|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 00:01:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Giving out a full API key to unauthorized 3rd party will be a breach of his privacy AND possibly of the EULA.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha He did not authorize others to look at his in game chat, I don't even think the EULA would allow for it and for sure I don't want consequences even with a 1% probability it's against the EULA.
VV, you're full of ****e.
Firstly, the EULA is not an agreement between players but between CCP and individual players, so cosmoray only has to make sure he sticks to his agreement with CCP, and CCP gave him the API key as a safe way to release information on his character - it is up to him to decide who he wants to release it to.
Secondly the EULA explicitly mentions that you "have no expectation of privacy regarding communications you make in the Game, whether through private in-Game messaging, during chat, or in chat rooms". Of course that's in there because CCP logs all conversations, but regardless of intention, this statement you and everyone else agreed to is still very much the opposite of what you're claiming would be in the EULA.
Next time you refer to a document, try reading it first.
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 00:52:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha 1) Never got why you are so depressingly confrontative (or worse) in the large majority of your replies to anyone.
I'm afraid you have to wrong impression of me. I can be confrontational sometimes, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to "the large majority" of my replies. I have made nearly 7200 posts, many of them quite decent and sometimes even helpful.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha 2) CCP tends to forbid to repost even simple in game things,
Name one 'simple' ingame thing, other than killmails - I wouldn't consider communication with CCP employees and bugs/exploits to be simple. With these three categories, I believe most restrictions are covered.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha I don't want a 3rd party private convos being forwarded to another 3rd party that could even publish it in a nonconsensual way.
You don't want it so you refer to some fictional rules; I'm not sure if that's the best way to support your opinion.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha In case saying it 3 times was not clear enough, he can give the API to whoever he wants. It's the possibility that a 3rd party would phish his mail via API and post "confidential" screenshots sent in a trust relationship that don't fly with me.
Great - so I can sabotage any audit by unilaterally sending information which I don't want the auditor to see to the auditee and then claiming confidentiality. Seems like a good system to me!
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 13:02:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Yeah, I hate the fact I'm having to re-associate douche-bags to portraits, used to be I could skip posts just from their ugly mugshots.
Finally a post from Ray I can agree with!
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 16:07:00 -
[4]
Careful Two Shots, or VV will accuse you of being a meanie!
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 17:01:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Two Shots
Originally by: flakeys /me hands out the popcorn again ...
The in game board for EVE: Online, the popular Internet space ship game, needs a :popcorn: emote. I promise to get this implemented if you vote for me for CSM.
Perhaps you can suggest it for the new forums?
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 17:22:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Giving a full API key to unknowns exposes to the possibility of the contents being posted on the forums, therefore the reply applies.
Not the best of arguments. Sending an evemail exposes to the possibility of the contents being posted on the forums, therefore sending evemails is facilitating breaking the rules?
If posting it is against the rules, that's something the person posting it should consider.
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 17:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Sure, CCP would remove since it is indeed forbidden
It's not forbidden based on the EULA or TOS (or even the forum rules). Though CCP is free to moderate their forums in any way they like, there is nothing against disclosing the information anywhere else (or even posting it here anyway, and see if it gets moderated - against the rules or not, I've seen plenty of reports of ingame conversations posted).
Note you are moving the goalpost: you went from a "violation of the EULA" to "CCP doesn't like if you do it on their turf" - quite a difference.
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 18:17:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Clearly your understanding of simple English is even worse than mine.
Odd that in your zeal to link post after post, you missed #69.
And you missed TOS rule #18
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 19:14:00 -
[9]
All those quotes but not the one where you agree that you have no expectation of privacy (see post #25).
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 19:46:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Estel Arador on 25/02/2011 19:46:58
Originally by: Lederstrumpf
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Nothing about you was even asked by me (nor I want to know) but freely stated by the guy
And this does give you the right to forward it? If it'd give you that right then cosmoray had any right to forward his inbox to the world, too, as he for sure didn't ask to get contacted by yourself on behalf of that "client"...
I don't think you get it. VV thinks all evemails are private and subject to EU privacy laws so they cannot be made public, with of course one exception (all rules have an exception), and that's when he's doing it.
Also the fact that he's quoting the EULA to support his argument in one post and claiming the EULA is worthless anyway a couple of posts later is no way shape or form contradictory; after all, VV could never contradict himself.
|
|
|
|
|