Thread: RE: [GD-General] Collecting info from players
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-general
|
From: Tom F. <to...@mu...> - 2003-07-10 11:38:40
|
I would _not_ encrypt this data (unless it's a bandwidth hit), and happily tell them exactly what data you report. Don't _ask_, because by reflex people say no, which defeats the whole point, but do give them the option to turn it off if they can bothered to find the option. So people can disable it if they like, and they can inspect the data themselves - none of it is particularly privacy-invading, and it's certainly nothing that playing any other online game (CS, Quake, etc) doesn't reveal. I belive the Epic data is sent automatically along with the CD key-checking stuff. Data very similar to what you want to collect is collected and sent by HalfLife - I think that data has been posted before or is on Valve's website somewhere. So far, no reports of mobs with blazing pitchforks have been reported. :-) Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke and Microsoft MVP. This email is the product of your deranged imagination, and does not in any way imply existence of the author. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ivan-Assen Ivanov [mailto:as...@ha...] > Sent: 10 July 2003 11:53 > To: gam...@li... > Subject: [GD-General] Collecting info from players > > > Here's an Internet ethics question for you. I don't really > expect to hear a definite answer, more like gather some > of your thoughts. > > What info about the player is appropriate for the game to report to a > central server? > > There are privacy junkies who would be outraged by the > question itself. These are the people who browse through anonymizers > when they read online comics and daily news. > > So their answer is "None" and they would happily flame us, threat to > boycott us and report us to slashdot. (hey, free publicity!) > > Our previous title has an update notification system which fetches an > XML file from our webserver once every three days and > notifies the user > of patches, maps etc. > This reports to us only the users' IPs. Indirectly, you can translate > this to country code, e.g. by MaxMind's excellent free GeoIP database. > > We are considering collecting some info from the users' > machine, but we > are somewhat hesitant. What do you think about the following items: > > - a unique machine ID, so we can differentiate hits from users behind > firewalls/NATs/whatever > > - hardware and OS details - memory, CPU, videocard, version > of Windows, DirectX and drivers > (Daniel Vogel of Epic recently reported such info on this > list - how was > it obtained? Was your office torched by a mob of privacy advocates?) > > - statistics about how much the game is played - average session, max > session, frequency of running the game etc. > > This info can be packed to a 10-15 digits and letters and > e.g. added to > the URL request, and later extracted from the web server > logfiles. Or it > can be steganographically hidden in clever ways - but do we need to? > > I'm sure Microsoft can't get away with anything like this without > creating a major brouhaha, but first, we aren't as well known > and hated > as Microsoft, and second, see the publicity remark. > > What are your thoughts on this? What are you doing currently? > Or maybe we should take this discussion to a closed forum ;-) > > regards, > Assen > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft > Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. > Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. > www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-general mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 > |
|
From: Timur D. <ti...@cr...> - 2003-07-11 07:57:46
|
To me all this issues reminds paranoia :) Gathering platform specific information is a so natural thing, = especially for game development companies, they must know thier user = platforms. OS type/cpu type etc... are all anonymous data this is not an email or = your credit card. Internet Explorer tell servers certain info about you machine and most = users dont care, If you dont trust commercial game dev company, that it wont sell your = personal data, why did you bought thier product? After all they could have done anything, from getting your email to = installing backdoor client on your PC. Will you consider sending your game CD key to multiplayer server as your = privacy infringement? This is actually Much more personal data, it can = tell where you live and bought this game. -----Original Message----- From: Noel Llopis [mailto:ll...@co...] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 12:48 AM To: gam...@li... Subject: Re: [GD-General] Collecting info from players On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:18:06 +0300 Ivan-Assen Ivanov <as...@ha...> wrote: > Do we design the system to cater to the preferences of > a small, vocal minority, severely reducing its utility in > the process? Clearly it depends on the program (whether it's online only or not), your audience, and the type of information. However, I would also advice against sending any information without the player first approving it.=20 I have downloaded many programs/demos in the past that during the installation or as the first thing they did when I ran them was to try to access the internet. My firewall caught that, I denied the access, and promptly uninstalled the program and decided not to purchase it. For what it's worth, I know of many people who feel this same way, or even much more strongly, so it's not such a small, vocal minority as you might think. --Noel ll...@co... ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-general mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=3D557 |
|
From: Timur D. <ti...@cr...> - 2003-07-11 12:49:42
|
