New thought? New angle?

[Alwayslost]

Umm, I'm seeing a lot of posts about how to make sure that VI cannot read/see/detect an active key scanner in memory.

I've also seen a few posts about how VI cannot legally do exactly what we are trying to avoid them doing.

On the technical end, I am more than lost, so what follows may not be completely accurate.

Shouldn't we be focusing on a program to detect if VI has introduced code/functionality that does this Illegal act of scanning the memory/processes of our computers and raise a NASTY public stink if/when they do?

If they want to start a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) campaign, we can easily play along about how they are breaking the laws by accessing sectors of the users computer without legal rights or permission.

If we determine that VI is NOT trying to detect the key sniffers then we have little to worry about, but as soon as they are found to be trying to detect the sniffers then we go after them with public paranoia about their personal security.

Another thought:

My computer(s) is my own property, my memory is my space, the software that is running in my memory is borrowing my space with my permission, I do not own the rights to the software that is borrowing my space, I do not sign away the rights of my property or my space by playing a game that has a client on my computer and access the servers of another company. Since I own my computer I am the one that has say about what I run on my computer, not anyone else. Welcome to the Great Windo$e debate and U.S. vs Micro$oft. We are not altering the code that is run on our machienes, we are not corrupting the data stream to alter or affect the client/server interaction. Anyone that is hacking or altering the code that is privided deserves to be caught for modifying the files that ARE the property of VI. (Obviously I'm no lawyer, but this makse sense to me)

[high_jeeves]

My computer(s) is my own property, my memory is my space, the software that is running in my memory is borrowing my space with my permission, I do not own the rights to the software that is borrowing my space, I do not sign away the rights of my property or my space by playing a game that has a client on my computer and access the servers of another company. Since I own my computer I am the one that has say about what I run on my computer, not anyone else. Welcome to the Great Windo$e debate and U.S. vs Micro$oft. We are not altering the code that is run on our machienes, we are not corrupting the data stream to alter or affect the client/server interaction. Anyone that is hacking or altering the code that is privided deserves to be caught for modifying the files that ARE the property of VI. (Obviously I'm no lawyer, but this makse sense to me)


This is all well and good, but they can ban you just because they dont like you. You have every right to sniff your own memory.. They have every right to ban you for sniffing your own memory... Its as simple as that.

--Jeeves

[bonkersbobcat]

Originally posted by high_jeeves This is all well and good, but they can ban you just because they dont like you.
Or in other words "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

[Amadeus]

However, it is illegal to scan someone's computer because of privacy issues no matter what the reason.

Therefore, SoE could ban you because they THOUGHT you were running illegal software; however, as I understand it, if they have "proof" of it, they've broken the law and you could sue.

So, a lot of it depends on the reason they give you for banning you. But, as it was pointed out, they are perfectly well in their right to refuse service to you for ANY reason as long as it doesn't break discrimination laws.

[h3x]

but my question is....

one zone in particular does it have the same key for every user, is this key the same each time you hit the zone will it stay the same until they change the eqgame.exe...

if it is the same why not hard write it into seq? and just make easy scripts to update the list of new keys when they change the exe. therefore removing the need for a sniffer and the endless /ponder of are they scanning my memory.....

i have not attempted the sniffer side of eq so this i do not know first hand...

[MisterSpock]

Nope -- they are randomly generated by your client every time you logon or zone.

[high_jeeves]

However, it is illegal to scan someone's computer because of privacy issues no matter what the reason.


People say this all the time. It just isnt true. If you think it is, please find me the statute that says so. Dont just say "privacy issues." There is no law that says "you have a right to keep everything on your computer private from other applications that you willfully installed on your computer", or anything of the sort. YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT. They can scan the computer, they are doing nothing illegal. Windows (And even linux) does it every time you boot up, and if you are using an indexing service, then it does it constantly. If they decided to scan for warez on your HDD, and shut down the system if they wanted to.. they could. The only issue is what the customer base is willing to take. There is NO legal issue here.

--Jeeves

[I_R_Noob]

please read the disclamer at the top!!

Thinking about all this packet sniffing and memmory sniffing
/boggles my mind.

what I do know is that showeq was passive and this was good.
now it can not remain passive because the key is needed from the client.

What i wonder is if there is a way to make a 2nd system with the eq client on it, capture the packets sent to the first system your playing eq on, sort of make it think its the actuly eq game so it decodes the data but never reports back to soe. you could pull the key from the 2nd system and pass it to showeq. /cheer passive again!

Now granted if it could be done this would open the door to the dreaded Windows based showeq and flood the market with /shiver tons of people being able to use it.

but more likely than not this is just another crazed writeing of a noob.

[Spook]

Originally posted by high_jeeves


People say this all the time. It just isnt true. If you think it is, please find me the statute that says so. Dont just say "privacy issues." There is no law that says "you have a right to keep everything on your computer private from other applications that you willfully installed on your computer", or anything of the sort. YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT. They can scan the computer, they are doing nothing illegal. Windows (And even linux) does it every time you boot up, and if you are using an indexing service, then it does it constantly. If they decided to scan for warez on your HDD, and shut down the system if they wanted to.. they could. The only issue is what the customer base is willing to take. There is NO legal issue here.

