Laila Lightness.8742 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said: > Just a quick mention OP... not sure if someone else said it, but 10 pages.. tldr... > > You're thinking people with meters invades your privacy... did you forget that Anet invaded the privacy of everyone just before the ban wave?! Pls not that again they did not they had a yes ore no code Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexZero.7910 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Turin.6921" said: > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > > @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said: > > > Just a quick mention OP... not sure if someone else said it, but 10 pages.. tldr... > > > > > > You're thinking people with meters invades your privacy... did you forget that Anet invaded the privacy of everyone just before the ban wave?! > > > > Sigh....... > > > > No they didn't. You're privacy cannot be invaded if you give consent as everyone did by accepting the user agreement. > > So let's not start this again. > > Its a bit irrelevant to the thread (which i think it is utter BS) but that is not entirely true. A user agreement is not a legally binding document. If a law is been broken by it the company is still liable and your privacy can be invaded even if you have consented, if the data collected are not justified by the collector. Please this kind of misunderstanding is dangerous to spread. > > Whether the monitoring software broke the law or not depends on what it did. If the monitoring software did sufficient filtering of data (sending only the relevant info to Anet servers eg if you used an non-compliant application), had good encryption and most processing was done client-side it is fine even with the new GDPR. If on the other hand, the encryption was lacking (which it might have been from what it been said) and if it sent a list of all processes running alongside the game (even if irrelevant to the game) then it would be an invasion of privacy and it would break the GDPR even if you have given consent in the user agreement. Data collection can only be justified if it is essential for the business and only if you make a strong case that the collection you are doing is the minimum possible for the function you would be using it. > > In other words: If it can be done with **less ** with the **same ** result you are breaking the law no matter the ToS or the UA. Have you even read the GDPR and if so did you actually understand it ? Because nothing Anet did was in violation of the GDPR. It's cute though how many people think that the GDPR is going to be some wide sweeping change for them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltekka.2375 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 People think that Anet somehow doesnt have a legal team they consult. Isnt it strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 They don't have guild team in a game called guild wars, so why should anyone expect they have legal team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperadordf.2687 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > They don't have guild team in a game called guild wars, so why should anyone expect they have legal team? Because they are a company? Idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haleydawn.3764 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > They don't have guild team in a game called guild wars, so why should anyone expect they have legal team? The sarcasm is strong with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Voltekka.2375" said: > People think that Anet somehow doesnt have a legal team they consult. Isnt it strange Having a legal team does not mean that someone, or a company, is not capable of, or willing to, break a law. Just ask Volkswagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Voltekka.2375" said: > People think that Anet somehow doesnt have a legal team they consult. Isnt it strange Even if they didn't, at least some multi-million dollar companies that make MMROGPs with dps meters have. DPS Meters do not exist only in GW2, they exist in lots of MMORPGs out there, if they were a legal issue then not only we wouldn't seen an outcry on major gaming channels about it, but also other game communities discussing their legality. From a quick forum search on other major MMORPGs, I've seen people curious about the GDPR and what it brings for MMORPGs, but I've not seen a discussion on the legality of DPS meters, at least one longer than 2 pages. So while DPS meters are not exclusive to GW2, crying about them is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 1) Anet is a small studio with only a few hundert employees and it has a mother company, NC Soft very likely has lawyers, but does ANet? And even if they have: Are they consulted for everything? 2) DPS-meter isn't DSP-Meter. A DPS-Meter measuring only your own DPs has nothing to do with the discussion of this thread and nothing with privacy laws. But a DPS-Meter measuring and comparing and judging others is at least very close to privacy violations. 