4 ms·

> This program may monitor all of your activity on this computer and track your physical location while you use your computer. This is just disingenuous. If y

> This program may monitor all of your activity on this computer and track your physical location while you use your computer. This is just disingenuous. If you are talking about what could technically be done, then sure, they could do that. But if they wanted to own your machine then they technically could do it the moment you installed any software that they provided regardless of what it says in the EULA. So then you must be talking about what they are legally allowed to do. And guess what, they also have a privacy policy that limits what information they are allowed to collect and for what purpose they may collect it. Them carving out the legal ability to run programs on your machine for anti-cheat purposes doesn't change any of that. Now I'm not saying you might not have other reasons for not wanting to run their crap on your machine (I certainly don't want it either) but this here is just FUD and not a good argument.

ryukafalz 5y ago
>If you are talking about what could technically be done, then sure, they could do that. But if they wanted to own your machine then they technically could do it the moment you installed any software that they provided regardless of what it says in the EULA. Yes, I am talking about what could technically be done, not what could legally be done. That's the only thing the OS is in a position to know about. Yes, they technically could do all of this the moment you install any software, on current desktop OSes. Don't you think that's a problem? Is that the best we can do for OS security?
- Negitivefrags 5y ago
  You said earlier: > I think most people don't fully understand the implications of things like this The "things like this" of which you speak were presumably to do with the topic at hand, which is a legal text. You didn't provide any reason to suspect that your complaint was generally about OS security. But sure. It would be great if desktop OSes were capability based. It just doesn't seem relevant to the issue at hand.
  - ryukafalz 5y ago
    It's relevant insofar as granting a program that level of access in a capability based OS would be the exception, not the norm. Today's OSes aren't in a position to make such a statement at all as they don't keep such tight control over a program's authority. But in a capability based OS, it would be - so a program that's in a position to monitor all your activity on your computer can be easily called out as such. In other words, the notifications I mentioned that I'd like to see are only really practical in a capability-style system.
Bancakes 5y ago
Caveat emptor allows me to assume the worst. Plus nobody is actually reading the EULAs every month to find the legalese clause that allows them to collect and sell even more of your data.

ryukafalz 5y ago

>If you are talking about what could technically be done, then sure, they could do that. But if they wanted to own your machine then they technically could do it the moment you installed any software that they provided regardless of what it says in the EULA. Yes, I am talking about what could technically be done, not what could legally be done. That's the only thing the OS is in a position to know about. Yes, they technically could do all of this the moment you install any software, on current desktop OSes. Don't you think that's a problem? Is that the best we can do for OS security?

Negitivefrags 5y ago
You said earlier: > I think most people don't fully understand the implications of things like this The "things like this" of which you speak were presumably to do with the topic at hand, which is a legal text. You didn't provide any reason to suspect that your complaint was generally about OS security. But sure. It would be great if desktop OSes were capability based. It just doesn't seem relevant to the issue at hand.
- ryukafalz 5y ago
  It's relevant insofar as granting a program that level of access in a capability based OS would be the exception, not the norm. Today's OSes aren't in a position to make such a statement at all as they don't keep such tight control over a program's authority. But in a capability based OS, it would be - so a program that's in a position to monitor all your activity on your computer can be easily called out as such. In other words, the notifications I mentioned that I'd like to see are only really practical in a capability-style system.

Bancakes 5y ago

Caveat emptor allows me to assume the worst. Plus nobody is actually reading the EULAs every month to find the legalese clause that allows them to collect and sell even more of your data.