Account suspension discussion [merged]

[Obtena.7952]

> @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > @"Saira.6958" said:

> > While running third party software is a risk, the increase in QoL for many players is worthwhile - especially in communities where the devs are unwilling to answer concerns like raids. Simply telling players to go to the golem is incredibly unhelpful, and banning DPS meters is not a solution, as that reflects about 0% of the reality of raid instances. Playing on a MAC means that I don't run any third-party software, but it is incredibly frustrating that there's a huge lack of engagement with prevalent issues.

> >

> > ANet's biggest issue had always been lack of transparency and I honestly feel like there is no case less transparent than their stance of third-party software. The so called "silent agreements" that they appear to have about software for years, and then turn and ban players for using it seems incredibly rude. Instead of tacitly saying nothing and refusing to become involved until the eleventh hour, having open discussions with players and third-party developers would help alleviate the issues that current players are facing. A list of approved software, and instantly banning non-ToS abiding software (rather than letting it hang around for years in some cases) would definitely be a few steps to take to preventing the issues that have come up as a result of the bans.

>

> A great deal of the controversy over this could have been avoided if Anet announced their addition of a process-scanning cheat detector, then left the detector in the game permanently. I say leave it in permanently, because otherwise announcing it's presence would just have all the cheaters stop using their programs until they determined the scanner was gone. Going that route, Anet probably wouldn't get to say that they banned 1500 cheaters after a couple weeks, but they'd likely prevent a lot more cheating in the long run.

>

> Makes it look like they just wanted to say "hey, we got rid of 1500 bad people", instead of implementing something that would be more beneficial to everyone.

 

Maybe, that's not really relevant though.

 

I agree that they should leave whatever detections they used in the game ... I would actually be more likely to patronize a game that sold cheat detection algorithms as a features. To be fair .. we don't have any idea exactly what measures Anet has used (or still might be using) to detect cheating ... so I think it's not a good assumption to give the perception they have stopped.

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > @"Saira.6958" said:

> > > While running third party software is a risk, the increase in QoL for many players is worthwhile - especially in communities where the devs are unwilling to answer concerns like raids. Simply telling players to go to the golem is incredibly unhelpful, and banning DPS meters is not a solution, as that reflects about 0% of the reality of raid instances. Playing on a MAC means that I don't run any third-party software, but it is incredibly frustrating that there's a huge lack of engagement with prevalent issues.

> > >

> > > ANet's biggest issue had always been lack of transparency and I honestly feel like there is no case less transparent than their stance of third-party software. The so called "silent agreements" that they appear to have about software for years, and then turn and ban players for using it seems incredibly rude. Instead of tacitly saying nothing and refusing to become involved until the eleventh hour, having open discussions with players and third-party developers would help alleviate the issues that current players are facing. A list of approved software, and instantly banning non-ToS abiding software (rather than letting it hang around for years in some cases) would definitely be a few steps to take to preventing the issues that have come up as a result of the bans.

> >

> > A great deal of the controversy over this could have been avoided if Anet announced their addition of a process-scanning cheat detector, then left the detector in the game permanently. I say leave it in permanently, because otherwise announcing it's presence would just have all the cheaters stop using their programs until they determined the scanner was gone. Going that route, Anet probably wouldn't get to say that they banned 1500 cheaters after a couple weeks, but they'd likely prevent a lot more cheating in the long run.

> >

> > Makes it look like they just wanted to say "hey, we got rid of 1500 bad people", instead of implementing something that would be more beneficial to everyone.

>

> Maybe, that's not really relevant though.

>

> I agree that they should leave whatever detections they used in the game ... I would actually be more likely to patronize a game that sold cheat detection algorithms as a features. To be fair .. we don't have any idea exactly what measures Anet has used (or still might be using) to detect cheating ... so I think it's not a good assumption to give the perception they have stopped.

 

I wouldn't want it being touted as a feature, just notify when it's implemented and mention it in the ToS/CoC/EULA. And be sure to clarify what data is actually being sent back to Anet by it, to limit the outcry over privacy concerns. It just looks bad when you secretly add something that performs hidden scans of data outside the game, even if it's really being as respectful as possible with player privacy.

[Obtena.7952]

TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

 

The system they used in this ban wave to detect cheat programs running at the same time as GW2 did just that. The scanner used a Windows system API to build a list of signatures for all programs running on our computers, then compare all of those to the signatures of known cheat programs. It doesn't appear to have looked at any files opened within those programs or on storage devices. And the data sent back to Anet seems to have just been signatures matching known cheats, instead of signatures from every program found running.

[Nightlark.4029]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

 

So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

>

> So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

If you have a problem with that, you better not try to install any antivirus software. Those "read" not only active processes and programs, but also your documents, mail, and websites you go to.

