DPS meter policy needs to be revised

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

ANY data which can be used to single out a data subject from a crowd (whether that be a Unique ID, a Social Security Number, a name, a pseudonym, an IP address, a MAC address - literally -anything- used for identification purposes) is classed as personal data. The username is absolutely an identifier - not only is it an identifier it is a direct identifier. It doesn't need to identify someone's user account, it only needs to single out the user and a username does exactly that. It is without question that a username is legally classified as personal data.

So, displaying one's username at all, anywhere in the game or forums, is a violation of privacy laws? If so, that would mean that the friends' list is in violation, as is the follower's list as is any display of one's username without one's consent. Those would be direct violations of law (they show the username directly, rather than what would seem to be an indirect violation (damage data which

might

be used to identify someone's character, when the player has a username).

It seems unlikely that whatever lawyer or firm ANet uses would be unaware of how the law works.

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

True, but I have no recourse to block someone from adding me as a friend or follower.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

ANY data which can be used to single out a data subject from a crowd (whether that be a Unique ID, a Social Security Number, a name, a pseudonym, an IP address, a MAC address - literally -anything- used for identification purposes) is classed as personal data. The username is absolutely an identifier - not only is it an identifier it is a direct identifier. It doesn't need to identify someone's user account, it only needs to single out the user and a username does exactly that. It is without question that a username is legally classified as personal data.

So, displaying one's username at all, anywhere in the game or forums, is a violation of privacy laws? If so, that would mean that the friends' list is in violation, as is the follower's list as is any display of one's username without one's consent. Those would be direct violations of law (they show the username directly, rather than what would seem to be an indirect violation (damage data which

might

be used to identify someone's character, when the player has a username).

It seems unlikely that whatever lawyer or firm ANet uses would be unaware of how the law works.

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

You choose to consent to Meters by grouping with other players, you choose to be subject to Anets in game Policy by hitting accept on the installation of the game.Again Combat Data and it being tied to a Display name does not fall under any definition of Personal Data if you actually read the Privacy Policy and where they pull the definition of terms used in those legal documents.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

ANY data which can be used to single out a data subject from a crowd (whether that be a Unique ID, a Social Security Number, a name, a pseudonym, an IP address, a MAC address - literally -anything- used for identification purposes) is classed as personal data. The username is absolutely an identifier - not only is it an identifier it is a direct identifier. It doesn't need to identify someone's user account, it only needs to single out the user and a username does exactly that. It is without question that a username is legally classified as personal data.

So, displaying one's username at all, anywhere in the game or forums, is a violation of privacy laws? If so, that would mean that the friends' list is in violation, as is the follower's list as is any display of one's username without one's consent. Those would be direct violations of law (they show the username directly, rather than what would seem to be an indirect violation (damage data which

might

be used to identify someone's character, when the player has a username).

It seems unlikely that whatever lawyer or firm ANet uses would be unaware of how the law works.

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

True, but I have no recourse to block someone from adding me as a friend or follower.

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual. I can't block or even see that you are monitoring my account with your dps meter.

[Rennie.6750]

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

The data is data and the data doesn’t follow the Definition set forth of what constitutes personal data, you know what you keep toting but don’t even know the definition of Personal Data as set forth for European members, and Anet owns that data and says that that Combat data can be displayed through meters.

Again maybe read up on the Privacy Policy and the TOS all of which you agreed to but clearly failed to read at installation of the game

The fact that it is in the ToS doesn't mean it's legal. Also, the law changes next year, so obviously ANet still has plenty of time to adapt, and I'm sure they will.

[Cynn.1659]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

You chose it by default by joining a party.

ArenaNet authorizes the use and development of 3rd Party tools under the banner of a "DPS Meter". "DPS Meters" is defined as the collection and processing of combat related data in order to develop a statistical and visual representation of that data. This combat data maybe collected from anyone inside of your immediate social group. Social groups are defined as including the player character, and current party and/or squad.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Cynn.1659 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

You chose it by default by joining a party.

ArenaNet authorizes the use and development of 3rd Party tools under the banner of a "DPS Meter". "DPS Meters" is defined as the collection and processing of combat related data in order to develop a statistical and visual representation of that data. This combat data maybe collected from anyone inside of your immediate social group. Social groups are defined as including the player character, and current party and/or squad.

And this is what I want to be changed because ArenaNet also refuses any responsibility for this tool.