Real privacy is not possible in our society, so everything must be = measured in common sence. First of all, such statistical data is probably not IP bound, there is = no point for game company to know that Ip 192.123.111.32 have = Pentium4/800 Its needed as purely statistics, how many users have Pentiums versus AMD = how many users run server on Linux and how many on Widnows,whats = percentage of user have ATI or Nvidia video card. it cannot affect you directly, you will not be spammed with emails = suggesting to upgrade AMD to Intel or whatever, and your IP will not = even be recorded most probably,=20 at least there`s no big reason to do it. What is privacy infrigment or not is dictated by law, and collecting = credit card info will surelly be illegal. There`s no really perfect line of whats can be collected and what is = not, everything that legally can be collected, can be collected. It`s a business dission of what to collect or not, one of the = consideretion is how users will react to that. Unlikely game sales will drop if users will know that game sends thier = CPU info to server. It is not requires by law to put a warning on collecting CPU info on the = game box, so nobody will do it. -----Original Message----- From: Colin Fahey [mailto:cp...@ea...] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:46 PM To: gam...@li... Subject: Re: [GD-General] Collecting info from players 2003 July 11th Friday =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>> Gathering platform specific information is a so natural >>> thing, especially for game development companies, they >>> must know thier user platforms. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D First of all, why is data regarding the user's platform being=20 collected AFTER the user has purchased the application? All scenarios involving such data being collected AFTER the user has purchased the application can be avoided. If the application malfunctions, the user can be presented with an opportunity to share specific, explicit pieces of information with the vendor. As far as being "a so natural thing", so is deception, theft, and invasion of privacy. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>> OS type/cpu type etc... are all anonymous data this is not >>> an email or your credit card. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D <Cut> |
|
From: Timur D. <ti...@cr...> - 2003-07-11 13:04:00
|
This illegal for you to be in someones house and watch TV, It`s not illegal to collect CPU data and send to server, Business and ethics rarely go hand by hand. -----Original Message----- From: Javier Arevalo [mailto:ja...@py...] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:46 PM To: gam...@li... Subject: Re: [GD-General] Collecting info from players Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote: > The information that you're using a Pentium 4 / 2.4 GHz with 512 MB > RAM can... ummmm... can you think of something evil that can happen > to you? This is true, no wrong will probably come out of that. However, no = software development company is entitled to make that decision for the individual customer. There would be no wrong in me coming inside your house to = watch TV while you're at E3, but I'm sure you wouldn't be happy about that = happening without your explicit permission, despite the fact that no harm at all = was done. Well, it is YOUR house, and it is MY computer. Stay out of my = property and I'll stay out of yours. It's no crusade, it's common sense. There is no need to call people names if they are more concerned than = you about their privacy. Let your chosen legislators make decisions about = what constitutes privacy and what doesn't (and hope they'll make good = choices). Nobody has given *you* permission to make that decision, and you have = heard enough arguments about it to at least accept that your position is not absolutely and universally accepted. It would be kind of funny to see someone be accused of pirating Unreal Tournament 2003, only to hear him defending his position with these same words: "No harm was done since I wasn't going to buy the game anyway. = What do they care? They obviously agree with me on this." Javier Arevalo Pyro Studios ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-general mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=3D557 |
|
From: <ma...@ch...> - 2003-07-11 13:33:20
|
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Timur Davidenko wrote: > This illegal for you to be in someones house and watch TV, In most contries yes. > It`s not illegal to collect CPU data and send to server, Now, that would be very dependant on the country your are in. Denmark have pretty rigid register laws. I am not at all certain that what you suggest would be legal in Denmark, unless the user was explicitly made aware of this. Of course, if you choose to ignore everything but the US of A you couldn't care less. > It would be kind of funny to see someone be accused of pirating Unreal > Tournament 2003, only to hear him defending his position with these same > words: "No harm was done since I wasn't going to buy the game anyway. What > do they care? They obviously agree with me on this." > > Javier Arevalo > Pyro Studios Although two wrongs don't make a right, that is actually not a bad analogy. Mads -- Mads Bondo Dydensborg. ma...@ch... Ignore cries of wasted bandwidth! This is pure drivel that will always be posted by the anti-troll lobby. These jerks fail to understand that trolls are the best way to drive people off the internet thus making available multi-mbs for the rest of us to download our porn. - The Subtle Art of Trolling (http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/) |
|
From: Javier A. <ja...@py...> - 2003-07-11 13:34:19
|
