Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Also no one has brought up a VERY important fact about the legality of what they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all for participating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see everyone is ignoring this post b/c they know where it'll go huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The game is marketed to underage people. This means that you do not have to be 18 to purchase GW2 and install it onto your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The company then installs spyware onto the underage & unable to give consent person stating they are legally able to b/c they got consent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get where I'm going now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The parent/guardian is legally responsible for the actions of their child. They permitted them to buy the game, install it, and agree to the ToS. Not being aware of what the child is doing does not absolve them of that responsibility, it makes them negligent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. Again start looking at your argument against other crimes against children. Having a child sign a ToS/EULA won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Read their privacy statement and then come back > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry ... what 'underage' children are you refering to? GW2 is rated TEEN, that's 13 YO. Are we going to add 'marketing' to your list of abused words now as well? How is Anet marketing GW2 to children under 13, getting them to buy, install and play the game ... all without their (negligent) parent's knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > A 13 year old is an underage child. Do you honestly think a 13 year old is able to give consent?!!??!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. A 13 year old cannot give consent and so, unless their parent agreed to the ToS for them, they were never allowed to access the game servers. If the 13 year old agreed to the ToS, he committed an act of fraud. > > > > > > Nope he's legally allowed to buy the game. There is no fraud since the game is marketed to him. Again if Kool Aid decided to put grain alcohol into their beverages and continued to sell it to kids they'd be in real trouble even if they made the child sign a contract stating they are of age. I'm not saying Anet is giving alcohol to children or if it's nearly as severe...i'm simply saying you can't market to that age group and hope the consent sticks. > > > > > > It's real simple. > > > > The act of signing a contract is an affirmation that one is legally permitted to enter into the contract. By signing the contract the hypothetical 13 year old is claiming that he is not a minor a d so is engaging in a fraudelent act. > > > > Marketing is irrelevant to whether or not a minor is allowed to sign a contract. > > For Anet to be in any legal jeopardy I think you would have to prove that Anet knew the account holder was a minor and that they accepted the agreement without permission/knowledge of a legal guardian. > > But why would Anet ever actually accept that? > By any reasonable thinking they wouldn't, so they'd never be in that situation. > > Not that they even have any way of knowing it was done without a guardian's permission. Realistically, they could never even find themselves in such a situation. Apple 2011 class action lawsuit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"GreyWolf.8670" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > You keep saying everything is confirmed. Sources, please? read up on it and it's been discussed to death already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deihnyx.6318 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > Let me be clear. I do not want cheaters in any game nor do I support cheaters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I support more is everyone's right to privacy and their personal property. There are many ways to enforce anti cheating w/out doing what they did. The problem is they very publicly state they are in contact and share your info with online companies who do advertising/research/etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at the whole picture. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm fairly certain the whole "sharing with advertisers/analytics" part of the privacy policy only applies to the website and other non-game services. So any data Anet may collect from it's anti-cheat tool doesn't leave the company. > > > > > > > > > > **Your privacy is important to ArenaNet. Maintaining the trust of our users is key to the success of our business, and this Privacy Policy is intended to inform you of our information collection and use while visiting our website and playing ArenaNet games. For your information and for the purposes of this Privacy Policy, ArenaNet, LLC is the data controller and your Personal Information (as defined below) may be handled and otherwise processed by NC Interactive, LLC and NCsoft Europe Limited in providing various ArenaNet services to you** > > > > > > > > > > Opening paragraph mate > > > > > > > > That paragraph supports his position, not yours. > > > > > > No it literally says in game whereas he said not in game > > > > It says that the information is being restricted to the company. Everything listed there is the company. > > No you are flailing looking for a way out ArenaNet is owned by NCSoft. Common knowledge. As for NC Interactive: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=10332170 NC Interactive, Inc. develops and publishes online entertainment software products. It focuses on developing online games. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Austin, Texas. NC Interactive, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of NCsoft Corporation. But sure, let's keep going with more fake news. PS: No I still won't get banned for your pleasure. PS2: I rest my case yo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > I suggest this thread to be split in two: > - False positive discussions > - Conspiracy theories discussions > > The discussion about UNF was getting interesting earlier... it'd be great to come back to what actually make sense. I'd support that but we need more research on the UNF discussion. Problem is you want to label conspiracy theories but fail to see that these aren't theories. Anet actually did this stuff. My entire stance is they installed spyware on my computer. I have NO idea what info they gathered and took from me. From my reading of the EULA/TOS/ETC I've found a very broad text that many feel validate their breach of my privacy. I also found they share my info with analytic companies. Trust has been breached in a major way and this is undeniable whether you are for or against. This is evident by the extremely heated discussions taking place. Also people are blindly trusting Anet on these bans when ALL evidence supports an extremely flawed invasive process that lead to the bans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > Let me be clear. I do not want cheaters in any game nor do I support cheaters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I support more is everyone's right to privacy and their personal property. There are many ways to enforce anti cheating w/out doing what they did. The problem is they very publicly state they are in contact and share your info with online companies who do advertising/research/etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at the whole picture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm fairly certain the whole "sharing with advertisers/analytics" part of the privacy policy only applies to the website and other non-game services. So any data Anet may collect from it's anti-cheat tool doesn't leave the company. > > > > > > > > > > > > **Your privacy is important to ArenaNet. Maintaining the trust of our users is key to the success of our business, and this Privacy Policy is intended to inform you of our information collection and use while visiting our website and playing ArenaNet games. For your information and for the purposes of this Privacy Policy, ArenaNet, LLC is the data controller and your Personal Information (as defined below) may be handled and otherwise processed by NC Interactive, LLC and NCsoft Europe Limited in providing various ArenaNet services to you** > > > > > > > > > > > > Opening paragraph mate > > > > > > > > > > That paragraph supports his position, not yours. > > > > > > > > No it literally says in game whereas he said not in game > > > > > > It says that the information is being restricted to the company. Everything listed there is the company. > > > > No you are flailing looking for a way out > > ArenaNet is owned by NCSoft. Common knowledge. > As for NC Interactive: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=10332170 > NC Interactive, Inc. develops and publishes online entertainment software products. It focuses on developing online games. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Austin, Texas. NC Interactive, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of NCsoft Corporation. > > But sure, let's keep going with more fake news. > > PS: No I still won't get banned for your pleasure. > PS2: I rest my case yo. **We work with third party advertising and analytics providers** You're not getting banned for my pleasure. You're getting banned for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > @"GreyWolf.8670" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > You keep saying everything is confirmed. Sources, please? > > That bit actually does appear to be true. > > [From Anet's statement last week](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/476255/#Comment_476255) > >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.** > > It really looks like that the only information they were considering was the existence of a process while GW2 was running, not whether there was actual cheating in the game. Yes and this confirms it was spyware. Now that we all understand what it actually was you can start to understand the depth of my argument. We are moving past innocent anti-cheat detection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrstealth.6701 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also no one has brought up a VERY important fact about the legality of what they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all for participating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see everyone is ignoring this post b/c they know where it'll go huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The game is marketed to underage people. This means that you do not have to be 18 to purchase GW2 and install it onto your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The company then installs spyware onto the underage & unable to give consent person stating they are legally able to b/c they got consent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get where I'm going now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The parent/guardian is legally responsible for the actions of their child. They permitted them to buy the game, install it, and agree to the ToS. Not being aware of what the child is doing does not absolve them of that responsibility, it makes them negligent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. Again start looking at your argument against other crimes against children. Having a child sign a ToS/EULA won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Read their privacy statement and then come back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry ... what 'underage' children are you refering to? GW2 is rated TEEN, that's 13 YO. Are we going to add 'marketing' to your list of abused words now as well? How is Anet marketing GW2 to children under 13, getting them to buy, install and play the game ... all without their (negligent) parent's knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > A 13 year old is an underage child. Do you honestly think a 13 year old is able to give consent?!!??!