[Loosmaster.8263]

Good luck with your quest. That is why I don't join any squad/party outside of my guild mates.

[Feanor.2358]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

The data is data and the data doesn’t follow the Definition set forth of what constitutes personal data, you know what you keep toting but don’t even know the definition of Personal Data as set forth for European members, and Anet owns that data and says that that Combat data can be displayed through meters.

Again maybe read up on the Privacy Policy and the TOS all of which you agreed to but clearly failed to read at installation of the game

The fact that it is in the ToS doesn't mean it's legal. Also, the law changes next year, so obviously ANet still has plenty of time to adapt, and I'm sure they will.

The TOS has all of its provisions based on laws in the countries and states that it operates in, they pull those definitions from those applicable laws, it takes a very basic understanding of reading comp to realize this. And the TOS is a contract between Anet and the Players as soon as you hit accept you are subject to it, if you don’t agree with it your only option is to Uninstall since everything in regards to the game is solely the property of Anet, they own your display name, character names, etc. the only thing that they don’t own is your PII, ie Email, name, phone number, address, CC info, all of which is personal data, guess what’s Arcdps can’t access any of that information, and again as per the EU definition of Personal Data Combat Data doesn’t fall under that definition, so it’s not Personal Data, funny how that works right?

[Coconut.7082]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

ANY data which can be used to single out a data subject from a crowd (whether that be a Unique ID, a Social Security Number, a name, a pseudonym, an IP address, a MAC address - literally -anything- used for identification purposes) is classed as personal data. The username is absolutely an identifier - not only is it an identifier it is a direct identifier. It doesn't need to identify someone's user account, it only needs to single out the user and a username does exactly that. It is without question that a username is legally classified as personal data.

So, displaying one's username at all, anywhere in the game or forums, is a violation of privacy laws? If so, that would mean that the friends' list is in violation, as is the follower's list as is any display of one's username without one's consent. Those would be direct violations of law (they show the username directly, rather than what would seem to be an indirect violation (damage data which

might

be used to identify someone's character, when the player has a username).

It seems unlikely that whatever lawyer or firm ANet uses would be unaware of how the law works.

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

True, but I have no recourse to block someone from adding me as a friend or follower.

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual. I can't block or even see that you are monitoring my account with your dps meter.

Here's a scenario for you:I walk around Kessex Hiils and see you engaging in an epic battle with the vicious Spider Queen.I proceed to come closer and monitor your actions by the animations and icons presented to me by the game. Since I prepared for this day in advanced, I already know the Health and Toughness of the Spider Queen, which I calculated the other day by simply hitting her and comparing the percentage of her HP.Now I take all the data in my possession and use it together with the publicly known skill coefficients & damage formulas to estimate your stats & effective power.Now that I know your stats, I have the power to follow you anywhere and estimate your DPS judging only by the skill animations, buffs & effects that I see!

All that done by simply analyzing the data publicly given to me by the game, without any 3rd party programs.

Am I invading your private data by doing so?

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

@Coconut.7082 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

ANY data which can be used to single out a data subject from a crowd (whether that be a Unique ID, a Social Security Number, a name, a pseudonym, an IP address, a MAC address - literally -anything- used for identification purposes) is classed as personal data. The username is absolutely an identifier - not only is it an identifier it is a direct identifier. It doesn't need to identify someone's user account, it only needs to single out the user and a username does exactly that. It is without question that a username is legally classified as personal data.

So, displaying one's username at all, anywhere in the game or forums, is a violation of privacy laws? If so, that would mean that the friends' list is in violation, as is the follower's list as is any display of one's username without one's consent. Those would be direct violations of law (they show the username directly, rather than what would seem to be an indirect violation (damage data which

might

be used to identify someone's character, when the player has a username).

It seems unlikely that whatever lawyer or firm ANet uses would be unaware of how the law works.

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

True, but I have no recourse to block someone from adding me as a friend or follower.

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual. I can't block or even see that you are monitoring my account with your dps meter.

Here's a scenario for you:I walk around Kessex Hiils and see you engaging in an epic battle with the vicious Spider Queen.I proceed to come closer and monitor your actions by the animations and icons presented to me by the game. Since I prepared for this day in advanced, I already know the Health and Toughness of the Spider Queen, which I calculated the other day by simply hitting her and comparing the percentage of her HP.Now I take all the data in my possession and use it together with the publicly known skill coefficients & damage formulas to calculate your stats & effective power.Now that I know your stats, I have the power to follow you anywhere and estimate your DPS judging only by the skill animations, buffs & effects that I see!