Timur, I wasn't arguing about the legality of it (hence my point about letting legislators handle that), I'm talking about the personal, ethical and moral implications. Surely I don't expect coporate businesses to care about my personal rights when it conflicts with their business, that's why some of us express our opinions, in the hope that it will help steer things in the direction we think is right. The idea that doing so is considered by some as "getting caught up in a high cause", "paranoia" or "lack of common sense" is truly saddening. Javier Arevalo Pyro Studios Timur Davidenko wrote: > This illegal for you to be in someones house and watch TV, > It`s not illegal to collect CPU data and send to server, > Business and ethics rarely go hand by hand. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Javier Arevalo [mailto:ja...@py...] > > Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote: > >> The information that you're using a Pentium 4 / 2.4 GHz with 512 MB >> RAM can... ummmm... can you think of something evil that can happen >> to you? > > This is true, no wrong will probably come out of that. However, no > software development company is entitled to make that decision for > the individual customer. There would be no wrong in me coming inside > your house to watch TV while you're at E3, but I'm sure you wouldn't > be happy about that happening without your explicit permission, > despite the fact that no harm at all was done. Well, it is YOUR > house, and it is MY computer. Stay out of my property and I'll stay > out of yours. It's no crusade, it's common sense. > > There is no need to call people names if they are more concerned than > you about their privacy. Let your chosen legislators make decisions > about what constitutes privacy and what doesn't (and hope they'll > make good choices). Nobody has given *you* permission to make that > decision, and you have heard enough arguments about it to at least > accept that your position is not absolutely and universally accepted. > > It would be kind of funny to see someone be accused of pirating Unreal > Tournament 2003, only to hear him defending his position with these > same words: "No harm was done since I wasn't going to buy the game > anyway. What do they care? They obviously agree with me on this." |
|
From: Matt N. <mat...@ni...> - 2003-07-11 13:42:50
|
I've got nothing against philosophy / ethics discussions but I think = perhaps people are taking this a bit too philosophically when a more = pragmatic approach would be sensible. In the UK (and Europe as a whole I = think?) the Data Protection Act already puts fairly strict limitations = on what kind of information it's legal to collect and retain with and = without the user's permission. It seems to me that 99.9%+ of users will = be quite happy for a games company to collect anonymous system = information for the purpose of more accurately determining what their = target system spec should be. Whilst there's all kinds of other = information that a games company might *like* to collect about users = most of it would be illegal in many countries and probably most users = wouldn't be happy about it being collected. Since the majority of users = just click their way through the default options without really reading = the details and the tiny (but vocal) minority of users who would object = to system specs being collected are almost certainly a strict subset of = the minority of users who actually look at the options being offered = during setup there is a straightforward solution that will satisfy = almost everyone: When installing or first running the game, have a screen that tells the = user that anonymous system information will be collected for the = purposes of improving the developer's future products and that this will = be transmitted if they don't object. Have the default option (the 'Next' = button or whatever) simply send this information as a plain text file to = the developers. Offer an option to view the information being sent and = an option to send no information but make it unlikely to be clicked by = the 'don't care' users whilst still easy to find for the paranoid types. Job done. The only people who will object to this are those who are = hardcore privacy advocates who also believe that every one else should = be as well and it's their duty to educate the world in that respect. = They've got enough on their plate with that as it is so they probably = won't have much time to hassle you :-) Matt. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 30/06/2003 =20 |
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2003-07-11 14:09:25
|
>>> I think it should be defaulting to "yes". Because if
>>> a user doesn't care he won't do any extraneous moves to
>>> continue installation. And if he _really_ wants to keep
>>> his computer configuration unrevealed it won't be a
>>> problem for him to make an extra mouse click to change
>>> it to "no".
Are you proposing a screen all by itself in the installation
process that describes the extent of the data being collected
and its uses, and a simple "[x] Enable Data Collection"
checkbox?
Too often the terms of data collection and use are too
complicated to fit on a single screen of an installation
program. Some programs refer the user to a EULA.
Some applications take this theme to a crazy extreme.
The RealOne player, and Windows Media Player, and Quicktime,
and various other applications, have lots and lots of
checkboxes that default to "yes". It takes forever to
go through them all to say "no"! No, I don't want this
application to be associated with every file extension
known to mankind. No, I don't want periodic newsletters.
No, I don't want automatic upgrades. No, I don't want to
use any Internet CD database, etc, etc.
Users do not want to spend all day studying the terms of
the use of software. Who can read any EULA these days in
less than an hour, let alone comprehend it? What user
will study all of the default checkbox choices made for
them? I bet you could change all defaults to opposite
settings and users would still not bother to change them.
To say that the user doesn't care is not quite right, I
don't think. If you had a checkbox "[x] Erase hard drive"
and another that said "[x] Install a Legion of Viruses",
and the user didn't bother to change these boxes, I think
this is not because they are carefree. I think there is
some implicit trust between users and software companies
that the companies will try to make the products serve the
interests of users. Why bother looking at the settings?
Microsoft would never do something like get me to unwittingly
give up my privacy, would they?