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. A 13 year old cannot give consent and so, unless their parent agreed to the ToS for them, they were never allowed to access the game servers. If the 13 year old agreed to the ToS, he committed an act of fraud. > > > > > > > > Nope he's legally allowed to buy the game. There is no fraud since the game is marketed to him. Again if Kool Aid decided to put grain alcohol into their beverages and continued to sell it to kids they'd be in real trouble even if they made the child sign a contract stating they are of age. I'm not saying Anet is giving alcohol to children or if it's nearly as severe...i'm simply saying you can't market to that age group and hope the consent sticks. > > > > > > > > It's real simple. > > > > > > The act of signing a contract is an affirmation that one is legally permitted to enter into the contract. By signing the contract the hypothetical 13 year old is claiming that he is not a minor a d so is engaging in a fraudelent act. > > > > > > Marketing is irrelevant to whether or not a minor is allowed to sign a contract. > > > > For Anet to be in any legal jeopardy I think you would have to prove that Anet knew the account holder was a minor and that they accepted the agreement without permission/knowledge of a legal guardian. > > > > But why would Anet ever actually accept that? > > By any reasonable thinking they wouldn't, so they'd never be in that situation. > > > > Not that they even have any way of knowing it was done without a guardian's permission. Realistically, they could never even find themselves in such a situation. > > Apple 2011 class action lawsuit I assume you mean [this](https://www.wired.com/2011/07/apple-locationgate-settlement/). There were a few class action cases against Apple in 2011. That was over a bug in a certain version of iOS 4 that kept location tracking active even if it was switched off. Since users had switched it off, Apple's right to track them was revoked. Continuing to track them anyway was the violation that got them fined. That doesn't really apply to GW2 because the ToS appears to, in some sort of vague/confusing terms, give them the right to monitor processes on our PCs. There's room to possibly argue that wording only applies to certain processes, or maybe that it's broad enough to be confusing (I think there might be a few states where that can be a thing), but I wouldn't bet money on anyone winning that fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"DeceiverX.8361" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Also no one has brought up a VERY important fact about the legality of what they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all for participating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see everyone is ignoring this post b/c they know where it'll go huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The game is marketed to underage people. This means that you do not have to be 18 to purchase GW2 and install it onto your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The company then installs spyware onto the underage & unable to give consent person stating they are legally able to b/c they got consent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get where I'm going now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The parent/guardian is legally responsible for the actions of their child. They permitted them to buy the game, install it, and agree to the ToS. Not being aware of what the child is doing does not absolve them of that responsibility, it makes them negligent. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. Again start looking at your argument against other crimes against children. Having a child sign a ToS/EULA won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Read their privacy statement and then come back > > > > > > > > > > Sorry ... what 'underage' children are you refering to? GW2 is rated TEEN, that's 13 YO. Are we going to add 'marketing' to your list of abused words now as well? How is Anet marketing GW2 to children under 13, getting them to buy, install and play the game ... all without their (negligent) parent's knowledge? > > > > > > > > A 13 year old is an underage child. Do you honestly think a 13 year old is able to give consent?!!??!!! > > > > > > > > > > Nope. A 13 year old cannot give consent and so, unless their parent agreed to the ToS for them, they were never allowed to access the game servers. If the 13 year old agreed to the ToS, he committed an act of fraud. > > > > Nope he's legally allowed to buy the game. There is no fraud since the game is marketed to him. Again if Kool Aid decided to put grain alcohol into their beverages and continued to sell it to kids they'd be in real trouble even if they made the child sign a contract stating they are of age. I'm not saying Anet is giving alcohol to children or if it's nearly as severe...i'm simply saying you can't market to that age group and hope the consent sticks. > > > > It's real simple. > > You're absolutely right that he's legally allowed to buy the game. > > You're absolutely wrong if you state that he is legally allowed to create an account by signing the contract without a guardian's permission. > > ANet's policy is that by agreeing, **the user if under the age of 18 has had its parent or guardian also agree to the terms as a co-signer.** This is the same thing as a dealer financing a car to a 16 year-old. Because the teen cannot legally be bound to a contract being under 18, the parent thus is and must abide to its financing agreement, despite being primarily owned by the teen. > > Thus, anyone over the age of 18 who sponsored the ToS agreement would be committing fraud by claiming they were unaware but deserved to keep using the product. > > The only legal action here which could be taken is a demanding of a refund of **only** the original purchase price of the game (underaged user lied at the time of account creation without consent from a guardian when agreeing to the ToS) which would also mean the account be permabanned/deleted altogether. (So at best, going to court for a $60 refund max as the extras are goods not associated to the license of using the game, because ANet cannot be implicitly accused of knowing an underaged person signed the contract at all and thus does not need to agree to refunds at all in this case). Any subsequent billings (gems, etc.) would not be available for refund, either. > > So while a kid can buy the disk in a store, he cannot legally play the game without parental consent, and thus, if that's the card being played, any agreement he would have made would come with an automatic legal responsibility for ANet to void the contract, which in this case would be permanent account termination/data deletion and a refund of the cost of the license at time of purchase (Digital extras/physical items are not included here as they are not part of the aforementioned contract). > > TL;DR: To follow this legally, the account would have a 0% chance of being restored and would be legally forced to be permanently banned. > > You are assuming a lot and not paying attention to the facts. 1. The 2011 class action vs Apple 2. They marketed to children 3. The largest major US video game retailers restrict sales based on ESRB well before the games release 4. They installed spyware 5. They continued to take in game purchases from kids 6. Committing of a crime is not pardoned because a child signed a contract. Taking this as far and horribly severe as to drive my point home is seemly needed. By your argument, a "Candy Van" owner is not responsible or legally viable for happens to children if they sign an agreement that they consent to w/e happens inside & are of legal age. You have to move past and see the bigger picture. **Now in no way shape or form am I likening this incident to that. NO don't even pretend that is even close. I'm simply showing how you are setting precedence**. My point is simple installing spyware in Washington state is against the law without consent. Now I don't think we should press charges on Arenanet, but I'd like some communication and transparency that they won't be doing this. I feel we deserve that as a customer base. I also think the world as a whole needs to get a handle on the computer spying that these companies are doing every day. I'd like to see official statements Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also no one has brought up a VERY important fact about the legality of what they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all for participating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see everyone is ignoring this post b/c they know where it'll go huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The game is marketed to underage people. This means that you do not have to be 18 to purchase GW2 and install it onto your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The company then installs spyware onto the underage & unable to give consent person stating they are legally able to b/c they got consent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get where I'm going now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The parent/guardian is legally responsible for the actions of their child. They permitted them to buy the game, install it, and agree to the ToS. Not being aware of what the child is doing does not absolve them of that responsibility, it makes them negligent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. Again start looking at your argument against other crimes against children. Having a child sign a ToS/EULA won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Read their privacy statement and then come back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry ... what 'underage' children are you refering to? GW2 is rated TEEN, that's 13 YO. Are we going to add 'marketing' to your list of abused words now as well? How is Anet marketing GW2 to children under 13, getting them to buy, install and play the game ... all without their (negligent) parent's knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 13 year old is an underage child. Do you honestly think a 13 year old is able to give consent?!!??!