(hint: think what is actually happening, and you will realize it's not as bad as some people try to make it)

 

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

> >

> > So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

> If you have a problem with that, you better not try to install any antivirus software. Those "read" not only active processes and programs, but also your documents, mail, and websites you go to.

>

 

The privacy concern isn't really with what is read, but what is sent back to the company. Anti-virus software should ideally only be reporting anything back when it detects malware, and only sending back an actual file from your PC when it finds something suspicious is that doesn't match known malware. And every A/V software I've used has the option to disable sending of files, or only to do so with explicit per-incident confirmation from the user.

 

Anet's anti-cheat system appears to have followed the same model, but with only using MD5 hashes instead of actual files. If it really is only sending back MD5 hashes that match an internal list, it's about as minimally invasive as it could possibly be. It was reported that the data sent back was not encrypted, which is a concern, especially if it turns out to have been sending the full list of MD5 hashes.

[Nightlark.4029]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

> >

> > So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

> If you have a problem with that, you better not try to install any antivirus software. Those "read" not only active processes and programs, but also your documents, mail, and websites you go to.

> (hint: think what is actually happening, and you will realize it's not as bad as some people try to make it)

>

 

I don’t think I need to point out that GW2 is not antivirus software, and last I checked, most antivirus software is not a game. Expectations of what the two need to do their “job” is very different.

 

My response was purely in the context of Obtena’s post about what the game does, I don’t want that widened to include other software because then we can talk indefinitely about how your operating system has access to everything, and how the firmware running on your hard drive could read any data written to it that isn’t encrypted before getting sent to the drive.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> The privacy concern isn't really with what is read, but what is sent back to the company. Anti-virus software should ideally only be reporting anything back when it detects malware, and only sending back an actual file from your PC when it finds something suspicious is that doesn't match known malware. And every A/V software I've used has the option to disable sending of files, or only to do so with explicit per-incident confirmation from the user.

>

> Anet's anti-cheat system appears to have followed the same model, but with only using MD5 hashes instead of actual files. If it really is only sending back MD5 hashes that match an internal list, it's about as minimally invasive as it could possibly be. It was reported that the data sent back was not encrypted, which is a concern, especially if it turns out to have been sending the full list of MD5 hashes.

Apparently it really only sends back positive matches, and not the full list (as it was claimed originally by the guy that started the whole panic). I don't know whether it is encrypted or not.

 

 

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > The privacy concern isn't really with what is read, but what is sent back to the company. Anti-virus software should ideally only be reporting anything back when it detects malware, and only sending back an actual file from your PC when it finds something suspicious is that doesn't match known malware. And every A/V software I've used has the option to disable sending of files, or only to do so with explicit per-incident confirmation from the user.

> >

> > Anet's anti-cheat system appears to have followed the same model, but with only using MD5 hashes instead of actual files. If it really is only sending back MD5 hashes that match an internal list, it's about as minimally invasive as it could possibly be. It was reported that the data sent back was not encrypted, which is a concern, especially if it turns out to have been sending the full list of MD5 hashes.

> Apparently it really only sends back positive matches, and not the full list (as it was claimed originally by the guy that started the whole panic). I don't know whether it is encrypted or not.

>

>

 

I was off on the part about it not being encrypted. The guy that reverse engineered the game client actually said it was "poorly encrypted". I don't see anything updating or refuting that claim, so we're going on the idea that it is encrypted, but not in a way appropriate for private data. That's still not really a major problem if it's only sending back matches on cheat programs.

 

I just wish Anet would confirm that one thing, and tell us that their scanner is *not* sending them MD5s for everything it checks. That shouldn't compromise the effectiveness of the scanner or give cheaters info on how to get around it. They aren't even using the thing now, anyway.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

>

> So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

 

That software is already on your computer. It's roughly the same thing that populates your task manager/resource monitor in Windows; there's an API that makes it easy for that data to be obtained by various different programs. It's not unique to GW2: Steam as well as other companies have been doing this for years. And for that matter, it's probably not new for GW2; this is just the first time ANet has admitted its use.

 

Should they be doing this? That's a different question than whether they have the right to do so, whether it's industry standard, or whether it's "spyware" or "just using the Windows API."

 

Similarly, people are upset that ANet has purportedly suspended accounts simply for running cheatware of edit-ware while running GW2. Although they don't have to justify their decision, they have said in effect: "we found you with tools that allow you to pick the game's locks while running the game; take a time out and reconsider whether that's a good idea." And again, they have the right to do that (since it's their servers, their rules) and that's a separate question from "should they do so."

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

> >

> > So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

>

> That software is already on your computer. It's roughly the same thing that populates your task manager/resource monitor in Windows; there's an API that makes it easy for that data to be obtained by various different programs. It's not unique to GW2: Steam as well as other companies have been doing this for years. And for that matter, it's probably not new for GW2; this is just the first time ANet has admitted its use.