All that done by simply analyzing the data publicly given to me by the game,

without any 3rd party programs.

Am I invading your private data by doing so?

without any 3rd party programs. is the key part here, no you don't. But if you use any 3rd party app to tranlate invisible in-game data into direct information and associates it with my account I see a privacy issue here.

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

Well then, if they refuse to protect me from this tool they have no power to expect me that I by default agree that playing their game I accept that my account is on risk of being monitored, shared and put on risk by 3rd party tool that is beyond my control or even knowledge that is being used on me.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

@Coconut.7082 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

ANY data which can be used to single out a data subject from a crowd (whether that be a Unique ID, a Social Security Number, a name, a pseudonym, an IP address, a MAC address - literally -anything- used for identification purposes) is classed as personal data. The username is absolutely an identifier - not only is it an identifier it is a direct identifier. It doesn't need to identify someone's user account, it only needs to single out the user and a username does exactly that. It is without question that a username is legally classified as personal data.

So, displaying one's username at all, anywhere in the game or forums, is a violation of privacy laws? If so, that would mean that the friends' list is in violation, as is the follower's list as is any display of one's username without one's consent. Those would be direct violations of law (they show the username directly, rather than what would seem to be an indirect violation (damage data which

might

be used to identify someone's character, when the player has a username).

It seems unlikely that whatever lawyer or firm ANet uses would be unaware of how the law works.

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

True, but I have no recourse to block someone from adding me as a friend or follower.

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual. I can't block or even see that you are monitoring my account with your dps meter.

Here's a scenario for you:I walk around Kessex Hiils and see you engaging in an epic battle with the vicious Spider Queen.I proceed to come closer and monitor your actions by the animations and icons presented to me by the game. Since I prepared for this day in advanced, I already know the Health and Toughness of the Spider Queen, which I calculated the other day by simply hitting her and comparing the percentage of her HP.Now I take all the data in my possession and use it together with the publicly known skill coefficients & damage formulas to calculate your stats & effective power.Now that I know your stats, I have the power to follow you anywhere and estimate your DPS judging only by the skill animations, buffs & effects that I see!

All that done by simply analyzing the data publicly given to me by the game,

without any 3rd party programs.

Am I invading your private data by doing so?

without any 3rd party programs.

is the key part here, no you don't. But if you use any 3rd party app to tranlate

invisible

in-game data into direct information and associates it with my account I see a privacy issue here.

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

Well then, if they refuse to protect me from this tool they have no power to expect me that I by default agree that playing their game I accept that my account is on risk of being monitored, shared and put on risk by 3rd party tool that is beyond my control or even knowledge that is being used on me.

You can’t be monitored by the meter unless you are grouped with players using it, you give consent if you join any group, there is also provisions in the TOS and Privacy Policy that states their policy can change and they will notify the players through their sites, and you agreed to this when you hit accept/agree on installation.

One last time Combat Data in group setting isn’t personal information and you consented to Meter use upon joining any group as per the new policy set forth by Anet on their sites.

Combat data is not PII or Personal Data, it doesn’t fall under any definition used by anyone in this thread. They aren’t monitoring your account since they get nothing besides combat data which isn’t account information.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

@Coconut.7082 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

ANY data which can be used to single out a data subject from a crowd (whether that be a Unique ID, a Social Security Number, a name, a pseudonym, an IP address, a MAC address - literally -anything- used for identification purposes) is classed as personal data. The username is absolutely an identifier - not only is it an identifier it is a direct identifier. It doesn't need to identify someone's user account, it only needs to single out the user and a username does exactly that. It is without question that a username is legally classified as personal data.

So, displaying one's username at all, anywhere in the game or forums, is a violation of privacy laws? If so, that would mean that the friends' list is in violation, as is the follower's list as is any display of one's username without one's consent. Those would be direct violations of law (they show the username directly, rather than what would seem to be an indirect violation (damage data which

might

be used to identify someone's character, when the player has a username).

It seems unlikely that whatever lawyer or firm ANet uses would be unaware of how the law works.

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

True, but I have no recourse to block someone from adding me as a friend or follower.

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual. I can't block or even see that you are monitoring my account with your dps meter.

Here's a scenario for you:I walk around Kessex Hiils and see you engaging in an epic battle with the vicious Spider Queen.I proceed to come closer and monitor your actions by the animations and icons presented to me by the game. Since I prepared for this day in advanced, I already know the Health and Toughness of the Spider Queen, which I calculated the other day by simply hitting her and comparing the percentage of her HP.Now I take all the data in my possession and use it together with the publicly known skill coefficients & damage formulas to calculate your stats & effective power.Now that I know your stats, I have the power to follow you anywhere and estimate your DPS judging only by the skill animations, buffs & effects that I see!

All that done by simply analyzing the data publicly given to me by the game,

without any 3rd party programs.

Am I invading your private data by doing so?

without any 3rd party programs.

is the key part here, no you don't. But if you use any 3rd party app to tranlate

invisible

in-game data into direct information and associates it with my account I see a privacy issue here.

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

Well then, if they refuse to protect me from this tool they have no power to expect me that I by default agree that playing their game I accept that my account is on risk of being monitored, shared and put on risk by 3rd party tool that is beyond my control or even knowledge that is being used on me.

You can’t be monitored by the meter unless you are grouped with players using it, you give consent if you join any group, there is also provisions in the TOS and Privacy Policy that states their policy can change and they will notify the players through their sites, and you agreed to this when you hit accept/agree on installation.

One last time Combat Data in group setting isn’t personal information and you consented to Meter use upon joining any group as per the new policy set forth by Anet on their sites.

Combat data is not PII or Personal Data, it doesn’t fall under any definition used by anyone in this thread. They aren’t monitoring your account since they get nothing besides combat data which isn’t account information.

This applies to the game and ArcDPS is not part of the game. No part of their documents is a deal between me and deltaconnected, nowhere it is stated I accept the existance of this tool, its possible risks and the fact that I agree to be monitored by this tool by other players.

[Coconut.7082]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

@Coconut.7082 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

ANY data which can be used to single out a data subject from a crowd (whether that be a Unique ID, a Social Security Number, a name, a pseudonym, an IP address, a MAC address - literally -anything- used for identification purposes) is classed as personal data. The username is absolutely an identifier - not only is it an identifier it is a direct identifier. It doesn't need to identify someone's user account, it only needs to single out the user and a username does exactly that. It is without question that a username is legally classified as personal data.

So, displaying one's username at all, anywhere in the game or forums, is a violation of privacy laws? If so, that would mean that the friends' list is in violation, as is the follower's list as is any display of one's username without one's consent. Those would be direct violations of law (they show the username directly, rather than what would seem to be an indirect violation (damage data which

might

be used to identify someone's character, when the player has a username).

It seems unlikely that whatever lawyer or firm ANet uses would be unaware of how the law works.

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

True, but I have no recourse to block someone from adding me as a friend or follower.

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual. I can't block or even see that you are monitoring my account with your dps meter.

Here's a scenario for you:I walk around Kessex Hiils and see you engaging in an epic battle with the vicious Spider Queen.I proceed to come closer and monitor your actions by the animations and icons presented to me by the game. Since I prepared for this day in advanced, I already know the Health and Toughness of the Spider Queen, which I calculated the other day by simply hitting her and comparing the percentage of her HP.Now I take all the data in my possession and use it together with the publicly known skill coefficients & damage formulas to calculate your stats & effective power.Now that I know your stats, I have the power to follow you anywhere and estimate your DPS judging only by the skill animations, buffs & effects that I see!

All that done by simply analyzing the data publicly given to me by the game,

without any 3rd party programs.

Am I invading your private data by doing so?

without any 3rd party programs.

is the key part here, no you don't. But if you use any 3rd party app to tranlate

invisible

in-game data into direct information and associates it with my account I see a privacy issue here.

It's not the key at all, you chose to be the key to justify your claims. I merely used it to show that the "private data" you speak of is not invisible, but in-fact very visible and already displayed to all players in the game.As you've seen, all I did was using my amazing vision and calculation skills to get similar results to Arc, with slightly less convenience.Does is matter if Arc uses the RAW data or the already visualized data to make those calculations, when it's already publicly displayed?What if I made a 3rd party program that does not access the client data, but instead uses advanced image analysis to calculate your DPS from the picture displayed on my screen, would that be ok?

BTW, forgot to add: I just calculated your DPS on the Spider Queen without even being grouped with you! even Arc can't do that, amazing huh?