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. A 13 year old cannot give consent and so, unless their parent agreed to the ToS for them, they were never allowed to access the game servers. If the 13 year old agreed to the ToS, he committed an act of fraud. > > > > > > > > > > Nope he's legally allowed to buy the game. There is no fraud since the game is marketed to him. Again if Kool Aid decided to put grain alcohol into their beverages and continued to sell it to kids they'd be in real trouble even if they made the child sign a contract stating they are of age. I'm not saying Anet is giving alcohol to children or if it's nearly as severe...i'm simply saying you can't market to that age group and hope the consent sticks. > > > > > > > > > > It's real simple. > > > > > > > > The act of signing a contract is an affirmation that one is legally permitted to enter into the contract. By signing the contract the hypothetical 13 year old is claiming that he is not a minor a d so is engaging in a fraudelent act. > > > > > > > > Marketing is irrelevant to whether or not a minor is allowed to sign a contract. > > > > > > For Anet to be in any legal jeopardy I think you would have to prove that Anet knew the account holder was a minor and that they accepted the agreement without permission/knowledge of a legal guardian. > > > > > > But why would Anet ever actually accept that? > > > By any reasonable thinking they wouldn't, so they'd never be in that situation. > > > > > > Not that they even have any way of knowing it was done without a guardian's permission. Realistically, they could never even find themselves in such a situation. > > > > Apple 2011 class action lawsuit > > I assume you mean [this](https://www.wired.com/2011/07/apple-locationgate-settlement/). There were a few class action cases against Apple in 2011. > > That was over a bug in a certain version of iOS 4 that kept location tracking active even if it was switched off. Since users had switched it off, Apple's right to track them was revoked. Continuing to track them anyway was the violation that got them fined. > > That doesn't really apply to GW2 because the ToS appears to, in some sort of vague/confusing terms, give them the right to monitor processes on our PCs. There's room to possibly argue that wording only applies to certain processes, or maybe that it's broad enough to be confusing (I think there might be a few states where that can be a thing), but I wouldn't bet money on anyone winning that fight. they were sued for in app purchases by minors refunds were issued and the entire platform was changed as minors are unable to distinguish whats good/bad in these situations or give consent also you can win that fight since this game was marketed to children and the installation of spyware w/out consent is illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrstealth.6701 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > @"GreyWolf.8670" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > > > You keep saying everything is confirmed. Sources, please? > > > > That bit actually does appear to be true. > > > > [From Anet's statement last week](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/476255/#Comment_476255) > > >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.** > > > > It really looks like that the only information they were considering was the existence of a process while GW2 was running, not whether there was actual cheating in the game. > > Yes and this confirms it was spyware. > > Now that we all understand what it actually was you can start to understand the depth of my argument. We are moving past innocent anti-cheat detection. It's a broad definition of spyware, but I understand the grounds on which more strict privacy advocates would consider it as such. But to have a chance of getting anywhere with that in a legal battle, you'd have to prove that your personal information was actually sent to/collected by Anet. Currently, the general consensus is that the "spyware" only sent data back to Anet when it found a match for certain cheat software. So the only people that would have any chance at claiming damages against them, are those that had cheat software detected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > @"GreyWolf.8670" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > > > > > You keep saying everything is confirmed. Sources, please? > > > > > > That bit actually does appear to be true. > > > > > > [From Anet's statement last week](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/476255/#Comment_476255) > > > >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.** > > > > > > It really looks like that the only information they were considering was the existence of a process while GW2 was running, not whether there was actual cheating in the game. > > > > Yes and this confirms it was spyware. > > > > Now that we all understand what it actually was you can start to understand the depth of my argument. We are moving past innocent anti-cheat detection. > > It's a broad definition of spyware, but I understand the grounds on which more strict privacy advocates would consider it as such. But to have a chance of getting anywhere with that in a legal battle, you'd have to prove that your personal information was actually sent to/collected by Anet. Currently, the general consensus is that the "spyware" only sent data back to Anet when it found a match for certain cheat software. So the only people that would have any chance at claiming damages against them, are those that had cheat software detected. Yes and no on what was sent. They really have no business scanning anything outside of what pertains to the client. They also haven't made a statement of what was actually collected or that this was the only time such a tactic was used. The reddit user did amend his post stating a filter. The one statement was detection of certain programs but as someone stated UNF could have had false positives and that nullifies their filter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrstealth.6701 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also no one has brought up a VERY important fact about the legality of what they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all for participating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see everyone is ignoring this post b/c they know where it'll go huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The game is marketed to underage people. This means that you do not have to be 18 to purchase GW2 and install it onto your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The company then installs spyware onto the underage & unable to give consent person stating they are legally able to b/c they got consent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get where I'm going now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The parent/guardian is legally responsible for the actions of their child. They permitted them to buy the game, install it, and agree to the ToS. Not being aware of what the child is doing does not absolve them of that responsibility, it makes them negligent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. Again start looking at your argument against other crimes against children. Having a child sign a ToS/EULA won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Read their privacy statement and then come back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry ... what 'underage' children are you refering to? GW2 is rated TEEN, that's 13 YO. Are we going to add 'marketing' to your list of abused words now as well? How is Anet marketing GW2 to children under 13, getting them to buy, install and play the game ... all without their (negligent) parent's knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 13 year old is an underage child. Do you honestly think a 13 year old is able to give consent?!!??!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. A 13 year old cannot give consent and so, unless their parent agreed to the ToS for them, they were never allowed to access the game servers. If the 13 year old agreed to the ToS, he committed an act of fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope he's legally allowed to buy the game. There is no fraud since the game is marketed to him. Again if Kool Aid decided to put grain alcohol into their beverages and continued to sell it to kids they'd be in real trouble even if they made the child sign a contract stating they are of age. I'm not saying Anet is giving alcohol to children or if it's nearly as severe...i'm simply saying you can't market to that age group and hope the consent sticks. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's real simple. > > > > > > > > > > The act of signing a contract is an affirmation that one is legally permitted to enter into the contract. By signing the contract the hypothetical 13 year old is claiming that he is not a minor a d so is engaging in a fraudelent act. > > > > > > > > > > Marketing is irrelevant to whether or not a minor is allowed to sign a contract. > > > > > > > > For Anet to be in any legal jeopardy I think you would have to prove that Anet knew the account holder was a minor and that they accepted the agreement without permission/knowledge of a legal guardian. > > > > > > > > But why would Anet ever actually accept that? > > > > By any reasonable thinking they wouldn't, so they'd never be in that situation. > > > > > > > > Not that they even have any way of knowing it was done without a guardian's permission. Realistically, they could never even find themselves in such a situation. > > > > > > Apple 2011 class action lawsuit > > > > I assume you mean [this](https://www.wired.com/2011/07/apple-locationgate-settlement/). There were a few class action cases against Apple in 2011. > > > > That was over a bug in a certain version of iOS 4 that kept location tracking active even if it was switched off. Since users had switched it off, Apple's right to track them was revoked. Continuing to track them anyway was the violation that got them fined. > > > > That doesn't really apply to GW2 because the ToS appears to, in some sort of vague/confusing terms, give them the right to monitor processes on our PCs. There's room to possibly argue that wording only applies to certain processes, or maybe that it's broad enough to be confusing (I think there might be a few states where that can be a thing), but I wouldn't bet money on anyone winning that fight. > > they were sued for in app purchases by minors > > refunds were issued and the entire platform was changed as minors are unable to distinguish whats good/bad in these situations or give consent > > also you can win that fight since this game was marketed to children and the installation of spyware w/out consent is illegal I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. That entire case was based around the fact that purchases could be made without needing to re-enter a password for a certain time after their parents had entered it. The FTC's legal issue with the situation was that there was nothing informing parents that, after an app was bought, in-app purchases could be made for the next 15 minutes without needing to re-enter a password. The parents *thought* they were under control of what was going on with the iPhone, but they were not. They had no reason to think they needed to be monitoring the child's use of the phone/app after purchasing, installing, and accepting any relevant agreements/terms. As far as agreeing to GW2's terms goes, it is the parent's responsibility to know what their child is doing. And for the child to enter into the agreement without their knowledge invalidates it, as well as absolves Anet of any responsibility. Apple had a system in place that allowed parents to require their permission (password) before their children could make purchases, but it had a design flaw that allowed it to be bypassed. That is grounds for a lawsuit. Unless you would like to create some system that prevents a child from creating a GW2 account and clicking "agree" without their parent's presence/consent, there is no comparison to that Apple case aside from the fact that it involved minors. Otherwise, the onus will continue to be entirely on the parents for this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltekka.2375 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 I am convinced that this is the biggest troll in forums. Well played, well played! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrstealth.6701 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > @"GreyWolf.8670" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > > > > > > > You keep saying everything is confirmed. Sources, please? > > > > > > > > That bit actually does appear to be true. > > > > > > > > [From Anet's statement last week](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/476255/#Comment_476255) > > > > >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.** > > > > > > > > It really looks like that the only information they were considering was the existence of a process while GW2 was running, not whether there was actual cheating in the game. > > > > > > Yes and this confirms it was spyware. > > > > > > Now that we all understand what it actually was you can start to understand the depth of my argument. We are moving past innocent anti-cheat detection. > > > > It's a broad definition of spyware, but I understand the grounds on which more strict privacy advocates would consider it as such. But to have a chance of getting anywhere with that in a legal battle, you'd have to prove that your personal information was actually sent to/collected by Anet. Currently, the general consensus is that the "spyware" only sent data back to Anet when it found a match for certain cheat software. So the only people that would have any chance at claiming damages against them, are those that had cheat software detected. > > Yes and no on what was sent. They really have no business scanning anything outside of what pertains to the client. > > They also haven't made a statement of what was actually collected or that this was the only time such a tactic was used. The reddit user did amend his post stating a filter. > > The one statement was detection of certain programs but as someone stated UNF could have had false positives and that nullifies their filter There's just so much missing information on most of this. We need either official clarifications or more solid evidence from reverse engineering to say anything with certainty. I do agree with the idea of game devs not really having any business poking around outside of their own game files, but it's become such a common practice that most of us have decided to just live with. I'm still mostly ok with it, as long as it's as non-invasive as it can be while still working. It is a useful tool in the fight versus cheaters, but still should only be used in conjunction with other methods and a system for players to make appeals. And a clear notice/mention of it's existence in a game should probably be given. Not enough to compromise it or make it easier to avoid, but a simple mention that it's there. Just dropping one in out of nowhere leaves a bad taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also no one has brought up a VERY important fact about the legality of what they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all for participating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see everyone is ignoring this post b/c they know where it'll go huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The game is marketed to underage people. This means that you do not have to be 18 to purchase GW2 and install it onto your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The company then installs spyware onto the underage & unable to give consent person stating they are legally able to b/c they got consent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get where I'm going now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The parent/guardian is legally responsible for the actions of their child. They permitted them to buy the game, install it, and agree to the ToS. Not being aware of what the child is doing does not absolve them of that responsibility, it makes them negligent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. Again start looking at your argument against other crimes against children. Having a child sign a ToS/EULA won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Read their privacy statement and then come back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry ... what 'underage' children are you refering to? GW2 is rated TEEN, that's 13 YO. Are we going to add 'marketing' to your list of abused words now as well? How is Anet marketing GW2 to children under 13, getting them to buy, install and play the game ... all without their (negligent) parent's knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 13 year old is an underage child. Do you honestly think a 13 year old is able to give consent?!!??!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. A 13 year old cannot give consent and so, unless their parent agreed to the ToS for them, they were never allowed to access the game servers. If the 13 year old agreed to the ToS, he committed an act of fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope he's legally allowed to buy the game. There is no fraud since the game is marketed to him. Again if Kool Aid decided to put grain alcohol into their beverages and continued to sell it to kids they'd be in real trouble even if they made the child sign a contract stating they are of age. I'm not saying Anet is giving alcohol to children or if it's nearly as severe...i'm simply saying you can't market to that age group and hope the consent sticks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's real simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > The act of signing a contract is an affirmation that one is legally permitted to enter into the contract. By signing the contract the hypothetical 13 year old is claiming that he is not a minor a d so is engaging in a fraudelent act. > > > > > > > > > > > > Marketing is irrelevant to whether or not a minor is allowed to sign a contract. > > > > > > > > > > For Anet to be in any legal jeopardy I think you would have to prove that Anet knew the account holder was a minor and that they accepted the agreement without permission/knowledge of a legal guardian. > > > > > > > > > > But why would Anet ever actually accept that? > > > > > By any reasonable thinking they wouldn't, so they'd never be in that situation. > > > > > > > > > > Not that they even have any way of knowing it was done without a guardian's permission. Realistically, they could never even find themselves in such a situation. > > > > > > > > Apple 2011 class action lawsuit > > > > > > I assume you mean [this](https://www.wired.com/2011/07/apple-locationgate-settlement/). There were a few class action cases against Apple in 2011. > > > > > > That was over a bug in a certain version of iOS 4 that kept location tracking active even if it was switched off. Since users had switched it off, Apple's right to track them was revoked. Continuing to track them anyway was the violation that got them fined. > > > > > > That doesn't really apply to GW2 because the ToS appears to, in some sort of vague/confusing terms, give them the right to monitor processes on our PCs. There's room to possibly argue that wording only applies to certain processes, or maybe that it's broad enough to be confusing (I think there might be a few states where that can be a thing), but I wouldn't bet money on anyone winning that fight. > > > > they were sued for in app purchases by minors > > > > refunds were issued and the entire platform was changed as minors are unable to distinguish whats good/bad in these situations or give consent > > > > also you can win that fight since this game was marketed to children and the installation of spyware w/out consent is illegal > > I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. That entire case was based around the fact that purchases could be made without needing to re-enter a password for a certain time after their parents had entered it. The FTC's legal issue with the situation was that there was nothing informing parents that, after an app was bought, in-app purchases could be made for the next 15 minutes without needing to re-enter a password. The parents *thought* they were under control of what was going on with the iPhone, but they were not. They had no reason to think they needed to be monitoring the child's use of the phone/app after purchasing, installing, and accepting any relevant agreements/terms. > > As far as agreeing to GW2's terms goes, it is the parent's responsibility to know what their child is doing. And for the child to enter into the agreement without their knowledge invalidates it, as well as absolves Anet of any responsibility. > > Apple had a system in place that allowed parents to require their permission (password) before their children could make purchases, but it had a design flaw that allowed it to be bypassed. That is grounds for a lawsuit. Unless you would like to create some system that prevents a child from creating a GW2 account and clicking "agree" without their parent's presence/consent, there is no comparison to that Apple case aside from the fact that it involved minors. Otherwise, the onus will continue to be entirely on the parents for this one. The 2016 Facebook class action in California. Once you start looking at these online agreements in regards to under age children the courts rule against them. Facebook and Apple lost.....you think Anet is gonna win a case like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deihnyx.6318 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > Let me be clear. I do not want cheaters in any game nor do I support cheaters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I support more is everyone's right to privacy and their personal property. There are many ways to enforce anti cheating w/out doing what they did. The problem is they very publicly state they are in contact and share your info with online companies who do advertising/research/etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at the whole picture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm fairly certain the whole "sharing with advertisers/analytics" part of the privacy policy only applies to the website and other non-game services. So any data Anet may collect from it's anti-cheat tool doesn't leave the company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Your privacy is important to ArenaNet. Maintaining the trust of our users is key to the success of our business, and this Privacy Policy is intended to inform you of our information collection and use while visiting our website and playing ArenaNet games. For your information and for the purposes of this Privacy Policy, ArenaNet, LLC is the data controller and your Personal Information (as defined below) may be handled and otherwise processed by NC Interactive, LLC and NCsoft Europe Limited in providing various ArenaNet services to you** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Opening paragraph mate > > > > > > > > > > > > That paragraph supports his position, not yours. > > > > > > > > > > No it literally says in game whereas he said not in game > > > > > > > > It says that the information is being restricted to the company. Everything listed there is the company. > > > > > > No you are flailing looking for a way out > > > > ArenaNet is owned by NCSoft. Common knowledge. > > As for NC Interactive: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=10332170 > > NC Interactive, Inc. develops and publishes online entertainment software products. It focuses on developing online games. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Austin, Texas. NC Interactive, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of NCsoft Corporation. > > > > But sure, let's keep going with more fake news. > > > > PS: No I still won't get banned for your pleasure. > > PS2: I rest my case yo. > > **We work with third party advertising and analytics providers** > > You're not getting banned for my pleasure. You're getting banned for no reason. So... I had to look at their privacy policy because you quoted the wrong thing. What does Google Analytics have to do with the matter at hands? How does a tool used by thousands and thousands of businesses have to do with what you're trying to prove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardenwolfe.8590 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 Be a decent human being and respect your fellow gamers, don't cheat, and don't run programs that allow you to cheat while playing this game. Never read any EULA, but I've never been banned from a game in the over twenty years I've been playing games . . . online or otherwise. You know why? Because I use common sense. Don't let people fool you. They know what they're doing. This sudden outrage of ignorance is nothing but performance. The rules aren't the problem. The problem is the people trying to make others jump through hoops in some poor man's attempt to look innocent and discredit those who caught them doing something shady. They'll discuss everything and anything . . . except what _they_ did wrong. Personal responsibility prevents us from having to make excuses for poor decisions. And this is not only true for online gaming, but for life in general. And if anyone is in doubt about what can and cannot be done in a game? Ask. Developers and the community will be more than happy to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeceiverX.8361 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > You are assuming a lot and not paying attention to the facts. > > 1. The 2011 class action vs Apple > 2. They marketed to children > 3. The largest major US video game retailers restrict sales based on ESRB well before the games release > 4. They installed spyware > 5. They continued to take in game purchases from kids > 6. Committing of a crime is not pardoned because a child signed a contract. > > Taking this as far and horribly severe as to drive my point home is seemly needed. By your argument, a "Candy Van" owner is not responsible or legally viable for happens to children if they sign an agreement that they consent to w/e happens inside & are of legal age. You have to move past and see the bigger picture. > > **Now in no way shape or form am I likening this incident to that. NO don't even pretend that is even close. I'm simply showing how you are setting precedence**. > > My point is simple installing spyware in Washington state is against the law without consent. Now I don't think we should press charges on Arenanet, but I'd like some communication and transparency that they won't be doing this. I feel we deserve that as a customer base. I also think the world as a whole needs to get a handle on the computer spying that these companies are doing every day. > > I'd like to see official statements > > Thank you > 1.) Completely unrelated because the CAL was about paid microtransactions mislabeled in free-to-play games without mandating payment types in the apple store. The lawsuit here was about legality of various payment models and disclosure about them and not about any kind of contractual agreement with the end user to play the game or participate as well as the ease of access to provide payment without needing to re-enter credentials. The parents were informed of the children playing the game and agreed to the terms, and apple in hosting the game and its terms specified nowhere in those terms or product information that the game could hook to payment services for paid content without warning or prompting despite being marketed as free. 2.) It Does not matter if they marketed to children. You may as well try to sue LEGO for marketing choking hazards to children. The warning is there. As it is in the ToS. As is the agreement that is required to be read stating it has been read and approved by a parent or guardian. Imagine going to a toy store and needing to sign a waiver that you won't sue anyone if your kid chokes and dies on a part. That is literally what the ToS mandates be done. 3.) They restrict sales based on ESRB ratings, yes, only due to governments mandating distributors do so; the ESRB is a nonprofit organization with no real authority or governmental power. If a five y/o tried to buy GW2, they shouldn't sell them the game because it's rated T. Every console and console game online mandates the same ToS agreement mandating that an adult or legal guardian represent signature to the child when making an online profile as well, and those have plenty of online games that are rated T, too. The only thing the ESRB rates is game content itself, not any legal obligations mandated on the terms of the company and consumer. They also do not rate online interactions between players. Next you'll tell me that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should all be sued for marketing to children in their games and are subsequently in some kind of illegal bind because of DLC. That's a nonsense argument and you know it. 4.) Again, doesn't matter what they did if what they did is pertinent to running their game. This is literally stated in the terms. It literally says they can do anything as they see fit to uphold their product integrity. Lesson learned for you: Take any verbiage of a contract to an extreme and see if that is okay with you. If not, don't agree or request to cancel! 5.) Again, purchases have nothing to do with anything with a contract which is what I already said; the only thing that matter is the agreement to make an account. That's why I said if you were to make the claim of unawareness, ANet is legally obligated to refund the cost of the original purchase of the agreement to use their software at its value at purchase time, with all additional purchases exempt from this refund while simultaneously permanently suspending any and all accountability of the prior contract. The act of upholding a contract solely with an under-aged party is illegal, and thus, if claiming lack of awareness, would require the severance of said contract at full refund which would suspend the account (the token of the agreement) infinitely. The rest? Not at all. Like I said, the purchase is not illegal; the knowing and establishment and maintenance of a contract solely with an under-aged party is. But there's no way for ANet to know. 6.) There is no crime here. I don't understand why you think there is. So long as ANet honors the request for a refund of the value of the original product and severs the contract of someone claiming a lack of awareness (infinitely suspending the account because a new contract would need to be legally devised because the old one would have been made invalid due to a breach of terms), there is no crime. The child in this case is honored the benefit of the doubt for lack of better knowledge; he could technically game until he decides to quit on ANet's bill if he took it to court and proved he was in fact under-aged at the time of purchase, because otherwise ANet has plausible deniability. Granted, he'd have to pay for a lawyer and court fees which would vastly outweigh that $50-60 or so (assuming purchase not on-sale), but still possible. I can't tell if you're just dense or trolling, but to be totally honest, if you actually can't understand how contracts work, I'd suggest you to request to cancel yours with ANet and every single other thing you do online (forewarning, this will get every account you have on anything banned infinitely), because this is how the world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > Let me be clear. I do not want cheaters in any game nor do I support cheaters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I support more is everyone's right to privacy and their personal property. There are many ways to enforce anti cheating w/out doing what they did. The problem is they very publicly state they are in contact and share your info with online companies who do advertising/research/etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at the whole picture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm fairly certain the whole "sharing with advertisers/analytics" part of the privacy policy only applies to the website and other non-game services. So any data Anet may collect from it's anti-cheat tool doesn't leave the company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Your privacy is important to ArenaNet. Maintaining the trust of our users is key to the success of our business, and this Privacy Policy is intended to inform you of our information collection and use while visiting our website and playing ArenaNet games. For your information and for the purposes of this Privacy Policy, ArenaNet, LLC is the data controller and your Personal Information (as defined below) may be handled and otherwise processed by NC Interactive, LLC and NCsoft Europe Limited in providing various ArenaNet services to you** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Opening paragraph mate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That paragraph supports his position, not yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > No it literally says in game whereas he said not in game > > > > > > > > > > It says that the information is being restricted to the company. Everything listed there is the company. > > > > > > > > No you are flailing looking for a way out > > > > > > ArenaNet is owned by NCSoft. Common knowledge. > > > As for NC Interactive: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=10332170 > > > NC Interactive, Inc. develops and publishes online entertainment software products. It focuses on developing online games. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Austin, Texas. NC Interactive, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of NCsoft Corporation. > > > > > > But sure, let's keep going with more fake news. > > > > > > PS: No I still won't get banned for your pleasure. > > > PS2: I rest my case yo. > > > > **We work with third party advertising and analytics providers** > > > > You're not getting banned for my pleasure. You're getting banned for no reason. > > So... I had to look at their privacy policy because you quoted the wrong thing. > What does Google Analytics have to do with the matter at hands? How does a tool used by thousands and thousands of businesses have to do with what you're trying to prove? That's one example of the parties. They don't list the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrstealth.6701 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also no one has brought up a VERY important fact about the legality of what they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all for participating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see everyone is ignoring this post b/c they know where it'll go huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The game is marketed to underage people. This means that you do not have to be 18 to purchase GW2 and install it onto your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The company then installs spyware onto the underage & unable to give consent person stating they are legally able to b/c they got consent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get where I'm going now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The parent/guardian is legally responsible for the actions of their child. They permitted them to buy the game, install it, and agree to the ToS. Not being aware of what the child is doing does not absolve them of that responsibility, it makes them negligent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. Again start looking at your argument against other crimes against children. Having a child sign a ToS/EULA won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Read their privacy statement and then come back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry ... what 'underage' children are you refering to? GW2 is rated TEEN, that's 13 YO. Are we going to add 'marketing' to your list of abused words now as well? How is Anet marketing GW2 to children under 13, getting them to buy, install and play the game ... all without their (negligent) parent's knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 13 year old is an underage child. Do you honestly think a 13 year old is able to give consent?!!??!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. A 13 year old cannot give consent and so, unless their parent agreed to the ToS for them, they were never allowed to access the game servers. If the 13 year old agreed to the ToS, he committed an act of fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope he's legally allowed to buy the game. There is no fraud since the game is marketed to him. Again if Kool Aid decided to put grain alcohol into their beverages and continued to sell it to kids they'd be in real trouble even if they made the child sign a contract stating they are of age. I'm not saying Anet is giving alcohol to children or if it's nearly as severe...i'm simply saying you can't market to that age group and hope the consent sticks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's real simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The act of signing a contract is an affirmation that one is legally permitted to enter into the contract. By signing the contract the hypothetical 13 year old is claiming that he is not a minor a d so is engaging in a fraudelent act. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marketing is irrelevant to whether or not a minor is allowed to sign a contract. > > > > > > > > > > > > For Anet to be in any legal jeopardy I think you would have to prove that Anet knew the account holder was a minor and that they accepted the agreement without permission/knowledge of a legal guardian. > > > > > > > > > > > > But why would Anet ever actually accept that? > > > > > > By any reasonable thinking they wouldn't, so they'd never be in that situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not that they even have any way of knowing it was done without a guardian's permission. Realistically, they could never even find themselves in such a situation. > > > > > > > > > > Apple 2011 class action lawsuit > > > > > > > > I assume you mean [this](https://www.wired.com/2011/07/apple-locationgate-settlement/). There were a few class action cases against Apple in 2011. > > > > > > > > That was over a bug in a certain version of iOS 4 that kept location tracking active even if it was switched off. Since users had switched it off, Apple's right to track them was revoked. Continuing to track them anyway was the violation that got them fined. > > > > > > > > That doesn't really apply to GW2 because the ToS appears to, in some sort of vague/confusing terms, give them the right to monitor processes on our PCs. There's room to possibly argue that wording only applies to certain processes, or maybe that it's broad enough to be confusing (I think there might be a few states where that can be a thing), but I wouldn't bet money on anyone winning that fight. > > > > > > they were sued for in app purchases by minors > > > > > > refunds were issued and the entire platform was changed as minors are unable to distinguish whats good/bad in these situations or give consent > > > > > > also you can win that fight since this game was marketed to children and the installation of spyware w/out consent is illegal > > > > I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. That entire case was based around the fact that purchases could be made without needing to re-enter a password for a certain time after their parents had entered it. The FTC's legal issue with the situation was that there was nothing informing parents that, after an app was bought, in-app purchases could be made for the next 15 minutes without needing to re-enter a password. The parents *thought* they were under control of what was going on with the iPhone, but they were not. They had no reason to think they needed to be monitoring the child's use of the phone/app after purchasing, installing, and accepting any relevant agreements/terms. > > > > As far as agreeing to GW2's terms goes, it is the parent's responsibility to know what their child is doing. And for the child to enter into the agreement without their knowledge invalidates it, as well as absolves Anet of any responsibility. > > > > Apple had a system in place that allowed parents to require their permission (password) before their children could make purchases, but it had a design flaw that allowed it to be bypassed. That is grounds for a lawsuit. Unless you would like to create some system that prevents a child from creating a GW2 account and clicking "agree" without their parent's presence/consent, there is no comparison to that Apple case aside from the fact that it involved minors. Otherwise, the onus will continue to be entirely on the parents for this one. > > The 2016 Facebook class action in California. > > Once you start looking at these online agreements in regards to under age children the courts rule against them. Facebook and Apple lost.....you think Anet is gonna win a case like that? I don't see the point in tossing up random law suits because they involve something related to children or privacy. If it's not something directly comparable to the current debacle, it is pointless to discuss. It would also help to actually link the things you're trying to use as points. Especially when they involve huge lawsuit bullseyes like Apple and Facebook. People have been trying to sue the crap out of them for ages. The Facebook thing....at least the one I think you might be referring to...was about scanning and logging URLs sent in private messages and using the to target advertising. That's not even remotely related to anything here. And Apple didn't lose their lawsuit, the FTC dropped it. They did reach a settlement, which they said didn't require anything that they weren't already going to do.(giving refunds) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"DeceiverX.8361" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > You are assuming a lot and not paying attention to the facts. > > > > 1. The 2011 class action vs Apple > > 2. They marketed to children > > 3. The largest major US video game retailers restrict sales based on ESRB well before the games release > > 4. They installed spyware > > 5. They continued to take in game purchases from kids > > 6. Committing of a crime is not pardoned because a child signed a contract. > > > > Taking this as far and horribly severe as to drive my point home is seemly needed. By your argument, a "Candy Van" owner is not responsible or legally viable for happens to children if they sign an agreement that they consent to w/e happens inside & are of legal age. You have to move past and see the bigger picture. > > > > **Now in no way shape or form am I likening this incident to that. NO don't even pretend that is even close. I'm simply showing how you are setting precedence**. > > > > My point is simple installing spyware in Washington state is against the law without consent. Now I don't think we should press charges on Arenanet, but I'd like some communication and transparency that they won't be doing this. I feel we deserve that as a customer base. I also think the world as a whole needs to get a handle on the computer spying that these companies are doing every day. > > > > I'd like to see official statements > > > > Thank you > > > > 1.) Completely unrelated because the CAL was about paid microtransactions mislabeled in free-to-play games without mandating payment types in the apple store. The lawsuit here was about legality of various payment models and disclosure about them and not about any kind of contractual agreement with the end user to play the game or participate as well as the ease of access to provide payment without needing to re-enter credentials. The parents were informed of the children playing the game and agreed to the terms, and apple in hosting the game and its terms specified nowhere in those terms or product information that the game could hook to payment services for paid content without warning or prompting despite being marketed as free. > > 2.) It Does not matter if they marketed to children. You may as well try to sue LEGO for marketing choking hazards to children. The warning is there. As it is in the ToS. As is the agreement that is required to be read stating it has been read and approved by a parent or guardian. Imagine going to a toy store and needing to sign a waiver that you won't sue anyone if your kid chokes and dies on a part. That is literally what the ToS mandates be done. > > 3.) They restrict sales based on ESRB ratings, yes, only due to governments mandating distributors do so; the ESRB is a nonprofit organization with no real authority or governmental power. If a five y/o tried to buy GW2, they shouldn't sell them the game because it's rated T. Every console and console game online mandates the same ToS agreement mandating that an adult or legal guardian represent signature to the child when making an online profile as well, and those have plenty of online games that are rated T, too. The only thing the ESRB rates is game content itself, not any legal obligations mandated on the terms of the company and consumer. They also do not rate online interactions between players. Next you'll tell me