>

> Should they be doing this? That's a different question than whether they have the right to do so, whether it's industry standard, or whether it's "spyware" or "just using the Windows API."

>

> Similarly, people are upset that ANet has purportedly suspended accounts simply for running cheatware of edit-ware while running GW2. Although they don't have to justify their decision, they have said in effect: "we found you with tools that allow you to pick the game's locks while running the game; take a time out and reconsider whether that's a good idea." And again, they have the right to do that (since it's their servers, their rules) and that's a separate question from "should they do so."

 

Steam/Valve even took it a step further. Their hardware survey reports back the full list of everything that shows in the Control Panel's Programs and Features(formerly Add/Remove Programs) section. But, it does this only if you choose to participate in the survey and you are shown the full content that will be submitted before confirming the submission. It's invasive, but it's hard to label as spyware when it shows you what is being shared and requires your permission to do so.

 

For games using Window's API functions to look at running processes, I would draw the line at calling it spyware based on whether it reports back with more data than is necessary to inform the developer that cheating software was found. It should only ever need to send back whether or not cheats were found, and a name/hash/other file signature of the offending program(s) that were detected. There is no justification I can think of for them to need to know what web browser, chat client, photo editor, media player, etc are open on our computers. But I don't see any issue with a piece of software skimming that list, then forgetting everything it saw that isn't a cheat program it was designed to detect.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

> > >

> > > So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

> > If you have a problem with that, you better not try to install any antivirus software. Those "read" not only active processes and programs, but also your documents, mail, and websites you go to.

> > (hint: think what is actually happening, and you will realize it's not as bad as some people try to make it)

> >

>

> I don’t think I need to point out that GW2 is not antivirus software, and last I checked, most antivirus software is not a game. Expectations of what the two need to do their “job” is very different.

>

> My response was purely in the context of Obtena’s post about what the game does, I don’t want that widened to include other software because then we can talk indefinitely about how your operating system has access to everything, and how the firmware running on your hard drive could read any data written to it that isn’t encrypted before getting sent to the drive.

 

If you don't like it, I recommend you don't use the GW2 software ... or any other software that does the same. GL.

 

This isn't a matter of what you want; it's a matter of what is for the good of the game. If those interests are in opposition, then it's not Anet that will change, it's you.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

> > > >

> > > > So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

> > > If you have a problem with that, you better not try to install any antivirus software. Those "read" not only active processes and programs, but also your documents, mail, and websites you go to.

> > > (hint: think what is actually happening, and you will realize it's not as bad as some people try to make it)

> > >

> >

> > I don’t think I need to point out that GW2 is not antivirus software, and last I checked, most antivirus software is not a game. Expectations of what the two need to do their “job” is very different.

> >

> > My response was purely in the context of Obtena’s post about what the game does, I don’t want that widened to include other software because then we can talk indefinitely about how your operating system has access to everything, and how the firmware running on your hard drive could read any data written to it that isn’t encrypted before getting sent to the drive.

>

> If you don't like it, I recommend you don't use the GW2 software ... or any other software that does the same. GL.

 

Or just windows in general lol.

Or steam, or... pretty much everything online.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

> > > > >

> > > > > So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

> > > > If you have a problem with that, you better not try to install any antivirus software. Those "read" not only active processes and programs, but also your documents, mail, and websites you go to.

> > > > (hint: think what is actually happening, and you will realize it's not as bad as some people try to make it)

> > > >

> > >

> > > I don’t think I need to point out that GW2 is not antivirus software, and last I checked, most antivirus software is not a game. Expectations of what the two need to do their “job” is very different.

> > >

> > > My response was purely in the context of Obtena’s post about what the game does, I don’t want that widened to include other software because then we can talk indefinitely about how your operating system has access to everything, and how the firmware running on your hard drive could read any data written to it that isn’t encrypted before getting sent to the drive.

> >

> > If you don't like it, I recommend you don't use the GW2 software ... or any other software that does the same. GL.

>

> Or just windows in general lol.

> Or steam, or... pretty much everything online.

 

Yeah ... it's funny how it's EVIL when Anet does it ... but for anything else, it's just a regular occurrence that's no big deal. The irony being that Anet did it to make the game we love BETTER, while the regular occurrences are there to try to sell you crap, hack your system, advertise to you or take your information for reasons way worse than people want to think about ... Yeah OK then :astonished:

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

> > > > > If you have a problem with that, you better not try to install any antivirus software. Those "read" not only active processes and programs, but also your documents, mail, and websites you go to.

> > > > > (hint: think what is actually happening, and you will realize it's not as bad as some people try to make it)

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I don’t think I need to point out that GW2 is not antivirus software, and last I checked, most antivirus software is not a game. Expectations of what the two need to do their “job” is very different.

> > > >

> > > > My response was purely in the context of Obtena’s post about what the game does, I don’t want that widened to include other software because then we can talk indefinitely about how your operating system has access to everything, and how the firmware running on your hard drive could read any data written to it that isn’t encrypted before getting sent to the drive.

> > >

> > > If you don't like it, I recommend you don't use the GW2 software ... or any other software that does the same. GL.

> >

> > Or just windows in general lol.

> > Or steam, or... pretty much everything online.

>

> Yeah ... it's funny how it's EVIL when Anet does it ... but for anything else, it's just a regular occurrence that's no big deal. The irony being that Anet did it to make the game we love BETTER, while the regular occurrences are there to try to sell you crap, hack your system, advertise to you or take your information for reasons way worse than people want to think about ... Yeah OK then :astonished:

 

A big difference between Anet and Steam or Windows is that the latter two have options regarding what is shared, and give some detail about what is collected and how it's used. Obviously, Anet can't just make their anti-cheat optional for players, but they can at least tell us what type of data is or is not sent back to them so we can make an informed decision about whether we are ok with it.

 

Where a program is looking in our PCs isn't as much of a concern as what pieces of that scanned data are actually being transmitted to somewhere/someone on the outside. It can scan your super private folders as much as is wants to, but no one else will ever know your dirty secrets if it never sends out a list of those files.

 

(Just an example to state a point, I'm not accusing Anet of scanning any data on our hard drives.)

[Nightlark.4029]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > > TO be fair ... I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game ... because that's not what they were checking for in the first place.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So you’re saying getting a list of processes running on a computer and reading the data from the files on disk that spawned those processes (to calculate the md5 hash) isn’t secretly reading data outside the game?

> > > > > If you have a problem with that, you better not try to install any antivirus software. Those "read" not only active processes and programs, but also your documents, mail, and websites you go to.

> > > > > (hint: think what is actually happening, and you will realize it's not as bad as some people try to make it)

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I don’t think I need to point out that GW2 is not antivirus software, and last I checked, most antivirus software is not a game. Expectations of what the two need to do their “job” is very different.

> > > >

> > > > My response was purely in the context of Obtena’s post about what the game does, I don’t want that widened to include other software because then we can talk indefinitely about how your operating system has access to everything, and how the firmware running on your hard drive could read any data written to it that isn’t encrypted before getting sent to the drive.

> > >

> > > If you don't like it, I recommend you don't use the GW2 software ... or any other software that does the same. GL.

> >

> > Or just windows in general lol.

> > Or steam, or... pretty much everything online.

>

> Yeah ... it's funny how it's EVIL when Anet does it ... but for anything else, it's just a regular occurrence that's no big deal. The irony being that Anet did it to make the game we love BETTER, while the regular occurrences are there to try to sell you crap, hack your system, advertise to you or take your information for reasons way worse than people want to think about ... Yeah OK then :astonished:

 

Y'all are seriously digging way too deep into what I said. What my initial statement was getting at was actually very superficial, but I guess it needs explanation since the point was missed. "I don't think Anet implemented anything that secretly performed hidden scans of data outside the game" -- process names and the program files on disk are data. (1) ANet secretly added (there was nothing about it in the patch notes, it wasn't there before) code that (2) reads all of the running processes on a system and the (4) data in the program files (definition scan: looking at all parts of something, in this case, the data in the program files for running processes). (3) The library and function name for one of the functions used to get the full path to the program executable was also obfuscated; that is also making the data looked at more "hidden". Thus, it is secretly (1) performing hidden (3) scans of data (2) outside the game (4). The end. Nothing more. Nothing about comparisons with what other software does. I don't care that they added it, it is what it is. If you don't like it, pretend that you do. Yes, I know other software uses the same API calls all the time. No, the cake is indeed a lie. Yes, I know some other games have cheat detection systems that are basically rootkits and that scanning the process list is nothing compared to that. No, I don't use a computer, there's actually a guy that mails me a printout every time there is a post here, then I mail him my handwritten reply and he posts it for me. Yes, please pass the ketchup.

 

And thanks for the recommendation, but no, I don't think I'll use use the GW2 software any less than I currently am. I said nothing about not liking it or having a problem with it -- comments saying "if you don't like it" or "if you have a problem with that" are reading too much into my original statement (ok, fine, it was phrased as a question).

[battledrone.8315]

just another PR stunt, to make it look like they care

theyre not even permabanning all the cheaters, i guess they wil do business with anybody now

[battledrone.8315]

> @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > > @"GreyWolf.8670" said:

> > > > @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > >

> > > > The point is that you are not bound to the EULA or any other agreement if you were not shown it and agreed to it before buying the game (in Germany). When I go to the Anet webpage and purchase GW2, then get the download link and install the game, it's already too late for the EULA.