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

@Coconut.7082 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

ANY data which can be used to single out a data subject from a crowd (whether that be a Unique ID, a Social Security Number, a name, a pseudonym, an IP address, a MAC address - literally -anything- used for identification purposes) is classed as personal data. The username is absolutely an identifier - not only is it an identifier it is a direct identifier. It doesn't need to identify someone's user account, it only needs to single out the user and a username does exactly that. It is without question that a username is legally classified as personal data.

So, displaying one's username at all, anywhere in the game or forums, is a violation of privacy laws? If so, that would mean that the friends' list is in violation, as is the follower's list as is any display of one's username without one's consent. Those would be direct violations of law (they show the username directly, rather than what would seem to be an indirect violation (damage data which

might

be used to identify someone's character, when the player has a username).

It seems unlikely that whatever lawyer or firm ANet uses would be unaware of how the law works.

You choose to write on forums, you can't choose not to be mentioned in someones dps meter.

True, but I have no recourse to block someone from adding me as a friend or follower.

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual. I can't block or even see that you are monitoring my account with your dps meter.

Here's a scenario for you:I walk around Kessex Hiils and see you engaging in an epic battle with the vicious Spider Queen.I proceed to come closer and monitor your actions by the animations and icons presented to me by the game. Since I prepared for this day in advanced, I already know the Health and Toughness of the Spider Queen, which I calculated the other day by simply hitting her and comparing the percentage of her HP.Now I take all the data in my possession and use it together with the publicly known skill coefficients & damage formulas to calculate your stats & effective power.Now that I know your stats, I have the power to follow you anywhere and estimate your DPS judging only by the skill animations, buffs & effects that I see!

All that done by simply analyzing the data publicly given to me by the game,

without any 3rd party programs.

Am I invading your private data by doing so?

without any 3rd party programs.

is the key part here, no you don't. But if you use any 3rd party app to tranlate

invisible

in-game data into direct information and associates it with my account I see a privacy issue here.

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:.> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Rennie.6750 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

It wasn't specifically designed for dps meters, it's just that the law tries to encompasses all aspects of data collection, and dps meters are one of them. It has to be broad so that some genius doesn't come up with an idea that would invalidate the entire thing. Call it an unfortunate or happy accident depending on which side you're on on that topic.

Overall, if this comes to fruition and if what he said is correct, this is a very, very much needed law, and ANet will have to change some fundamental aspects of the game or leave the EU market entirely.

Combat data isn’t personal information though since combat Data doesn’t identify any person as per the EUs definition, especially when in group Settings Combat Data isn’t solely from the person in question but is culminated from the group as a whole. The only thing that can be considered personal data would be the display names or Character names, but even then the players already consented to those identifiers to be displayed in game, when they hit the multiple I accept/agree buttons to even install or play the game.

Based on the EUs definition and it’s privacy act then the game would have to hide all Character and Display names otherwise it is breaking the law in the EU, see how idiotic that is?

Separately they're not, but when you link combat data to a user ID then it becomes personal data. I know it's not an easy topic but he's made it very clear in all his/her posts.

Here’s the definition of what constitutes personal Data as per the Privacy Policy.

The definition of personal data is data relating to a living individual who can be identified

from that data orfrom that data and other information in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controllerSensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record

Yeah Combat Data even in conjunction with Display names and character names, doesn’t fall into any of those categories, sorry, but people need to learn the definitions of things

If higher law, which is e.g. EU law has different definition, whatever anet writes in their documents is irrelevant.

That isn’t Anets definition, it looks like you need to read Anets Privacy Policy they say exactly where the definition comes from for those players that live in the EU. It’s easy to tell when people don’t even research what they are attempting to argue.

Thing is, this applies to Anet and GW2, but not to Arc and its developer. And Anet refuses to take any responsibility for this tool.

Of course ANet refuse to take responsibility for a third-party tool. They didn't create it. They reviewed it, and they said it was fine to use at your own risk. Just like I would do in their place. It's their game, it's their rules. You could argue about "higher authority" all you want, but the thing is, nobody is going to sue them over something that stupid. So it really is about what it says in ANet's documents.

Well then, if they refuse to protect me from this tool they have no power to expect me that I by default agree that playing their game I accept that my account is on risk of being monitored, shared and put on risk by 3rd party tool that is beyond my control or even knowledge that is being used on me.

You can’t be monitored by the meter unless you are grouped with players using it, you give consent if you join any group, there is also provisions in the TOS and Privacy Policy that states their policy can change and they will notify the players through their sites, and you agreed to this when you hit accept/agree on installation.

One last time Combat Data in group setting isn’t personal information and you consented to Meter use upon joining any group as per the new policy set forth by Anet on their sites.

Combat data is not PII or Personal Data, it doesn’t fall under any definition used by anyone in this thread. They aren’t monitoring your account since they get nothing besides combat data which isn’t account information.

This applies to the game and ArcDPS is not part of the game. No part of their documents is a deal between me and deltaconnected, nowhere it is stated I accept the existance of this tool, its possible risks and the fact that I agree to be monitored by this tool by other players.

Anet stated their stance and policy on Combat Meters, their policy that you agreed to states they can and will change their policy’s and state the changes on their sites, ie the forums. You already agreed to these provisions when installing the game and whenever you join a group you give consent based on the new policy to allow Combat Meters. Simple reading of the policies you agreed to shows this, if you don’t like it and dot agree with it you have the option to uninstall.

As it stands you agreed by hitting agree to the TOS and Privacy policy, you agree when joining groups, Combat Meters don’t break any privacy laws as per the laws in question definitions.

Read the TOS and Privacy Policy before agreeing to something then you would know what it actually entails.

[Haishao.6851]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual.

That's false actually. You cannot see that you're being followed.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Haishao.6851 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual.

That's false actually. You cannot see that you're being followed.

If you add me to your friendlist, I can see you in my followers' list

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Haishao.6851 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual.

That's false actually. You cannot see that you're being followed.

If you add me to your friendlist, I can see you in my followers' list

You can’t see them if they block you but they see you....

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Haishao.6851 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

You can see that you are being followed and block the individual.

That's false actually. You cannot see that you're being followed.

If you add me to your friendlist, I can see you in my followers' list

You can’t see them if they block you but they see you....

This is another issue that is being brought up many times, and yes, it is legit concers aswell. However it's not subject of this thread and I refuse to create offtopic discussion here.

[Paladine.6082]

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

Are you trolling here or are you really that ignorant?

1. MEPs are voted into office and are one of the three legislative bodies in the EU (the European Commission and the Council of the EU are the other 2).
2. The law does not target DPS meters or make DPS meters illegal - it regulates the processing of personal data and provides 6 legal basis for processing personal data in order to a: safeguard your fundamental rights which were again created by elected officials; and b: enable companies to conduct business in a legal fashion.
3. Every single law the EU creates goes through a significantly long period of public consultation. You and EVERY OTHER person in Europe has full access rights to that process and can lobby to have the law shaped to their ideology. In the case of GDPR the first draft was leaked in December 2011 and it was not finalised until spring 2016 - that means you had almost 5 years to engage in the process and help shape the law - if you didn't that is not anyone else's fault but you own (I did).
4. I am not paid by the EU to write laws - I write laws by engaging in the democratic process, attending consultations, roundtables, submitting amendments, lobbying - all at my own expense as a responsible citizen engaging in my democratic rights.

So in future before blowing smoke out of your kitten - perhaps it would be wise to do a little research instead of making yourself look like a complete buffoon making unqualified and completely false public statements. I bet you voted for Brexit too...

[TexZero.7910]

@Javelin.7960 said:Because your idea of choice places all of the burden, and all of the cost, solely on those who wish do not use a meter. I'll ask again: What is so wrong with the concept of both parties having an equal choice in the thing? You don't want to group with someone who blocks metering, don't; someone who blocks metering doesn't want to group with those who require it, great, don't. Everyone gets what they want, but for some reason no one will articulate, that's highly objectionable. Stating the current rules isn't an argument against that, nor is saying you don't think development time should be allocated for it. They are both an appeal to authority, in other words, not an actual argument.

Pot meet kettle here. You think the burden is just on the non-meter group thus you're arguing from a position of extreme bias. The burden i'm placing is no less on one group or the other. If you want to join a group using a meter, you do so at your own cost, just as the people who run meters but join casual groups do. It's not up to the tool maker to relegate how it's used but the operator and in this case we have 3 (potentially more) sets of operators complaining about inclusion when there's already ways built into the game ecosystem to make sure your standards are met.