3) It's not an ANet DPS-Meter, We are talking about a tolerated, even supported leaking (or publishing) of privacy related data. Companies with EU-customers have to document how they process person related information. How can you document a leak? The receiver of the data could even build a database out of the data covering all player over time without ANet noticing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > 1) Anet is a small studio with only a few hundert employees and it has a mother company, NC Soft very likely has lawyers, but does ANet? > > 2) DPS-meter isn't DSP-Meter. A DPS-Meter measuring only your own DPs has nothing to do with the discussion of this thread and nothing with privacy laws. > But a DPS-Meter measuring and comparing and judging others is at least very close to privacy violations. > > 3) It's not an ANet DPS-Meter, We are talking about a tolerated, even supported leaking (or publishing) of privacy related data. Companies with EU-customers have to document how they process person related information. How can you document a leak? The receiver of the data could even build a database out of the data covering all player over time without ANet noticing. Again nothing about Combat data or Display Names in Gw2 is Personal Data as made clear by the GDPR so quit trying to spread that misinformation, neither can be used by a Player under normal circumstances to connect your Gw2 Display Name to your Natural Person, which is needed to make it considered Personal Data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > neither can be used by a Player under normal circumstances to connect your Gw2 Display Name to your Natural Person, which is needed to make it considered Personal Data. I know do do not want to hear that nor will you believe me: Relation to a fixed identifier (i.e. an account-id) generated and used by a online-system of a company is enough. That a player can or cannot resolve that is completely irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippyCheeze.5483 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > @"Dayra.7405" said: > > 1) Anet is a small studio with only a few hundert employees and it has a mother company, NC Soft very likely has lawyers, but does ANet? > > > > 2) DPS-meter isn't DSP-Meter. A DPS-Meter measuring only your own DPs has nothing to do with the discussion of this thread and nothing with privacy laws. > > But a DPS-Meter measuring and comparing and judging others is at least very close to privacy violations. > > > > 3) It's not an ANet DPS-Meter, We are talking about a tolerated, even supported leaking (or publishing) of privacy related data. Companies with EU-customers have to document how they process person related information. How can you document a leak? The receiver of the data could even build a database out of the data covering all player over time without ANet noticing. > > Again nothing about Combat data or Display Names in Gw2 is Personal Data as made clear by the GDPR so quit trying to spread that misinformation, neither can be used by a Player under normal circumstances to connect your Gw2 Display Name to your Natural Person, which is needed to make it considered Personal Data. Also relevant to this, and @"Dayra.7405" I mean this for you, the position of the company on this is referenced well in https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/505643/#Comment_505643 To reproduce it: > @"Chris Cleary.8017" wrote in October 2017 > The current implementation of DPS meters is nothing more than a re-presentation of information already being transmitted by the game server to all clients in the reporting radius. Combat data does not have player ownership as it is being generated by the game server and then transmitted in order to update the status of the world state. > Essentially since the server is running a calculation/simulation based on actions by all the clients in the area, it owns the subsequent reporting of all calculations. > This is different for situations like chat, where there is no impact or simulation necessary and essentially is a forwarding service that the server is simply handling the reporting of the client action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > neither can be used by a Player under normal circumstances to connect your Gw2 Display Name to your Natural Person, which is needed to make it considered Personal Data. > > I know do do not want to hear that nor will you believe me: Relation to a fixed identifier (i.e. an account-id) generated and used by a online-system of a company is enough. That a player can or cannot resolve that is completely irrelevant. > No, because under the GDPR it brings up how Psuedonymisation which is what the Gw2 Display Name is doesn’t fall under Personal Data since the Display Name is in no way connected to you Natural Person or any data Relating to your Natural Person, some people need to read the laws they try to cite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 WvW shows that the clients can work with anonymized combat data as well, there the receiver of damage only receives "world-X-rank-Y has hit you with ...". No need to leak not-anonymized data for the operation of the system. PS: Why do you think ANet calls in Name-Calling and deletes and bans it, if you report in-game behavior about specific account-id's in the forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > WvW shows that the clients can work with anonymized combat data as well, there the receiver of damage only receives "world-X-rank-Y has hit you with ...". > No need to leak not-anonymized data for the operation of the system. Display Names in Gw2 are anonymized and are not personal data as per the GDPR you always try to Cite. Just saying Gw2 Display Names aren’t Personal Data and Cannot be attributed to a Player’s Natural Person under normal circumstances and because of that they don’t constitute Personal Data. .#rc Side note the WvW of masking display/character Names is to add a barrier to people from opposing teams contacting each other, just saying a completely different reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 Wasn't it you who quoted the law, which directly includes: "an online identifier" as example for a PII. Believe what you quoted :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > Wasn't it you who quoted the law, which directly includes: "an online identifier" as example for a PII. Believe what you quoted :) Again Reading comprehension would show you that it stated if it can be directly or indirectly connected to a player’s natural self, which by the GDPR it can’t. Because the Gw2 Display Name falls under the GDPR definition of Psuedonymisation it isn’t Personal Data, again certain people need to read the laws they try to cite so they have an understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 Are you Lawyer? I am not, I prefer to read the comprehension and explanation of other people on laws than the laws directly. https://www.i-scoop.eu/gdpr/gdpr-personal-data-identifiers-pseudonymous-information/ The section titled "Identifiability and identifiers in practice: the meaning of ‘all means’" I conclude from that, that it's sufficient that someone e.g. ANet can map it (easily) to real-world persons, to make it PII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haleydawn.3764 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 No more arguing. This will not change the OPs view of what they think is a privacy breach. The OP, is harbouring a hatred of a dps meter, disguised as a breach of privacy which is dumbfounded. Let this thread DIE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > Are you Lawyer? I am not, I prefer to read the comprehension and explanation of other people on laws than the laws directly. > https://www.i-scoop.eu/gdpr/gdpr-personal-data-identifiers-pseudonymous-information/ > The section titled "Identifiability and identifiers in practice: the meaning of ‘all means’" > I conclude from that, that it's sufficient that someone e.g. ANet can map it (easily) to real-world persons, to make it PII. Nope that’s why actually looking at the laws and definitions set forth there gets you a better understandaing, the Display Name in gw2 is not able to be connected to your natural self outside of Anet as an entity, and due to that it falls under the GDPR’s definition of Psuedonymisation which makes it so it doesn’t fall under what constitutes Personals Data, again read the law that you cite so much, it’s would be enlightening and you would have a basis for actual arguments. Again your Gw2 display name can’t be attributed to your Natural Person directly or indirectly, it’s pretty simple concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 No it‘s not our job to come to a conclusion. I outlined some Pro‘s you outlined some Contra‘s, let a specialist decide. But I would be interested to hear about the result, but we are pro and contra and not the objective judge. And this is a brand new (not even valid so far) law, the court decisions using it (and by that precise it’s usage) are still outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > 2) DPS-meter isn't DSP-Meter. A DPS-Meter measuring only your own DPs has nothing to do with the discussion of this thread and nothing with privacy laws. > But a DPS-Meter measuring and comparing and judging others is at least very close to privacy violations. > > 3) It's not an ANet DPS-Meter, We are talking about a tolerated, even supported leaking (or publishing) of privacy related data. Companies with EU-customers have to document how they process person related information. How can you document a leak? The receiver of the data could even build a database out of the data covering all player over time without ANet noticing. First, DPS-meter are usually created by third parties, and not by the creators of the game themselves, this is very common on most MMORPGs. Second, most, if not all, DPS-meters gather the DPS of everyone in the party and not only of the individual user, this is common and has been going on since long before Guild Wars 2 was even released, or even announced. Further, in other games they allow FULL gear inspections without any consent, right click -> inspect, get a full view of everything that player is using. Or use an external website, again no consent required, to see what *anyone* is using. This is available in Guild Wars 2 too by the game client itself, it's in your memory and another dps-meter was able to read it, but Arenanet decided it's against their rules, which is understandable. But even that is NOT ILLEGAL by any means. Against Anet rules: yes. Illegal (by actual law): hell no. Now if tracking the DPS of others (and even full gear inspection) was actually **illegal** wouldn't at least someone take advantage of this and sue the major companies already? If it was actually against the law don't you think all the major gaming outlets would be talking about it like they do with micro-transactions and online gambling? Why is it that dps-meters showing the dps of everyone in your party is a privacy issue only on the Guild Wars 2 General Forums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 6, 2018 Author Share Posted May 6, 2018 If you would have read the paragraph before your post, you would know that we discuss the consequences of a future law (applicable as of 25 May 2018.) so you are right all is still legal. Even further: my main point is not to show it will be illegal, but that the continuation of it will be to much uncertainty (as no one know for sure till the first court decisions are out) and administrative effort to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shagaliscious.6281 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 Step 1 : Flag players that use DPS meters. Step 2 : ??????? Step 3 : Profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miko.4158 Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 glad to see this still going round and round. anet will have to look at it . all the amateur legalise around 'natural person' is nonsense I can leave my house to my cat if I want to 'INDIVIDUAL' is the key in data protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now