> > > >

> > >

> > > No. You must agree to the EULA when you create your account **before** can you buy the game from ArenaNet **or** play it.

> >

> > Not sure this is correct...though tbh I never purchased mine digitally, but I would guess it works the same as when buying the box set originally.. you purchase, you install and create account at which point you then accept the EULA and play... if you don't accept you don't get login access.

> > However there is I believe a little disclaimer that states WARNING Acceptance of certain agreements is required, but of course you don't know what until you install it :)

>

> That is what's on the back of my collector's edition box.

>

> "Acceptance of certain agreements is required."

>

> Of course, you don't see those agreements until after you've opened the package and made returning it impossible. I suppose they could say that you are able to dig around a website and find them, but I'm not sure how much of a legal leg that has to stand on. EULAs in general tend to not have much to back them up legally, and companies rely more on the fact that 99.9% of their customers don't have the time or resources to hash it out in a courtroom. That is, if there isn't already some even more legally vague arbitration clause the company hopes will prevent that from ever happening.

>

> Not intended as a jab at Anet specifically, just observation on software EULAs in general. Anet's agreements are kinda mild compared to some crap others try to cram in there.

>

> TLDR: EULAs are largely unenforceable garbage, and companies know it. They just bank on you thinking it's not worth fighting.

 

you want to play in THEIR yard with THEIR ball, but it has to be by YOUR rules...good luck with that

if you want to fight them on this, go for it...i could use a good laugh

[Theros.1390]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Theros.1390" said:

> > > You don't think it's possible that a player got so salty from their in-game suspension that they were incautious in posting on the forums, resulting in a suspension here, too? To me, that's even less surprising if the in-game suspension was for verbal abuse.

> >

> > Sure it would be not surprising in that case. But the players I mentioned on FR forums, I know em well, and I assure you that they were not salty at all. :) the most remarquable exemple I can give, is a player I know and who never posts on the forum usually.

> >

> > He just asked informations, in a very calm and respectful message. His post wasnt deleted, but he got his ban on the forum, and didnt understand why :) And, as nobody answered to his question, I'm almost sure that he didnt put a second salty post just after the first.

>

> Then they should protest the forum suspension. If that's what happened, the forum suspension should end up being reverted on review.

 

Well :

 

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

>

> Our intention is that anyone whose game account is suspended should also temporarily lose forum privileges. Certainly that was the case with the old forums, but I've recently learned of at least a few cases where game-suspended people continued to have forum privileges.

>

> Now, if someone loses forum privileges, their game account is not impacted. IOW, it's a one way street:

> * Game Account Suspension = Forum Account Suspension

> * Forum Account Suspension /= Game Account Suspension.

> * (If something on the forums inspires a review of game activity, that still does not mean there's a direct 1:1 correlation, and I think those cases are very rare.)

 

I guess this is clear now :)

 

Then, as I thought, players who got a suspensions IG, got a ban on the forums as well.

 

 

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Arathor.5819" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Arathor.5819" said:

> > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > @"Arathor.5819" said:

> > > > > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > > > > @"Arathor.5819" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > > > > > > My account is safe, not banned. I'm more concerned with the privacy violation. I think this should have been better put together like Blizzards Warden in a way where it prohibits people from logging in or staying logged in if said programs are active, permanent again like Warden, and finally they should have had the decency to tell us what was happening so that we don't have all of these conspiracy theories going around. Personally I haven't logged in beyond making sure I wasn't swept up with the 1500. The lack of transparency has really killed my interest in playing or spending money until we get a statement regarding this program and what data was collected, how it was encrypted (if it was even), and what data they kept. I also think ANet should release a statement to major blogs such as Massively OP because out side of GW2s player base ANet has egg on it's face.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I want to avoid any sparring so if I see anything I feel might get my blood boiling it's probably smart of me to not engage.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We all have great love for this franchise and I respect your viewpoints so let's keep our discourse civil over this hot button situation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > One reason the warden stuff wouldnt work is its to well known wich hasnt prevented never hacks and can be bypassed what anet did was a way a person couldnt hide unless you play on linux ore mac since anet used windows api

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The grammar here makes this really hard to understand.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My post or his, I understood it but I can see if perhaps English might not be a native language you may have trouble?

> > > > >

> > > > > Please, just learn what constitutes a sentence. I'm not saying you need to be perfectly punctual, but if you manage to have 5+ mistakes in one sentence like your post does don't confuse incompetence of legibility with the incompetence of comprehension.

> > > >

> > > > The irony here is hilarious.