Could some dev come out and eventually blacklist all maps not raids/fractals sure. But is it reasonable, god no. It's more reasonable that people take some modicum of personal responsibility than we go an arbitrarily apply restrictions just because a few people have perception issues with the current state of affairs.

As i've already stated and will continue to state again, the entire premise is contingent upon this notion of "Invasion of Privacy". This is actually, the biggest problem with the entire debate at large as there can be no invasion of privacy for 2 reasons. The first being there's no telling where people are from as different regions have different restrictions on what you call "Privacy" and its boundaries. The second is even if we acknowledge the limitations of a digital worldscape being different and thus separate from the known regions definition of privacy, you still have no privacy as the data being transmitted is public data, it's shared by all clients in near real time. So you still have no argument.

So I ask you once more, Why ?Why should any developer acquiesce to your complaint when the very opt-in system your asking for already exist ?Why do you still feel this warranted when the premise of an invasion of privacy can be so easily dismissed ?

[Coconut.7082]

@Paladine.6082 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

Are you trolling here or are you really that ignorant?

1. MEPs are voted into office and are one of the three legislative bodies in the EU (the European Commission and the Council of the EU are the other 2).
2. The law does not target DPS meters or make DPS meters illegal - it regulates the processing of personal data and provides 6 legal basis for processing personal data in order to a: safeguard your fundamental rights which were again created by elected officials; and b: enable companies to conduct business in a legal fashion.
3. Every single law the EU creates goes through a significantly long period of public consultation. You and EVERY OTHER person in Europe has full access rights to that process and can lobby to have the law shaped to their ideology. In the case of GDPR the first draft was leaked in December 2011 and it was not finalised until spring 2016 - that means you had almost 5 years to engage in the process and help shape the law - if you didn't that is not anyone else's fault but you own (I did).
4. I am not paid by the EU to write laws - I write laws by engaging in the democratic process, attending consultations, roundtables, submitting amendments, lobbying - all at my own expense as a responsible citizen engaging in my democratic rights.

So in future before blowing smoke out of your kitten - perhaps it would be wise to do a little research instead of making yourself look like a complete buffoon making unqualified and completely false public statements. I bet you voted for Brexit too...

Hey there, glad to see you're back!I'd love to hear a lawyers opinion about the following matter:

Here's a scenario for you:I walk around Kessex Hiils and see you engaging in an epic battle with the vicious Spider Queen.I proceed to come closer and monitor your actions by the animations and icons presented to me by the game. Since I prepared for this day in advanced, I already know the >Health and Toughness of the Spider Queen, which I calculated the other day by simply hitting her and comparing the percentage of her HP.Now I take all the data in my possession and use it together with the publicly known skill coefficients & damage formulas to estimate your stats & effective power.Now that I know your stats, I have the power to follow you anywhere and estimate your DPS judging only by the skill animations, buffs & effects that I see!

All that done by simply analyzing the data publicly given to me by the game, without any 3rd party programs.

Am I invading your private data by doing so?

[maddoctor.2738]

The mere fact that this thread is still going on, on the "legal" side of things shows how little some people know, but claim they do.If it is illegal to use those dps meters go sue Anet for it, I'll be waiting here to hear your results.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@maddoctor.2738 said:The mere fact that this thread is still going on, on the "legal" side of things shows how little some people know, but claim they do.If it is illegal to use those dps meters go sue Anet for it, I'll be waiting here to hear your results.

Was about to post a similar statement.

[Belorn.2659]

@Paladine.6082 said:I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

This is false. The information is not accessed from other end user terminals. Each client emulate what every other player do to the boss and there is no client to client communication involved. It is similar to emulated car traffic in big simulation, which is different from real time spying on drivers. EU law do not forbid simulations, even if it emulated behavior of real people. Similar DPS meters only measure the emulated actions which their own client is reconstructing based on server information.

For us older players who been here since gw1, I would like to remind people of the old spectator mode in gw1 GvG. If you recall, battles was stored but had imperfect information about player action and movement. Occasionally the script went off record and did things which the players themselves never did. The reason is that the server only recorded action that happened like "player X got hit by skill y" and "player Z used skill y". The client then guess that the likely order of events is that player Z moved into range of X, used skill Y within mana limits, and X got hit. The benefit was that the servers used less traffic, used less processing power, and gave less laggt game play. GW2 is largely based on GW1, and is a large reason why most people don't experience daily lag issues.