But even the existence of a checkbox suggests that the
data collection will continue on an ongoing basis. This
is hard to justify for almost any application! Why not
request to submit information when the application
launches for the first time, and when the application
experiences an error? Make your case to the user.
Maybe have a table that itemizes the information you
wish to collect:
[x] "Pentium 4 / 2.4 GHz" :
Telling us this helps us decide on the best way
to optimize future patches to the game;
[x] "512 MB RAM" :
Telling us this helps us decide on the best way
to optimize future patches to the game;
[ ] "Colin Fahey" :
This helps us publicize your questionable actions
in our multiplayer game.
[ ] "4138 2274 1719 0052" :
This helps us rob you blind and damage your
credit forever. 1337 haX0r Rulz!
[SUBMIT] [DO NOT SUBMIT] [CANCEL]
>> How did you decide that getting the "OS type" and "cpu type"
>> was okay and getting an e-mail address or credit card number
>> was NOT okay?
>
>Duh.
>
>I think you're getting so worked up about your higher cause
>that you pretend to ignore simple, everyday common sense.
The point I was trying to make, and partly sabotaged by
mentioning an extreme case that clearly falls under
"common sense", was that there is a continuum of degrees
of acceptibility, and there is no telling what people
will decide is okay. Sometimes a company's attitude is
so pervasive and brainwashing that things that may not
have seemed okay before now don't seem so bad.
For some, fetching the e-mail address (if the guy meant
actual e-mail, I misunderstood) seems like a perfectly
reasonable idea. Maybe someone thinks getting a credit card
number is a way to improve the user's experience, so that if
there is ever an opportunity to gamble or buy stuff within
the context of the multiplayer game, the user will not be
bothered by pesky dialog boxes..."common sense"!
>>> The information that you're using a Pentium 4 / 2.4 GHz
>>> with 512 MB RAM can... ummmm... can you think of something
>>> evil that can happen to you?
Great! Bring up a dialog box that says: Would you like to
tell FuBar, Inc the following: "Pentium 4 / 2.4 GHz with 512 MB
RAM"?
The user clicks "Okay" or "No". It's a happy ending!
The argument for bringing up a dialog box, indicating the
exact information to be transmitted, is supported by the
idea of respecting the user's wishes.
The argument against bringing up a dialog box, or against
indicating the information to be transmitted, does not
have the user's best interest in mind. If the fear is that
irrational users will always say "No" to such a dialog box,
because the mere suggestion of gathering information scares
people, so be it. Clearly the argument for gathering data
was too weak to convince a user. If you really want the
data, offer an incentive. NetZero, Hotmail, etc, offer
free e-mail, etc, in exchange for data collection and
marketing opportunities.
|
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-07-11 14:48:11
|
There are three possible choices in our situation: the "right way", as suggested by the I-won't-call-you-names guys who value their privacy, the pragmatic "wrong way" close to my original idea of what to do, supported by TomF and Timur, and simply forgetting about it. The logistical issues of doing it "the right way" (during installation, with prompts etc.) are serious: somebody to implement the extra user interface, then the network part (what if there's no net during installation?), then the usual localization hell for any text longer than 2 words, then explaining to N publishers for the different territories what is that reporting and why isn't it reporting to THEM... Not to mention that some publishers insist on their own installers, so we can't actually do this on installation. All of this, for significantly _reducing_ the utility of the system (especially if it's turned off by default) doesn't seem like a good deal to me - we have a ridiculously tight schedule (hey, who isn't!). I'm still somewhat wary of "the wrong way" (so not all hope is lost for my soul, Javier!) - that's why I started this thread in the first place. I'm an engineer, and this seems to be turning into a ethics decision. I'm not comfortable making ethics decisions - it's not what engineers do beyond basic common sense things, like not fetching your emails or not formatting the hard disk. I know how to solve the problem if it's turned into a technical decision (is it possible to report such information? definitely), a business decision (do we want this information? definitely), or a legal decision (is it expressly forbidden by law? possibly). How do privacy advocats feel about carrying a cellphone in their pocket? Your cellphone company can determine what brand of phone you use. I bought tires for my car recently, and at the shop the girl behind the counter entered my car's model in the order. Would you refuse to provide that information (even if she could just glance at the car parked outside and see for herself) ? |
|
From: <ma...@ch...> - 2003-07-11 15:15:37
|
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote:
> How do privacy advocats feel about carrying a cellphone in their pocket?
> Your cellphone company can determine what brand of phone you use.
While I am not sure I wish to call myself a privacy nut, I can't help you
there, because I do not own a cellphone.
In Denmark, the police at one point wished to be able to get the records
from the phone companies of all persons in a given cell at a given time.
