Internet Explodes Over Origin's Invasion of Privacy

[snfonseka]

Here goes my Battlefield 3.

 

[CGAdam]

Another reason to stick to consoles, I guess.

Actually, you would still need an Origin account to play online.

How so? Origin has nothing to do with consoles.

I can't completely explain it, but I can think of one example to compare it to.

In Dragon Age Origins(...Hmmmm...origins, and now origin...) you made an account with Bioware and every time you went online the game connected to your account, and kept track of what you did in game and you got some extra stuff in Dragon Age 2 for having an account.

Also, in Metal Gear Solid 4 you had to set up an account with their website to play their online mode. So it would be similar to that. You try to go online to play, and it will ask you to sign in or make an account, and if you don't you can't play.

EA is really playing hard ball here.
Or in short, they're being real dicks.

You might have to set up an account, but there's no software to install on the your PC, where all your private data is stored. There's also (probably) no real need to even use your real email address for it if you didn't want to. Am I missing something?

 

[IronicBeet]

Geez, I'm pretty glad I never installed it now.

Honestly, how the fuck are they going to dance around this issue now? It's like they're trying to become the video game Big Brother.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It still boggles the mind as to how this much of an invasion of privacy can be legal.

Because you agree to it. A contract can have the weirdest clauses imaginable in it and still hold up in court, because the two parties (or multiple parties) involved both agreed to it. That's just the way the law works.

That's not entirely true; in contract law, there are things called "unconscionable terms" which are largely interprated based on merit/necessity for inclusion and even if both parties agree to them can invalidate the contract without requiring a settlement.

Alternatively, "unconscionable terms" are those that are deliberately vague, misworded or unclear (I'd wager that the term "software" in this contract needs to be more specific; I am not a lawyer though) and can still invalidate a contract even if the user signed it (under the notion that they wouldn't have if they understood it clearly; harder to prove in court, but it's still a valid defense if the contract is suspect already).

Additionally, there are limitations based on region/country that may apply.
I hate to sound vague on this matter, but Contract Law is rather messy.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

This really doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I don't care if they know what software I'm using. I've never understood these 'privacy' advocates -- I know some things are absurd, but this doesn't seem bad at all to me

The advocates understand that every single one of us have done/believe/feel something that another person out there is going to take offense to. No matter how innocent you think you are there will always be someone out there to take exception. When these people find themselves in positions of power, they have resources they can direct against you to make your life miserable.

Just ask any minority group that had to 'closet' themselves just so they won't be bigoted against.

Sadly, the only way to ensure these people do not target you is to ensure they do not know your secrets. Clauses like this one, where they have permission to spy on all your sensitive information, leaves a massive possibility that this information will find it's way into the hands of someone who will use it against you. It might not seem like a big deal to someone who has not studied human nature in depth, but those who have know people are dicks....

More on topic, clauses like this are also a slippery slope. Once they legally can scan your programs it is only a step to legally scanning and selling your file tree. We fight these little battles so hard because they make the large battles either smaller or non-existent.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Ok, I'm definitely buying the console version.
Origin will never find it's way onto my PC.

I hate to tell ya man, but I think you still need an Origin account to play the hardcopy of the game.
EA is really playing hard ball.

I said console version, not hardcopy.

My bad. I was trying to say that any copy will need an account to play online. I will try to be more clear and direct in the future. Sorry.
Here, have an Escapist cookie.
*Hands you a M&M cookie with all blue M&Ms*

 

[Tselis]

It still boggles the mind as to how this much of an invasion of privacy can be legal.

Because you agree to it. A contract can have the weirdest clauses imaginable in it and still hold up in court, because the two parties (or multiple parties) involved both agreed to it. That's just the way the law works.

That's not entirely true; in contract law, there are things called "unconscionable terms" which are largely interprated based on merit/necessity for inclusion and even if both parties agree to them can invalidate the contract without requiring a settlement.

Alternatively, "unconscionable terms" are those that are deliberately vague, misworded or unclear (I'd wager that the term "software" in this contract needs to be more specific; I am not a lawyer though) and can still invalidate a contract even if the user signed it (under the notion that they wouldn't have if they understood it clearly; harder to prove in court, but it's still a valid defense if the contract is suspect already).

Additionally, there are limitations based on region/country that may apply.
I hate to sound vague on this matter, but Contract Law is rather messy.

And you learn something new every day.

 

[The Virgo]

...... There is only one thing I have to say about this: FUCK YOU, ELECTRONIC ARTS!

There goes my want for Battlefield 3. And it's sad, because I was really looking forward to it. :-(

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Ok, I'm definitely buying the console version.
Origin will never find it's way onto my PC.

I hate to tell ya man, but I think you still need an Origin account to play the hardcopy of the game.
EA is really playing hard ball.

I said console version, not hardcopy.

My bad. I was trying to say that any copy will need an account to play online. I will try to be more clear and direct in the future. Sorry.
Here, have an Escapist cookie.
*Hands you a M&M cookie with all blue M&Ms*

I think he is trying to get around the problem with the clause and not installing Origin. Basically, by playing it on console they can scan all they want because there is no real information it be found. The only thing the scan will return is the fact you are using a console with pre-defined specs. Even in this day and age of consoles being mini-PC's, they still don't have a massive list of user-installed programs and other sensitive information that could be scanned and sold to third parties for spamming purposes.