> > >

> > > People here are seriously such great entertainment. You are saying that

> > >

> > > >ne reason the warden stuff wouldnt work is its to well known wich hasnt prevented never hacks and can be bypassed what anet did was a way a person couldnt hide unless you play on linux ore mac since anet used windows api

> > >

> > > and

> > >

> > > >My post or his, I understood it but I can see if perhaps

> > >

> > > is the same as missing one period? At least you could actually dechiper what I was trying to say which was the whole point. But please, continue attempting to communicate in broken English.

> > >

> > > You people are a riot. =)

> >

> > I found it to be funny that one poster would comment on another's grammar while misusing multiple in his own post.

> >

> > For example, punctual is a reference to being on time, not to punctuation in a sentence. Also, legibility is a reference to the clarity of typeface or handwriting, not to sentence structure or grammar. Some reference to readability would have been more accurate.

>

> Oh, my lord, I had so much fun reading that. It's always amusing when people only understand the spoon-fed meanings of terms and pretend to come from a place of intellectual superiority. It's called connotation, sweetie. The definition meaning only on time is the connotative popular usage. However, even if you were to just search google for the word, you would see the definition "denoting or relating to an action that takes place at a particular point in time" in terms of use with grammar.

>

> Oh please, continue! =)

 

I made no pretense of intellectual superiority. But feel free to continue to misuse your thesaurus as you like sweetie.

[Haleydawn.3764]

You know when a thread has come to an end when people berate others for grammar, spelling, and throwing choice words at each other. ^^

 

 

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"battledrone.8315" said:

> > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > > > @"GreyWolf.8670" said:

> > > > > @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > > >

> > > > > The point is that you are not bound to the EULA or any other agreement if you were not shown it and agreed to it before buying the game (in Germany). When I go to the Anet webpage and purchase GW2, then get the download link and install the game, it's already too late for the EULA.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > No. You must agree to the EULA when you create your account **before** can you buy the game from ArenaNet **or** play it.

> > >

> > > Not sure this is correct...though tbh I never purchased mine digitally, but I would guess it works the same as when buying the box set originally.. you purchase, you install and create account at which point you then accept the EULA and play... if you don't accept you don't get login access.

> > > However there is I believe a little disclaimer that states WARNING Acceptance of certain agreements is required, but of course you don't know what until you install it :)

> >

> > That is what's on the back of my collector's edition box.

> >

> > "Acceptance of certain agreements is required."

> >

> > Of course, you don't see those agreements until after you've opened the package and made returning it impossible. I suppose they could say that you are able to dig around a website and find them, but I'm not sure how much of a legal leg that has to stand on. EULAs in general tend to not have much to back them up legally, and companies rely more on the fact that 99.9% of their customers don't have the time or resources to hash it out in a courtroom. That is, if there isn't already some even more legally vague arbitration clause the company hopes will prevent that from ever happening.

> >

> > Not intended as a jab at Anet specifically, just observation on software EULAs in general. Anet's agreements are kinda mild compared to some crap others try to cram in there.

> >

> > TLDR: EULAs are largely unenforceable garbage, and companies know it. They just bank on you thinking it's not worth fighting.

>

> you want to play in THEIR yard with THEIR ball, but it has to be by YOUR rules...good luck with that

> if you want to fight them on this, go for it...i could use a good laugh

 

The point is that, depending on the jurisdiction, there is the distinct possibility that the referee (a judge) would deem a company's yard to be too imbalanced, tilted, and full of holes to be a legitimate playing field.

 

Whether EULAs are legally enforceable is still very much a grey area where most of the legal precedents are limited to very specific terms instead of broad decisions that can be applied to many other cases. Based on where a legal battle takes place, a contract might be thrown out as invalid for reasons varying from it not being viewable till after the package is opened (and not returnable), to it being too vague or attempting to provide one side with ridiculous amount of power over the other.

 

There are a lot of software EULAs that are worded to give developers seemingly endless power to do basically anything they want. Some of them might as well be cut down to a few lines that say something like "The consumer may use our software for however long we decide to allow it, which we can alter at any time for any or no reason. We have the right to take any action we see fit upon the consumer, their account, their computer, or their neighbor's cousin's dog's food bowl".

 

For a contract like that, it comes down to whether any given jurisdiction's views lean in favor protecting consumers' rights against overwhelmingly one-sided contracts, or a company being allowed to enforce anything they got you to click "accept" to. An agreement that more clearly establishes its terms and specific rights/powers to both sides is going to have a better chance of being upheld as valid in any court.

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > My account is safe, not banned. I'm more concerned with the privacy violation. I think this should have been better put together like Blizzards Warden in a way where it prohibits people from logging in or staying logged in if said programs are active, permanent again like Warden, and finally they should have had the decency to tell us what was happening so that we don't have all of these conspiracy theories going around. Personally I haven't logged in beyond making sure I wasn't swept up with the 1500. The lack of transparency has really killed my interest in playing or spending money until we get a statement regarding this program and what data was collected, how it was encrypted (if it was even), and what data they kept. I also think ANet should release a statement to major blogs such as Massively OP because out side of GW2s player base ANet has egg on it's face.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I want to avoid any sparring so if I see anything I feel might get my blood boiling it's probably smart of me to not engage.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > We all have great love for this franchise and I respect your viewpoints so let's keep our discourse civil over this hot button situation.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The warden does nothing to stop bad people.