This was denied them; they need to name a specific person and have a judge
warrant (or what it is called) to get the records for this person.
>
> I bought tires for my car recently, and at the shop the girl behind the
> counter entered my car's model in the order. Would you refuse to provide
> that information (even if she could just glance at the car parked
> outside and see for herself) ?
Wrt. cars, I think this information is actually already accessible in
Denmark, we have a nationwide database with this kind of information (who
own what cars, as well as where people lives, stuff like that).
OTOH I routinely refuse to give my name and address when I buy
electronics, although many companies claim they need this to give me a
warranty. If they can not provide a good reason for why they need my
address and name, they wont get it.
Interesstingly, Denmark have a nationwide system of paying with credit
cards that can not be tracked by the shops.
I just don't see why people need information about me in a lot of
situations, and if they are trying to hide it, I get even more suspicious.
Mads
--
Mads Bondo Dydensborg. ma...@ch...
THE COURT: I'm delighted, Doctor, that this is plain English to someone.
- From DeCSS trial transcript, regarding a plain text describing of DeCSS.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/touretzky-testimony.txt
|
|
From: Ken P. <ke...@dr...> - 2003-07-11 15:34:04
|
For the most part this is an issue of ethics. As far as legality goes, that would change from country to country and you'd need to contact numerous lawyers to make sure it's legal everywhere. Though it may be an outdated idea, I still believe that if you want your users to respect you, you should show them respect. Legal or not, grabbing information without their knowledge shows a lack of respect. If I invited you into my home (analogous to installing your software), and in addition to doing whatever you were invited over for, you made notes on what brands of stuff I have in my home, I would consider that incredibly rude. It certainly wouldn't be illegal, it's not like you were rummaging in my drawers, but it would be rude. I think most people would not have an issue sharing the information if asked. As you pointed out, it requires more work, but I think it's the right way to go. As an additional point, with Internet security being such a big issue these days, how many publishers would be unhappy if they knew your product reported info back without telling the user? You might think any publicity is good publicity, but your publisher might not agree. At 09:47 AM 7/11/2003, you wrote: >There are three possible choices in our situation: >the "right way", as suggested by the I-won't-call-you-names guys >who value their privacy, the pragmatic "wrong way" close to my original >idea >of what to do, supported by TomF and Timur, and simply forgetting >about it. > >The logistical issues of doing it "the right way" (during installation, >with prompts etc.) are serious: somebody to implement the >extra user interface, then the network part (what if there's no net >during installation?), then the usual localization hell for any text >longer than 2 words, then explaining to N publishers for the >different territories what is that reporting and why isn't it reporting >to THEM... Not to mention that some publishers insist on their >own installers, so we can't actually do this on installation. > >All of this, for significantly _reducing_ the utility of the system >(especially if it's turned off by default) doesn't seem like a good deal >to >me - we have a ridiculously tight schedule (hey, who isn't!). > >I'm still somewhat wary of "the wrong way" (so not all hope >is lost for my soul, Javier!) - that's why I started this thread in the >first place. > >I'm an engineer, and this seems to be turning into a ethics >decision. I'm not comfortable making ethics decisions - >it's not what engineers do beyond basic common sense things, >like not fetching your emails or not formatting the hard disk. >I know how to solve the problem if it's turned into a technical decision >(is it possible to report such information? definitely), a business >decision (do we want this information? definitely), or a legal decision >(is it expressly forbidden by law? possibly). > >How do privacy advocats feel about carrying a cellphone in their pocket? >Your cellphone company can determine what brand of phone you use. > >I bought tires for my car recently, and at the shop the girl behind the >counter entered my car's model in the order. Would you refuse to provide >that information (even if she could just glance at the car parked >outside and see for herself) ? > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft >Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. >Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. >www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 >_______________________________________________ >Gamedevlists-general mailing list >Gam...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general >Archives: >http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 |
|
From: Ivan G. <dea...@ga...> - 2003-07-10 15:57:17
|
> I would _not_ encrypt this data (unless it's a bandwidth hit), and happily > tell them exactly what data you report. Don't _ask_, because by reflex > people say no, which defeats the whole point, but do give them the option to > turn it off if they can bothered to find the option. I agree with this. Simply turn it on by default, and leave the option to disable it if the user wants to. Also, give some kind of privacy statement, in which you guarantee that no personal information will be sent, blah... And when they try to turn it off, show them some kind of confirmation dialog with an explanation that sending such information to you doesn't invade their privacy, and helps you deliver them better games, etc. -Ivan |
|
From: Javier A. <ja...@py...> - 2003-07-10 16:23:43
|
Ivan Galic wrote: > And when they try to turn it off, show them some > kind of confirmation dialog with an explanation that sending such > information to you doesn't invade their privacy, and helps you > deliver them better games, etc. I don't know about you, but the more I am told it is ok, the more annoyed and suspicius I grow. I suggest you put a privacy statement hyperlink control right next to the checkbox, but don't tell the user that he's making a dumb choice when he unchecks the option. Another thing to be careful about is to ensure that no data is sent before the user has had the chance to turn off that option. Most privacy-conscious users will have a firewall, and if you try to sneak info out of them before they can override the option, they will know, they won't like it, and you won't get the info anyway. Javier Arevalo Pyro Studios |
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-07-10 20:30:01
|
> Most privacy-conscious users will have a firewall, > and if you try to sneak info out of them before they can > override the option, they will know, they won't like it, and > you won't get the info anyway. OK, so basically the problem turns into the following: Do we design the system to cater to the preferences of a small, vocal minority, severely reducing its utility in the process? I'm sure "privacy-conscious users" won't like the simple hitting of a static URL by our current system. (by the way: we don't provide a way to turn it off. We haven't heard a single complaint about it. Maybe if our game was a major hit we would have heard more than one. But we have tens of thousands of unique IPs hitting that URL, and no hate mail. Google doesn't find any mentions of it by third parties.) The argument "but everyone's doing it anyway, why shouldn't we" is of dubious quality when judging questions of ethical origin, and so is the argument "but we're doing it to provide better games for our users". I agree that there should be a way to turn the system off, but any visible mentions of it, and especially defaulting to "no", will reduce greatly the number of submitted reports. Users have been scared to death by the press about Big Brother Microsoft, and frankly, I'm not sure that a text such as "No information except some technical data about your computer configuration" would be understood by the majority of users. Wait, here's a solution. Maybe place in each outgoing packet the text: "Okay smartass, you got us. Edit config.ini in your game folder and add the text 'UserType=Paranoid' to turn this off." :-) |
|
From: <ma...@ch...> - 2003-07-10 22:26:26
|
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote:
> I agree that there should be a way to turn the system off,
> but any visible mentions of it, and especially defaulting to "no",
> will reduce greatly the number of submitted reports.
And? That simply means that you wont be able to take the data they would
have provided into consideration... So, if people wish for you to cater
for their pattern of usage/hardware platform/whatever, they can enable it.
So, if I wish for you to know that I am running Linux, I will say, OK,
give this information away, because that may improve the Linux support. If
I do not care, thats just my fault/problem.
Its funny - you/we would never think of _demanding_ that people submit
information about themselves to _buy_ your game, but just because it is
technically feasible to automatically collect this kind of information,
you/we whip up all kind of arguments for it to be the default behaviour.
I do not like that kind of rationale.
Of course, I am one of those guys that does run a privacy/no ads proxy.
Mads
P.S. Please understand that there is nothing personal in this post - I am
a bit uncertain on how to express this in english but I am not trying to
flame anyone.
--
Mads Bondo Dydensborg. ma...@ch...
If you're a command-line user (that is, someone who knows how to read and
type, rather than a 2-year-old who knows only how to point), Linux is potent,
flexible and totally accessible. And if you must point, Linux offers X-windows.
- Ed Quillen, Denver post.
|
|
From: Rob C. <r.j...@vi...> - 2003-07-11 11:17:32
|
Hi, Most of this has been said but I dont think it can ever be stressed enough - well ok ;) I remember many Amiga games in the early to mid 90s with registration forms asking numerous things like the last five games purchased, number of people in your house and the annual income - key point being that you could choose not to fill the information in and you were aware of all the info. I think you _must_ give the user the option to enable and disable the sending of statistics. Ideally I would like some sort of window to pop up at the end of install (defaulting to no stats sent) which aloud you to enable the sending of stats; specifically I would like to be able to taylor the stats sent (I'm ok with sending my platform type but not unique HW ids). Clearly state what is being sent and /how/ it will be used and the /extents/ of its use. Certainly dont attempt to sneak anything out before the user is given a chance - I run a FW and everone I know runs a FW and any app/game that attempts communication is immediatly blocked followed by a google search for info on it - if anything dodgey is found I uninstall it then and there, no matter how fine and dandy it is! You dont go walking into someones house and rummaging through there filing cabs or desk draws to obtain personal info. Just because people now have a 'virtual desk' and the abilities exist to access this doesnt give you anymore right to access there personal information. [and breath] Rob |
|
From: Kerim B. <wa...@ho...> - 2003-07-11 12:00:42
|
Hello Rob, Friday, July 11, 2003, 3:23:52 PM, you wrote: RC> Hi, RC> Most of this has been said but I dont think it can ever be stressed enough - RC> well ok ;) RC> I remember many Amiga games in the early to mid 90s with registration forms RC> asking numerous things like the last five games purchased, number of people in RC> your house and the annual income - key point being that you could choose not RC> to fill the information in and you were aware of all the info. RC> I think you _must_ give the user the option to enable and disable the sending RC> of statistics. Ideally I would like some sort of window to pop up at the end RC> of install (defaulting to no stats sent) which aloud you to enable the sending RC> of stats; I think it should be defaulting to "yes". Because if a user doesn't care he won't do any extraneous moves to continue installation. And if he _really_ wants to keep his computer configuration unrevealed it won't be a problem for him to make an extra mouse click to change it to "no". Best regards, Kerim mailto:wa...@ho... RC> specifically I would like to be able to taylor the stats sent (I'm RC> ok with sending my platform type but not unique HW ids). RC> Clearly state what is being sent and /how/ it will be used and the /extents/ RC> of its use. Certainly dont attempt to sneak anything out before the user is RC> given a chance - I run a FW and everone I know runs a FW and any app/game that RC> attempts communication is immediatly blocked followed by a google search for RC> info on it - if anything dodgey is found I uninstall it then and there, no RC> matter how fine and dandy it is! RC> You dont go walking into someones house and rummaging through there filing RC> cabs or desk draws to obtain personal info. Just because people now have a RC> 'virtual desk' and the abilities exist to access this doesnt give you anymore RC> right to access there personal information. RC> [and breath] RC> Rob RC> ------------------------------------------------------- RC> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft RC> Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. RC> Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. RC> www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 RC> _______________________________________________ RC> Gamedevlists-general mailing list RC> Gam...@li... RC> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general RC> Archives: RC> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 |
|
From: Rob C. <r.j...@vi...> - 2003-07-11 15:11:32
|
| I think it should be defaulting to "yes". Because if a user doesn't care | he won't do any extraneous moves to continue installation. And if he | _really_ wants to keep his computer configuration unrevealed it won't | be a problem for him to make an extra mouse click to change it to "no". Granted but I've seen users all too willing to 'click thru' the installation dialogs just to get the thing installed and some companies could take advantage - I was being ultra end user biased there :) Rob |
|
From: Noel L. <ll...@co...> - 2003-07-10 22:48:31
|
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:18:06 +0300 Ivan-Assen Ivanov <as...@ha...> wrote: > Do we design the system to cater to the preferences of > a small, vocal minority, severely reducing its utility in > the process? Clearly it depends on the program (whether it's online only or not), your audience, and the type of information. However, I would also advice against sending any information without the player first approving it. I have downloaded many programs/demos in the past that during the installation or as the first thing they did when I ran them was to try to access the internet. My firewall caught that, I denied the access, and promptly uninstalled the program and decided not to purchase it. For what it's worth, I know of many people who feel this same way, or even much more strongly, so it's not such a small, vocal minority as you might think. --Noel ll...@co... |
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2003-07-11 03:01:57
|
2003 July 10th Thursday I really dislike the idea of sending the information by default, and hiding the disable checkbox. That is so lame. Hiding the checkbox starts with putting it deep within an option menu hierarchy. Then the checkbox is given a confusing label, like "[x] Make app run better" or "[x] User Data Availability". Then one could set it up so that changes to the checkbox state are forgotten if the user doesn't hit the "Apply" button and restart. Finally, the checkbox silently reverts to its default on the dinkiest patch offered by your company, like "upgrading" a tiny clause in the EULA to alert the user that the checkbox will be set to the default and can never be changed again! (They have the option of never upgrading again if they don't like these new terms!) If I wished to gather information from a user's machine, I would pop-up a plain-text dialog box that contained the exact text I wish to send to my servers. I would have a very direct and honest explanation of how this information would be used -- and the LIMITS of the use of this information. If a user clicks "Don't Send", that's the end of it. If I cannot convince a user that the information can be used to improve their personal experience with the software in the short term or long term, then I must respect their decision. Maybe the user is being irrational, or maybe the user has real concerns about information being gathered. It is shockingly easy to take seemingly impersonal information and eventually build up a profile of a specific person. When one shares information with another party, there is some amount of trust involved. How many of us get tons of spam from the "affiliates" of "opt-in" advertising firms? If you hide the checkbox because "the user may be irrational and won't know what's best", then you may eventually become comfortable regarding the user as oblivious livestock. Users are too stupid to deserve privacy! If you cannot make your case to the user, defending your desire to collect certain pieces of information (which you show on the screen in plain text), then I think you should respect the user, even