that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should all be sued for marketing to children in their games and are subsequently in some kind of illegal bind because of DLC. That's a nonsense argument and you know it. > > 4.) Again, doesn't matter what they did if what they did is pertinent to running their game. This is literally stated in the terms. It literally says they can do anything as they see fit to uphold their product integrity. Lesson learned for you: Take any verbiage of a contract to an extreme and see if that is okay with you. If not, don't agree or request to cancel! > > 5.) Again, purchases have nothing to do with anything with a contract which is what I already said; the only thing that matter is the agreement to make an account. That's why I said if you were to make the claim of unawareness, ANet is legally obligated to refund the cost of the original purchase of the agreement to use their software at its value at purchase time, with all additional purchases exempt from this refund while simultaneously permanently suspending any and all accountability of the prior contract. The act of upholding a contract solely with an under-aged party is illegal, and thus, if claiming lack of awareness, would require the severance of said contract at full refund which would suspend the account (the token of the agreement) infinitely. The rest? Not at all. Like I said, the purchase is not illegal; the knowing and establishment and maintenance of a contract solely with an under-aged party is. But there's no way for ANet to know. > > 6.) There is no crime here. I don't understand why you think there is. So long as ANet honors the request for a refund of the value of the original product and severs the contract of someone claiming a lack of awareness (infinitely suspending the account because a new contract would need to be legally devised because the old one would have been made invalid due to a breach of terms), there is no crime. The child in this case is honored the benefit of the doubt for lack of better knowledge; he could technically game until he decides to quit on ANet's bill if he took it to court and proved he was in fact under-aged at the time of purchase, because otherwise ANet has plausible deniability. Granted, he'd have to pay for a lawyer and court fees which would vastly outweigh that $50-60 or so (assuming purchase not on-sale), but still possible. > > I can't tell if you're just dense or trolling, but to be totally honest, if you actually can't understand how contracts work, I'd suggest you to request to cancel yours with ANet and every single other thing you do online (forewarning, this will get every account you have on anything banned infinitely), because this is how the world works. 1. FB class action in 2016 deals with online agreements and what happens when kids lie about ages. 2. Lego puts age range just for this purpose and legally has to say "choking hazard" 3. ESRB is a voluntary procedure that Anet leads all their advertisement with. When a child goes to purchase the game at a local retailer is there any information that you need an adult to make an account at time of purchase or even during any advertisement? Nope 4. Yes it matters as the TOS clearly states pertaining to the game. Also in the case of a minor that contract means nothing 5. Nay the account may not always be terminated. In cases of micro transactions & FB the kids kept their purchases even after getting a full refund. 6. It is illegal to install spyware onto a computer without expressed consent. They willing and knowingly marketed to children, they did not identify the TOS/EULA before purchase of the game, and plausible deniability doesn't hold in previous hearings that i've seen. Also the way go at these companies is class action lawsuits. This lightens the burden on the common folk while scaring the living crap outta corporations. Now I'm not saying Anet should be taken to court or even advocating a lawsuit. I want a public statement and apology. I also would like a transparent and complete understanding that they won't do this again. As a consumer I have that right and to take my money elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrstealth.6701 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Let me be clear. I do not want cheaters in any game nor do I support cheaters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I support more is everyone's right to privacy and their personal property. There are many ways to enforce anti cheating w/out doing what they did. The problem is they very publicly state they are in contact and share your info with online companies who do advertising/research/etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at the whole picture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm fairly certain the whole "sharing with advertisers/analytics" part of the privacy policy only applies to the website and other non-game services. So any data Anet may collect from it's anti-cheat tool doesn't leave the company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Your privacy is important to ArenaNet. Maintaining the trust of our users is key to the success of our business, and this Privacy Policy is intended to inform you of our information collection and use while visiting our website and playing ArenaNet games. For your information and for the purposes of this Privacy Policy, ArenaNet, LLC is the data controller and your Personal Information (as defined below) may be handled and otherwise processed by NC Interactive, LLC and NCsoft Europe Limited in providing various ArenaNet services to you** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Opening paragraph mate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That paragraph supports his position, not yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it literally says in game whereas he said not in game > > > > > > > > > > > > It says that the information is being restricted to the company. Everything listed there is the company. > > > > > > > > > > No you are flailing looking for a way out > > > > > > > > ArenaNet is owned by NCSoft. Common knowledge. > > > > As for NC Interactive: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=10332170 > > > > NC Interactive, Inc. develops and publishes online entertainment software products. It focuses on developing online games. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Austin, Texas. NC Interactive, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of NCsoft Corporation. > > > > > > > > But sure, let's keep going with more fake news. > > > > > > > > PS: No I still won't get banned for your pleasure. > > > > PS2: I rest my case yo. > > > > > > **We work with third party advertising and analytics providers** > > > > > > You're not getting banned for my pleasure. You're getting banned for no reason. > > > > So... I had to look at their privacy policy because you quoted the wrong thing. > > What does Google Analytics have to do with the matter at hands? How does a tool used by thousands and thousands of businesses have to do with what you're trying to prove? > > That's one example of the parties. They don't list the rest. Google Analytics was listed only in reference to analytics data from their websites. That is what Google Analytics does....they provide analytics data on traffic, etc...to website operators. Pretty much every website on the internet uses this or some similar service. If you would like to opt out of being used for that, go here https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout You'll probably want to look at at least one these, too http://optout.aboutads.info/ https://support.google.com/ads/answer/7395996 If that type of analytics and tracking are that much of an issue, you should probably just disable all cookies, as well as javascript. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also no one has brought up a VERY important fact about the legality of what they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all for participating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see everyone is ignoring this post b/c they know where it'll go huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The game is marketed to underage people. This means that you do not have to be 18 to purchase GW2 and install it onto your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The company then installs spyware onto the underage & unable to give consent person stating they are legally able to b/c they got consent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get where I'm going now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The parent/guardian is legally responsible for the actions of their child. They permitted them to buy the game, install it, and agree to the ToS. Not being aware of what the child is doing does not absolve them of that responsibility, it makes them negligent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. Again start looking at your argument against other crimes against children. Having a child sign a ToS/EULA won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Read their privacy statement and then come back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry ... what 'underage' children are you refering to? GW2 is rated TEEN, that's 13 YO. Are we going to add 'marketing' to your list of abused words now as well? How is Anet marketing GW2 to children under 13, getting them to buy, install and play the game ... all without their (negligent) parent's knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 13 year old is an underage child. Do you honestly think a 13 year old is able to give consent?!!??!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. A 13 year old cannot give consent and so, unless their parent agreed to the ToS for them, they were never allowed to access the game servers. If the 13 year old agreed to the ToS, he committed an act of fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope he's legally allowed to buy the game. There is no fraud since the game is marketed to him. Again if Kool Aid decided to put grain alcohol into their beverages and continued to sell it to kids they'd be in real trouble even if they made the child sign a contract stating they are of age. I'm not saying Anet is giving alcohol to children or if it's nearly as severe...i'm simply saying you can't market to that age group and hope the consent sticks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's real simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The act of signing a contract is an affirmation that one is legally permitted to enter into the contract. By signing the contract the hypothetical 13 year old is claiming that he is not a minor a d so is engaging in a fraudelent act. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marketing is irrelevant to whether or not a minor is allowed to sign a contract. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For Anet to be in any legal jeopardy I think you would have to prove that Anet knew the account holder was a minor and that they accepted the agreement without permission/knowledge of a legal guardian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why would Anet ever actually accept that? > > > > > > > By any reasonable thinking they wouldn't, so they'd never be in that situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not that they even have any way of knowing it was done without a guardian's permission. Realistically, they could never even find themselves in such a situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Apple 2011 class action lawsuit > > > > > > > > > > I assume you mean [this](https://www.wired.com/2011/07/apple-locationgate-settlement/). There were a few class action cases against Apple in 2011. > > > > > > > > > > That was over a bug in a certain version of iOS 4 that kept location tracking active even if it was switched off. Since users had switched it off, Apple's right to track them was revoked. Continuing to track them anyway was the violation that got them fined. > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't really apply to GW2 because the ToS appears to, in some sort of vague/confusing terms, give them the right to monitor processes on our PCs. There's room to possibly argue that wording only applies to certain processes, or maybe that it's broad enough to be confusing (I think there might be a few states where that can be a thing), but I wouldn't bet money on anyone winning that fight. > > > > > > > > they were sued for in app purchases by minors > > > > > > > > refunds were issued and the entire platform was changed as minors are unable to distinguish whats good/bad in these situations or give consent > > > > > > > > also you can win that fight since this game was marketed to children and the installation of spyware w/out consent is illegal > > > > > > I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. That entire case was based around the fact that purchases could be made without needing to re-enter a password for a certain time after their parents had entered it. The FTC's legal issue with the situation was that there was nothing informing parents that, after an app was bought, in-app purchases could be made for the next 15 minutes without needing to re-enter a password. The parents *thought* they were under control of what was going on with the iPhone, but they were not. They had no reason to think they needed to be monitoring the child's use of the phone/app after purchasing, installing, and accepting any relevant agreements/terms. > > > > > > As far as agreeing to GW2's terms goes, it is the parent's responsibility to know what their child is doing. And for the child to enter into the agreement without their knowledge invalidates it, as well as absolves Anet of any responsibility. > > > > > > Apple had a system in place that allowed parents to require their permission (password) before their children could make purchases, but it had a design flaw that allowed it to be bypassed. That is grounds for a lawsuit. Unless you would like to create some system that prevents a child from creating a GW2 account and clicking "agree" without their parent's presence/consent, there is no comparison to that Apple case aside from the fact that it involved minors. Otherwise, the onus will continue to be entirely on the parents for this one. > > > > The 2016 Facebook class action in California. > > > > Once you start looking at these online agreements in regards to under age children the courts rule against them. Facebook and Apple lost.....you think Anet is gonna win a case like that? > > I don't see the point in tossing up random law suits because they involve something related to children or privacy. If it's not something directly comparable to the current debacle, it is pointless to discuss. It would also help to actually link the things you're trying to use as points. Especially when they involve huge lawsuit bullseyes like Apple and Facebook. People have been trying to sue the crap out of them for ages. > > The Facebook thing....at least the one I think you might be referring to...was about scanning and logging URLs sent in private messages and using the to target advertising. That's not even remotely related to anything here. > > And Apple didn't lose their lawsuit, the FTC dropped it. They did reach a settlement, which they said didn't require anything that they weren't already going to do.(giving refunds) https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/15/apple-settles-app-store-in-app-purchase-lawsuit-with-us-government They lost that. They shelled out 32.5M in refunds and continue to refund to this day over this. Here's the recent FB fun in courts over the congressional hearings https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/23/17155754/facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-scandal Here's the 2016 ruling https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/27/facebook-refund-children-app-purchases-lawsuit Like I said times are a changing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeceiverX.8361 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > 1. FB class action in 2016 deals with online agreements and what happens when kids lie about ages. > 2. Lego puts age range just for this purpose and legally has to say "choking hazard" > 3. ESRB is a voluntary procedure that Anet leads all their advertisement with. When a child goes to purchase the game at a local retailer is there any information that you need an adult to make an account at time of purchase or even during any advertisement? Nope > 4. Yes it matters as the TOS clearly states pertaining to the game. Also in the case of a minor that contract means nothing > 5. Nay the account may not always be terminated. In cases of micro transactions & FB the kids kept their purchases even after getting a full refund. > 6. It is illegal to install spyware onto a computer without expressed consent. They willing and knowingly marketed to children, they did not identify the TOS/EULA before purchase of the game, and plausible deniability doesn't hold in previous hearings that i've seen. Also the way go at these companies is class action lawsuits. This lightens the burden on the common folk while scaring the living crap outta corporations. > > Now I'm not saying Anet should be taken to court or even advocating a lawsuit. I want a public statement and apology. I also would like a transparent and complete understanding that they won't do this again. As a consumer I have that right and to take my money elsewhere. 1.) Again, you're citing sources you never even read. The result of FB's CAL: __Facebook Terms Update From 2016 Legal Settlement (Fraley, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., et al)__ The settlement of a class action lawsuit (Fraley, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01726), finalized in 2016, requires Facebook to add language to the U.S. version of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. The updated language doesn't change the way Facebook uses your information, nor does it give Facebook any new rights. It relates to an advertising feature known as Sponsored Stories that we stopped offering in 2014. While the feature is no longer available, the settlement requires us to include specific language about how people under age 18 are expected to get permission from a parent or legal guardian before agreeing to certain Facebook terms. As required by the court-approved settlement, Facebook added two sentences to our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: SRR Section 9.1: You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it. **If you are under the age of eighteen (18), you represent that a parent or legal guardian also agrees to this section on your behalf. (This language is included pursuant to a court-approved legal settlement.)** 2.) The age range being created by a non-government entity (in this case LEGO itself) which is based on the content itself (age in LEGO's content being measured for the difficulty of the set, not of the safety of the builder). 3.) No, because despite purchasing the game, that does not include signing up, which is out of the jurisdiction of the ESRB. The ESRB is again a third-party used to show ratings for the sake of distribution as a means of preventing sale of explicit content to underaged audiences. The creation of the account and signature of the legal agreement is only hosted on ANet's infrastructure and is mandatory before using the service and making an account, and requires explicit agreement that the terms are signed and agreed to by a party over the age of 18 that is a parent or guardian/representative of the account holder, just as above was needed for Facebook. 4.) You just agreed with me and you brought this up; it has nothing to do with being a minor or not, anyways. 5.) Again, you're not understanding how the lawsuit worked. The lawsuits were not about knowingly holding a contract with minors for the use of facebook and committing them to uphold their contracts, but for the use of a separate piece of advertising software that collected and distributed data to outside parties of Facebook which was not referenced in the original Terms of Service upon account creation, so it would be exempt. In this case, the actual account creation with ANet is the contract which was agreed to, and the terms in question were in fact also explicitly agreed to in said agreement. 6.) The consent was expressed, which is the point. Gamestop and distributors have no right or responsibility to get involved with the legality of ANet's operations. The agreement of the ToS is done before an account is even created and prior is susceptible to a refund if disagreed with. Re-read section seven; it gives them impunity so long as their actions are based on the grounds of protecting their product, which because actions were taken to make bans, and we have confirmation of the dates of operation and public written statement saying the monitoring ended, it demonstrably was in fact used for this purpose. And you're probably not going to get that to be honest, because this is how the business works. This is what almost every game company already does without anyone knowing it. Frankly, if they never released the information on how they received data (which they are not obligated to do), you probably wouldn't even be upset right now because they've already done this exact same thing before. While I cannot speak on behalf of ANet, if you want to take your money elsewhere, I suggest you do. Because having worked in the industry, this is pretty standard practice. I'd hate to think you've not read Google or Facebook's policies which are MUCH more invasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardenwolfe.8590 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > I don't see the point in tossing up random law suits because they involve something related to children or privacy. If it's not something directly comparable to the current debacle, it is pointless to discuss. At this point, those counter arguing are throwing everything and anything and hoping it will stick. Related or otherwise. One thing I've always noticed about threads like this. Whenever cheaters get caught, eventually the thread will start to discuss laws and law suits in protest of the company's actions against them. It's like the Godwin's law for gaming cheaters. And we're there. Posters should start calling this behavior the Asuran Argument in honor of Guild Wars 2 and this entire episode: Throw every theory possible to avoid blame and hope something sticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts