9 ms·

I am constantly surprised by the common reaction that this is covered by the EULA and thus okay. Origin is a software intended for international use, including

by Argorak 12y ago

I am constantly surprised by the common reaction that this is covered by the EULA and thus okay. Origin is a software intended for international use, including such countries where this behavior is: a) actively prohibited b) probably illegal, but never came to court c) not covered by the EULA, as EULAs are not binding It might be okay in your country, but not in others.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Its not 'ok' anywhere. It may be covered by small print EULA obfuscation. But its an underhanded, selfish, dirty thing for them to do. Regardless of whether they can be prosecuted for it. Lets be clear about the difference between legal and ethical.
funkyy 12y ago
Well, EA reached newest low. It seems there is hardly anything in the web world not trying to spy on you.
tokenizerrr 12y ago
It's the same for many other video games I play. A recent example is the anticheat that got introduced in the Rust beta builds. It takes screenshots of your desktop while you play, so what if I have a private chat or banking info open on my second screen? I don't want to have to be paranoid about that getting screenshotted and uploaded to their servers. Pretty sure this is illegal in my country, but I've contacted them and they do not care.
- tom9729 12y ago
  PunkBuster (used by many games including Battlefield) does this as well.
  - evilpie 12y ago
    Better yet, server admins could ask for screenshots of players. (I just don't know if it would refuse to take screenshots outside the game)
jdong 12y ago
That's not how EULAs work, so far the only decision about EULAs not being binding is when they prohibit you from reselling the software. Not when you agree that the other party is allowed to do something. These are two wildly different scenarios.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > That's not how EULAs work, so far the only decision about EULAs not being binding is when they prohibit you from reselling the software. I can write a EULA that requires you to sign over the rights to your firstborn child, your soul to the devil, and any other nonsense that I could come up with[0]. That doesn't mean that it's actually legally enforceable. Certain clauses have been deemed nonenforceable by law in contracts[1], so just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's valid. Also, just because it hasn't been deemed nonenforceable previously doesn't mean that it is valid either; it has to be tested (as with all law). That doesn't give a definitive answer either way, except to say that just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's permissible, either morally (subjective) or legally (objective, or at least "objective"). [0] http://www.out-law.com/page-10929 http://www.out-law.com/page-10929 [1] The ones that people on this site may be most familiar with are noncompetes and/or invention assignments (in certain states - these particular examples are actually more hazy than most people think, but that's a separate matter). Other extreme examples would be contracts that make a person the legal property of another person (e.g. in many/most countries, you cannot enter into "consensual slavery" with a legally binding contract).
  - anonymousab 12y ago
    There's also the question of whether an unsigned post-purchase EULA constitutes a legally binding contract at all.
    - jdong 12y ago
      Courts have agreed on them being legally binding several times. https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses When they haven't found them legally binding, they've generally either been simply ridiculous or deceiving.
drdaeman 12y ago
I think, the fact this behavior is documented makes this okay. It's not an EA's fault that users don't read the accompanying documentation then are surprised the software does some things as a part of its job. I mean, accessing any information (private or not) is okay if you had reasonably clearly stated you would/may do so. However, the fact accompanying documentation is a mess, so it's very hard to comprehend it, makes this not really okay.
- NamTaf 12y ago
  I documented punching an old lady in the head, so it's ok. No, it's not ok. Origin is a piece of software used internationally. Many countries have explicitly ruled that the EULA is not an out of legal requirements of those countries, which are more protective than the legal requirements in the US. You can't just go and do something illegal and claim it's ok because one country has interpreted that the EULA lets them do that due to that same country's laws being heavily biased towards the corporation. That's what the GP was saying.
  - drdaeman 12y ago
    > I documented punching an old lady in the head, so it's ok. How did you come with that? That's non sequitur. As far as I know, no country outlaws merely scanning a list of recently ran applications. And article in question only talks about that, not storing, sending or whatever - actually it has completely no idea why Origin's accessing that UserAssist key. If you insist - please, name me a country where, for example, it would be illegal to locally access (one again, not send anything based on that to a remote processing or storage system, that's another story) your contacts for a piece of software on your phone that had forewarned you it will access your contacts? There's (almost) no permission systems on desktop, but there are other means to convey that information. Here, I'm considering EULA as not a legally binding piece of text, but as a part of documentation.