if this decision seems irrational. Also, if you don't show users the information you wish to collect, and subject it to their approval, then what is to stop you from collecting all kinds of information? If users are carefree enough to not search for the hidden checkbox to disable sending information to your servers, then what limits are there to the information you can gather?! Why not search the disk for names of other applications...uh, for "compatibility" statistics! Oh, and note if KaZaA or Direct Connect is on the disk. Collect "aggregate" statistics on cracked games and mp3's. Share your data with RIAA. Okay, I have a gift for hyperbole and extrapolation, but I am personally shocked by the abuse of power of software developers over users. Maybe you aren't proposing to make the next Jupiter, Inc spyware app, but I hope you see how your thinking is on the same continuum. I understand the value of knowing the platform, the graphics card, desktop resolution, the type of CPU, the total memory, etc, and I realize that most game developers sincerely want to improve the user experience. Seeing that roughly 80% of people running the Unreal Tournament 2003 client were using Windows XP was very enlightening. I believe that demonstrating your respect for the user will ultimately pay off. If I feel that an organization is concerned about my privacy, but is also committed to improving my experience with their product or service, and I can see how certain pieces of information can help, then I am often delighted to share this information. If I develop my own commercial software product, I will reflect on my own experiences as a user. If there is a certain pattern found in other software designs that is annoying, frustrating, or lacks respect for the user, I will do my best to avoid that pattern. There will ALWAYS be some company that is pushing the envelope of invading privacy and compelling users to act a certain way, like Microsoft, Real Networks, Jupiter, etc. I think ICS / CSE students graduating today believe it is perfectly reasonable to do some of the things pioneered by the great innovators. It's like telling "white lies" and collecting unemployment when one is not really seeking a job; somehow it has become the norm. I'm sorry if some of my comments went a little beyond the scope of the question. I submit plenty of forms with personal information on the Internet, and I am all for asking (not perpetually nagging) for information to help improve a product. But if something strikes you as being manipulative, it probably is! Do YOU want to be duped or manipulated? Also, is it actually irrational for a user to be suspicious about how "aggregate" statistics will really be used? I'm serious. I recently visited paypalsucks.com, and there was an interesting thread about how the CORPORATION can PROMISE security, but all it takes is one employee to totally destroy that promise. Whoops! I put a backup of the database on a subnet shared by a wireless LAN, and a drive-by "war chalker" downloaded it. Total plausible deniability...or perhaps an innocent accident. Okay, again, maybe this scenario is extreme, but why do you deserve the user's trust if you resort to tricking them to "volunteer" information (just because they're too stupid or lazy to search for a hidden checkbox)? I had a vision that one day common public toilets would have EULAs printed on the lids or back panels. Any material you deposit in the toilet becomes the property of Progressive Genetic Solutions, Inc, and can be used for "aggregate" statistics. There would be promises that no correlation would be made between your DNA, the time and date of your toilet use, and, uh, evidence that you ate at Burger King or McDonald's recently. If the toilet should verbally recommend Pizza Hut as a good change for you, and thank you by name for using Progressive, Inc's toilets, it's just a feature to better serve you. * This e-mail brought to you by: paranoia about the future! * --- Colin "Paranoid" Fahey cp...@ea... |
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-07-11 07:27:32
|
> For what it's worth, I know of many people who feel this same > way, or even much more strongly, so it's not such a small, > vocal minority as you might think. You realize that "all my friends are doing it" argument doesn't hold much water, do you? Your friends are probably much more intelligent than the average, and much more technical minded, and I'm sure you know many people who run Linux at home, yet you don't decide that everybody on the planet is a Linux wizard. As some other poster recommended, I'm approaching the question of how to develop this from my user standpoint. I've never denied any program the ability to check for new versions or report tech data. Hell, it's a goddam CPU speed, for chrissake, not your chat logs with some supposedly 12-year old Russian girl! A policy of "no Internet usage, period" is overreacting. Do you ever player multiplayer? How do you know what is the game sending to other players? What about those games that use e.g. the GameSpy API which is completely opaque and certainly contacts GameSpy's servers? Do you lose your sleep over the cellphone in your pocket? Do you think the average cellphone user is aware of how little privacy he has in his cellphone usage? |
|
From: Daniel V. <vo...@ep...> - 2003-07-10 17:51:39
|
> I belive the Epic data is sent automatically along with the > CD key-checking stuff. Correct. I wish we kept track of more than OS/ platform used to connect to the master server though we opted against it for privacy reasons. -- Daniel, Epic Games Inc. |
|
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2003-07-11 12:09:38
|
> I wish we kept track of more than OS/ platform used to > connect to the master server though we opted against it for > privacy reasons. How is hardware configuration worse than OS? |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X