> > > > > > > > > > > As for privacy. We find it perfectly ok that Arenanet gathers data. This is needed for example to play the game. Store our progress, etc. All data involved has to be sent to Arenanet anyways.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This data is only reviewed by a human in the following situations:

> > > > > > > > > > > 1: when you report a bug

> > > > > > > > > > > 2: when you are reported

> > > > > > > > > > > 3: when you are flagged as suspicious by automatic systems.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Even then, the GM is not allowed to sniff through all your file. Only what is relative close to the timestamp of the incident.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, this is the sort of thing that should be elaborated by ANet; this would clear up a lot of half truths and out right Mis information.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The data required to play the game (your characters, progression, etc) and what Anet was scanning to look for cheats (every running process, whether it relates to the game or not) are two entirely different things. There isn't really any reason for them to be checking every other process outside of looking for cheats. The only other instance where they have any business looking outside of their own game's data is for crash reports, and I think reports like that are typically limited to hardware info like CPU/GPU and driver versions.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > That said, data actually being sent back to Anet in this cheat detection system appears to be restricted to detections of the specific programs they were hunting. If you had none of those running, there shouldn't have been any extra data being sent to Anet. It's definitely concerning when any software starts sifting through data on our computers unannounced, especially when the developer refuses to say what data was or wasn't sent back to them, and what, if anything, was kept for later use. But at least in this case it *appears* that for the majority of us, it was nothing.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Not really. The scan was done on the client, but the data scanned was also sent to the server, just in a different fase of processing.

> > > > > > > > Let’s look at the flow.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You press the forward key, this is translated by the client in the way your character moves the screen. The new position coordinates are also sent to arenanet. So the actual input output flow ends at the central server

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Going by the reverse engineering work done by a couple reddit users, the client should have only been sending back data if something on the list of cheat programs they were targeting was detected. We may never know with 100% certainty how much or how little data was sent back to Anet, but it seems to be little to none for most of us. If the entirety of that data was being sent back to Anet's servers, then they are definitely guilty of a completely unjustified and unnecessary breach of privacy. Though, the type of information gathered was not very personal in nature, and should not have contained any private/confidential data like content of files loaded by a running process.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And it really has nothing to do with data like location coordinates for character movement. Those are data points that have to be sent to the game servers for the game to function. If the client wasn't sending information to the server about your location, movement, and skill use you wouldn't be able to play the game. Data gathered by scanning other processes running on the computer has nothing to do with the game's functionality, and falls completely under the category of spying/surveillance.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Please read my post. The data itself have been sent for technical purposes. Just cause the detection might have been done on the client, and after selection, the data was sent again in a different form, doesnt change that. Everything you do is sent to the server anyways and is logged. It is just another presentation with a different goal.

> > > > >

> > > > > As far as I'm aware, there is no actual evidence or indication of that. The only evidence I've seen related to the specifics of data being sent back to Anet by the scanner was that there was at least some degree of filtering done before it was sent. That indicates that the full set of data gathered was not sent back. Looking at the functionality of other similar cheat detection tools in use with other games, that is how Anet's tool would be expected to work.

> > > > >

> > > > > Anet would most likely want to avoid being accused of a using a cheat detection tool that was the equivalent of spyware. It would be very stupid of them to collect the full list of processes running on every player's PC, in any form. That information is not of much use to them, and having it would only harm their reputation. They really need to release a statement and clarify what exactly what data was collected by them, because there is already a considerable amount of bad press about this mess that could be alleviated if we knew for sure they didn't collect all of that data.

> > > >

> > > > Despite your propaganda, I would invite you to actually react to what I am saying. A vague. No indication is not really a reply. My stance is that the goal of a hacking tool that gives an unfair advantage is to gain an advantage on the server. (More loot, quicker movement, walking through walls, etc). As it would be only on the client side, it would never give an advantage. So the data envolved is allready sent to the server, but is gathered again in a different representation to track down cheaters. That has nothing to do with spyware.

> > >

> > > I really do not know what point you are trying to make here, in regard to how this recent ban wave was carried out. The type of detection you mentioned is not what was used in this case. And that's not propaganda, Anet told us that in their own statement.

> > >

> > > I'm sure we all realize that Anet does collect data server-side based on our activity in the game. Data to determine whether our characters are using macros, moving too fast, jumping higher than should be possible, or teleporting without using portal, etc. But that type of data collection/cheat detection has absolutely nothing to do with how Anet detected cheats for this ban wave.

> > >

> > > For the topic at hand, we are discussing a cheat detection tool that used a Windows OS function to read data about players' computers, producing MD5 hashes of every running process, compared that list of MD5s against a list of MD5s belonging to cheat programs, then reported back to Anet whether or not a match was found. The point of uncertainty is whether or not the full list of MD5s was sent back, or only those determined to match a known cheat's MD5. If it turns out that Anet was collecting the full list of signatures from every player, then it would be considered spyware. It does not seem that the full list was collected, but only Anet knows that for sure.

> > >

> > > I can't give a definitive answer on that point, because one does not exist that we are privy to.

> >

> > Again, you are spreading misinformation. The md5 check is done client side. The entire chest detection is done at the client (you said so yourself). Once the game recognizes certain third party apps running, it is gathering data allready sent to the sever to function in a regular way to track the ingame behavior of a cheater. Arenanet is not sending a list of processes running to the server. The check if there is a suspected app is done one the client, and if so it sends the regular game data together with the suspicious flag to the server.

>

> There is no misinformation on my part, but you have definitely misread Anet's statement on this matter.

>

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> >Yesterday we suspended 1,583 accounts for a period of 6 months. 1516 accounts were suspended because we detected that the accounts were running Guild Wars 2 at the same time as one or more of the following programs over a significant number of hours during a multi-week period earlier this year. We targeted programs that allow players to cheat and gain unfair gameplay advantages, even if those programs have other, more benign uses.

>

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > People are banned for illegal behavior in game based on the actual regular data sent from client to server. The cheat detection tool checked on the client and marked the client as suspicous. It looked for specific game data based on this client side suspicion.

>

> It's clearly stated that the suspensions were based on the detection of these programs running along side GW2. They even said that they banned for programs that have "other, more benign uses", which shows that they were not relying on data collected by ingame activity/server communications. Their own words tell us that these bans were based on only the detection of a running process, not that data in combination with their usual detection methods of monitoring client/character/server activity.

>

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> >

> > There is no reason to claim it is sending all processes to arenanet. As stated by yourself. This check is done at the client.

> >

>

>

> You're right that there is no evidence right now giving us reason to assume that Anet collected data on all running processes. I've only claimed that we do not know that for sure, because Anet has so far failed to confirm it. There were previous accusations that were later updated by reddit users(though not with certainty), but games media outlets had already published stories claiming that the full list of processes was gathered. That is why Anet needs to make a statement clarifying that point.

>

> I don't think Anet has a list of every process running on my PC. But I know that accusation is already out there, and there will be people that think it's true. It even did seem like it was true at first. I'm not going to post saying that Anet did not gather that data, because right now it's just the most logical conclusion, not a confirmed fact.

 

As stated, there is no evidence, so bring it or stop accusing them for using spyware.

They do not have to proof anything they didnt do. You have to proof they did. They have a very clear privacy statement. This is part of the agreement we have with them. I have absolutely no reason to believe they are not holding there part of the deal. There is no reasons for the to do so either. Making false allegations however....

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

> @"Theros.1390" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"Theros.1390" said:

> > > > You don't think it's possible that a player got so salty from their in-game suspension that they were incautious in posting on the forums, resulting in a suspension here, too? To me, that's even less surprising if the in-game suspension was for verbal abuse.

> > >

> > > Sure it would be not surprising in that case. But the players I mentioned on FR forums, I know em well, and I assure you that they were not salty at all. :) the most remarquable exemple I can give, is a player I know and who never posts on the forum usually.

> > >

> > > He just asked informations, in a very calm and respectful message. His post wasnt deleted, but he got his ban on the forum, and didnt understand why :) And, as nobody answered to his question, I'm almost sure that he didnt put a second salty post just after the first.

> >

> > Then they should protest the forum suspension. If that's what happened, the forum suspension should end up being reverted on review.

>

> Well :

>

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> >

> > Our intention is that anyone whose game account is suspended should also temporarily lose forum privileges. Certainly that was the case with the old forums, but I've recently learned of at least a few cases where game-suspended people continued to have forum privileges.

> >

> > Now, if someone loses forum privileges, their game account is not impacted. IOW, it's a one way street:

> > * Game Account Suspension = Forum Account Suspension

> > * Forum Account Suspension /= Game Account Suspension.

> > * (If something on the forums inspires a review of game activity, that still does not mean there's a direct 1:1 correlation, and I think those cases are very rare.)

>

> I guess this is clear now :)

>

> Then, as I thought, players who got a suspensions IG, got a ban on the forums as well.

>

>

 

Thank you. That would explain why certain posters, who were suspended and voiced their displeasure here, suddenly disappeared too.

 

Good.