all shapes and forms on a daily basis. That includes electronic communications which includes my own internet/email activities. I am also subjected to no less than three different regulatory authorities (Feds/SEC, State Administrators, FINRA) when it comes to consumer privacy protection. Research and knowledge on the subject is not lacking on this end despite your empty accusation.

Actually, it's not quite that simple. It's really dependent on which data and what methods are used in its collection. If it is a program that is being used to collect data (which in this case is almost unavoidable) in relation to the operation of their game then sure, they *could* have a legal justification for it based on the verbiage of this EULA. However, if they collect (even accidentally) other information which is unrelated to the operation of the game then it is an entirely another story. Evidence of misusing that data for criminal purposes is not required. Anyways, an action of that sort could qualify the software involved as spyware, which some State AGs have used "Trespass to Chattels" laws to prosecute.

Also, the EULA doesn't offer much legal protection if it conflicts with the Uniform Commercial Code, contract law or other general consumer privacy laws. This is despite our lack of comprehensive internet privacy specific laws. Many previous cases have already ruled against the software company with regards to that. In fact, "Contracts of Adhesion" (take it or leave it) and "Unconscionability" (excessive unfairness to one party involved) are two contract law terminologies that are most commonly cited as the reasons behind such rulings.

In what way is it pointless? Please, be specific.

lmfao @ ragequit

I accept your apology.

No, you.

I have never seen entertainment be so grudgingly contemplated.

Well, giving up your basic human rights for 24 hours of looking at some pixels is big call to make.

Force Fields is still the lamest powerset in the game.

Well you can rest easy on that score. Since we're talking strictly about the right to access a game service, you're not giving up any rights because you don't have any to start with. You even admitted yourself that your civil liberties, yadda yadda was intentional hyperbole.

The User Agreement just spells out your lack of rights in detail and shows that you understand that you don't have any rights other than those granted by the service provider, which is still zero.

As for the whole monitoring thing, it's back to you giving them permission to do it - you're not giving up any rights, any more than you're giving up a right to privacy when you get frisked by a TSA employee. (Though if NCSoft got as invasive as TSA, I'd be sending a stern letter to the upper management.)

It looks like this MARTy business is some kind of sensible approach to the monitoring problem by having it done on the server instead of the client. I'd see that as evidence that you needn't be overly concerned about them sniffing through your private files.

In any case, there are steps you can take if you truly want to play without being snooped. (Dedicate a computer to games. Run in a virtual machine. Encrypt your sensitive materials. etc...)

I just hope you take your hazing like a man after all of the hullabaloo. Especially if you're willing to sell away your rights so cheaply...

OK. First off, you told us to read up on the Internet Privacy Act. You also stated that it was signed by Bill Clinton.

The links you provided have nothing to do with the Internet Privacy Act.

The first link is to information about the Data Privacy Act of 1997. If you follow the links on that page to see the Bill Summary and Status you will find that the Last Major Action was "House committee/subcommittee actions" and the Status is "Subcommittee Hearings Held". In other words, it didn't get past the subcommittee.

The second link is for the Federal Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997. Again, following the Bill Summary and Status link on that page you will find that the Last Major Action was that it was "Referred to House Subcommittee" and the Status is "Referred to Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology". Again, this means it didn't get past the subcommittee.

The third link is to a website for an Attorney in California where he discusses Privacy issues and Internet usage. Nowhere on that page or the linked pages does it list any Federal laws such as the Internet Privacy Act you talked about in your first post.

Perhaps instead of reading the links I gave to sites debunking the myth of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton you might want to try actually reading the sites you linked to and the links on those pages instead to see what they really say (especially that third link to the site of a California attorney).


EDIT: Smersh, ScottyB and baron_inferno already beat me to it. Guess I should have finished reading the thread before replying. Ah well, looks like we all made the same points.

If NCSoft got as invasive as the TSA I would be slapping some NCSoft employee's hard. Maybe kneeing them too. Can't get away reacting sensibly like that with the TSA.