by Argorak 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Its not 'ok' anywhere. It may be covered by small print EULA obfuscation. But its an underhanded, selfish, dirty thing for them to do. Regardless of whether they can be prosecuted for it. Lets be clear about the difference between legal and ethical.

funkyy 12y ago

Well, EA reached newest low. It seems there is hardly anything in the web world not trying to spy on you.

tokenizerrr 12y ago

It's the same for many other video games I play. A recent example is the anticheat that got introduced in the Rust beta builds. It takes screenshots of your desktop while you play, so what if I have a private chat or banking info open on my second screen? I don't want to have to be paranoid about that getting screenshotted and uploaded to their servers. Pretty sure this is illegal in my country, but I've contacted them and they do not care.

tom9729 12y ago
PunkBuster (used by many games including Battlefield) does this as well.
- evilpie 12y ago
  Better yet, server admins could ask for screenshots of players. (I just don't know if it would refuse to take screenshots outside the game)

jdong 12y ago

That's not how EULAs work, so far the only decision about EULAs not being binding is when they prohibit you from reselling the software. Not when you agree that the other party is allowed to do something. These are two wildly different scenarios.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> That's not how EULAs work, so far the only decision about EULAs not being binding is when they prohibit you from reselling the software. I can write a EULA that requires you to sign over the rights to your firstborn child, your soul to the devil, and any other nonsense that I could come up with[0]. That doesn't mean that it's actually legally enforceable. Certain clauses have been deemed nonenforceable by law in contracts[1], so just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's valid. Also, just because it hasn't been deemed nonenforceable previously doesn't mean that it is valid either; it has to be tested (as with all law). That doesn't give a definitive answer either way, except to say that just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's permissible, either morally (subjective) or legally (objective, or at least "objective"). [0] http://www.out-law.com/page-10929 http://www.out-law.com/page-10929 [1] The ones that people on this site may be most familiar with are noncompetes and/or invention assignments (in certain states - these particular examples are actually more hazy than most people think, but that's a separate matter). Other extreme examples would be contracts that make a person the legal property of another person (e.g. in many/most countries, you cannot enter into "consensual slavery" with a legally binding contract).
- anonymousab 12y ago
  There's also the question of whether an unsigned post-purchase EULA constitutes a legally binding contract at all.
  - jdong 12y ago
    Courts have agreed on them being legally binding several times. https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses When they haven't found them legally binding, they've generally either been simply ridiculous or deceiving.

drdaeman 12y ago

I think, the fact this behavior is documented makes this okay. It's not an EA's fault that users don't read the accompanying documentation then are surprised the software does some things as a part of its job. I mean, accessing any information (private or not) is okay if you had reasonably clearly stated you would/may do so. However, the fact accompanying documentation is a mess, so it's very hard to comprehend it, makes this not really okay.

NamTaf 12y ago
I documented punching an old lady in the head, so it's ok. No, it's not ok. Origin is a piece of software used internationally. Many countries have explicitly ruled that the EULA is not an out of legal requirements of those countries, which are more protective than the legal requirements in the US. You can't just go and do something illegal and claim it's ok because one country has interpreted that the EULA lets them do that due to that same country's laws being heavily biased towards the corporation. That's what the GP was saying.
- drdaeman 12y ago
  > I documented punching an old lady in the head, so it's ok. How did you come with that? That's non sequitur. As far as I know, no country outlaws merely scanning a list of recently ran applications. And article in question only talks about that, not storing, sending or whatever - actually it has completely no idea why Origin's accessing that UserAssist key. If you insist - please, name me a country where, for example, it would be illegal to locally access (one again, not send anything based on that to a remote processing or storage system, that's another story) your contacts for a piece of software on your phone that had forewarned you it will access your contacts? There's (almost) no permission systems on desktop, but there are other means to convey that information. Here, I'm considering EULA as not a legally binding piece of text, but as a part of documentation.