Besides, Sony already gave all those details away... harm already done.

 

[Antari]

Unfortunately people writing into EA can expect the same sort of reception I have. None what so ever. EA is a waste of time on all fronts as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Well, this isn't exactly great news, in my opinion. Though i do wonder how much info Steam pulls out of my PC.

Depends if you have given them permission to do so. Steam is a opt-in service and requests, even if you have given it permission before in the past, authorization each time it wants to scan your system. This scan is also limited to hardware specifications and major services running in the background, which is simply used to calculate memory usage so they know how much free ram the average user has. Vital information if you want to make a game that the majority of people can run with more then 5 FPS.

And hell... some of us like bragging about our systems. I know the only reason I let it scan my system was so I could have the warm pleasure of being in the top 2% when it came to hardware specs. 8 logical processes, multi-SLI cards, enough top of the line over-clocked ram that it has it's own cooking system... ok I will shut up about my system. Still it is faaaar from that one person who had something like 32 physical cores hooked up. Stupid people who can afford a network of computers all dedicated to running one computer game really make me look at my rig and cry as it will never be a network of super computers....

Don't worry so much about Valve, Gabe knows it is better to screw people over with micro-transactions then to mine and sell their vital information.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Another reason to stick to consoles, I guess.

Actually, you would still need an Origin account to play online.

How so? Origin has nothing to do with consoles.

I can't completely explain it, but I can think of one example to compare it to.

In Dragon Age Origins(..Hmmmm..origins, and now origin..) you made an account with Bioware and every time you went online the game connected to your account, and kept track of what you did in game and you got some extra stuff in Dragon Age 2 for having an account.

There's also (probably) no real need to even use your real email address for it if you didn't want to. Am I missing something?

Like I said, I'm not the person to ask for the complete story. Sorry, I don't really game online much. Now I'm glade I don't.

 

[Torrasque]

2. Consent to WE OWNZ YOOZ.

You agree that EA may do you raw, no lube, and absolutely no pillow biting allowed. IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO DO THIS, PLEASE DO NOT GET INTO BED WITH THEM. We reserve the right to record and store the experience and upload to the internets so we can make moar money.

Um, gee, thanks for letting us know.

My ONLY surprise about all of this, is that this is point #2, and not subcategory point of #28 or something silly.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Does this mean that EA Games can find out all the kinky porn I'm into? If so then I'm seriously worried

I can not honestly say... the clause states "not limited to" after already giving us a frightening list of things they can scan such as what you use each application for. I can only make assumptions, with a legal loophole that large, that if you opened a file with application being monitored then they will know the file name at the very least. If not go all the way and just have the content of the file uploaded as well.

Again, assumption because that is a bloody big loophole!

caption:
and andioca... yes, antidotes would help!

 

[Spoonius]

Consoles.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I think he is trying to get around the problem with the clause and not installing Origin. Basically, by playing it on console they can scan all they want because there is no real information bar the fact it is being played on a console with pre-defined specs. Even in this day and age of consoles being mini-PC's, they still don't have a massive list of programs user-installed programs that could be scanned and abused for marketing purposes.
Besides, Sony already gave all those details away... harm already done.

Thanks. Here, have a cookie.
*Hands you an Escapist cookie*

 

[thedeathscythe]

In one of my more recent posts, the most recent post on the EA-Battlefield 3 subject, I swore off Battlefield 3 because of problems that kept arising and extra excrement that continues to hit the fan, albeit piece by piece. This just drives that decision home even further. And to think I once wanted the PC version of Battlefield 3...

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

It still boggles the mind as to how this much of an invasion of privacy can be legal.

Because you agree to it. A contract can have the weirdest clauses imaginable in it and still hold up in court, because the two parties (or multiple parties) involved both agreed to it. That's just the way the law works.

That's not entirely true; in contract law, there are things called "unconscionable terms" which are largely interprated based on merit/necessity for inclusion and even if both parties agree to them can invalidate the contract without requiring a settlement.

Alternatively, "unconscionable terms" are those that are deliberately vague, misworded or unclear (I'd wager that the term "software" in this contract needs to be more specific; I am not a lawyer though) and can still invalidate a contract even if the user signed it (under the notion that they wouldn't have if they understood it clearly; harder to prove in court, but it's still a valid defense if the contract is suspect already).

Additionally, there are limitations based on region/country that may apply.
I hate to sound vague on this matter, but Contract Law is rather messy.

I am very curious about your opinion on the term "Up, but not limited, to X" being used in a lot of these contracts. If any terminology is vague, it has to be the open ended argument that we agreed to something not stated in the contract because it falls under the many unspecified things covered by 'not limited to.'

 

[funguy2121]

Why the Hell would a video game company want to play big brother? They're not like weapons manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies and lobbyists. They don't sit on the board of all the major media companies and receive fellatio from politicians. I just don't get it. In the absence of more hard data, I'm left to speculate that the bigwigs who don't know the first thing about video games are just making more spectacularly stupid decisions. Looks like those douchebags' business degrees are paying off.

 

[w00tage]

It still boggles the mind as to how this much of an invasion of privacy can be legal.

As much as anyone can get you to agree to, via any means that you can't afford to sue them for. Slimebags.