--Jeeves

Actually, Jeeves, it depends on local law (State, usually). I am not a lawyer, but have experience with some similar issues so am sharing. For example, some States do not recognize a shrink-wrap contract (the online clicking is considered "shrink-wrap" by some). Those States only consider a signed & notorized one legally binding. Also, because they (SOE) use the term "service" much like a Utility company, if service is removed for no reason and payment has been redered prior for the expected service, that company has made themselves liable. In those States with such consumer support, just because a company says it can remove service whenever it wants (without refund), doesn't make it legal for them to do so.

If people are lucky enough to live a State with such consumer protection, good for them. Always consult a lawyer and please do not take my example gloablly as laws vary.

[bubbahlicious]

Originally posted by Amadeus
However, it is illegal to scan someone's computer because of privacy issues no matter what the reason.
...

Wrongo-bongo. Take a look at the Berman P2P bill.
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/20020802_eff_berman_p2p_bill.html

"The Berman P2P Bill grants copyright owners and their agents the right to break any law, state or federal, civil or criminal, in the course of "disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing" the availability of his or her copyrighted works on a public peer-to-peer (P2P) file trading network. This power may be used to stop any unauthorized P2P activity, even if the activity does not violate copyright laws."

In this case, Sony is not trying to counter the distribution of copyrighted materials. But the precedant is there. There are cases where copyright owners are permitted to break all kinds of laws (privacy related or otherwise) in pursuit of those who interfere with thier intellectual property.

Our Congress and Exectuve branches are in the pockets of large corporations. They care more about the rights of large companies than they do the rights of the consumer. They would call us pirates, and not raise one finger to stop Sony Online in cases like ours.

[speedphreak]

1. the Berman bill has not been passed
2. even if it is passed it has no effect outside the US. EQ is a global game
3. How exactly is SEQ or a key sniffer related to P2P?
4. This whole topic is moot
5. I wish people would stop professing to interpret legislation correctly when they do not

[high_jeeves]

Actually, Jeeves, it depends on local law (State, usually). I am not a lawyer, but have experience with some similar issues so am sharing. For example, some States do not recognize a shrink-wrap contract (the online clicking is considered "shrink-wrap" by some). Those States only consider a signed & notorized one legally binding. Also, because they (SOE) use the term "service" much like a Utility company, if service is removed for no reason and payment has been redered prior for the expected service, that company has made themselves liable. In those States with such consumer support, just because a company says it can remove service whenever it wants (without refund), doesn't make it legal for them to do so.


Its the no reason part that gets complicated here. By my understanding of the law (and, my understanding is primarily based on my states laws), they can deny service if you breach the contract (which is clearly present here).

Also, the utiltity companies are generally specifically outlined in the law, those laws are not extendable to other services. In most states, they have specific laws for gas, electric, water, sewer, and steam utilities. These include such provisions as no shut off on holidays, weekends, no electric/gas shutoff if the temperature is below a certain point, etc... those laws clearly wouldnt extend to our EQ accounts.

Again tho, the bottom line here is simple: the law is irrelevant. They can ban you. It will cost you thousands and thousands of dollors to do anything about it, and you will lose anyway. We can argue semantics of specific state laws till the cows come home, but it is still irrelevant.

--Jeeves

[Spook]

Sure thing, Jeeves (and all).

Hey, this topic and the responses can provide incentive to get involved or at least become informed about how law and the legislative process works. The USA just had a big election, I hope those of you who could, did vote and did so informed.

Here are some links:

http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/ucitasum.html

http://www.eff.org/

ratt has posted that a goodly chunk of the SEQ contributer donations goes to EFF and I think that to be worthy.

[wiz60]

I think the answer here is that several of you are right.

There is no law against scanning the PC memory. There is however protection against the contents of your PC memory being transmitted to someone without your permission.

Verant ran into this issue a couple years ago when they added language to the EULA that forced you to grant them permission to scan your PC. This created a major issue and they quickly removed the language.

The question is whether or not the information they send back about programs you may be running - or inferences about rules you may be violating based on software running in your machine - violates privacy laws.

I have always argued that Verant's eula is illegal. The fact is they can say whatever they want. They can get you to agree to be "put to death" if you violate their agreement - it is all meaningless until it is tested in a court of law. Until it is specifically litigated there is no way to determine if they are in violation of the law - or not.

For those of you who say it is there game - they can do whatever - thats not exactly true.

There is a provision of contract law called "specific performance". It says that if you offer to do somethign for someone - you dont just get to back out and give them back their money. It is normally only used in cases involving real estate. Thats because substituting one piece of property is not the same as delivering the one you originally bought. The seller if forced "to perform". My lawer friends are in disagreement about whether this argument would work in this case. My contention is that they offered you the opportunity to play their game, they took your money and enticed you to "invest" your time creating "value" (albeit in their world) - and that they can be forced to "perform" (ie: deliver their service) - unless they compensate you for your time.

This is quite a protracted argument - but those who are inclined can verify it is not gibberish. It just takes money and willpower.