Punkbuster EULA and Ethics [homework-related]

I'm doing an "Ethics for Computer Science" course, and for an assignment we're supposed to come up with an "aspect or example of computer technology that has affected society or had a cultural impact, providing an ethical analysis and an explanation of why this issue is unique to computing technology". We're then supposed to conduct an interview, and then later write an essay on the subject using the information we gained from the interview.

I've decided not to do a formal interview as such though. I figure it might be easier to get opinions from various people, and then fabricate an "interview" from that (because, I don't exactly know any experts on the subject, personally).

I figure this would be a good place to pose some questions, and get a discussion going. And FYI, my "interviewee" is anonymous, so none of you will be mentioned or anything like that.

For anyone who doesn't know, Punkbuster is an anti-cheating system for online games on the PC (AFAIK, Crysis uses it, as well as various games from the CoD series, etc). It operates essentially like an anti-virus, except for a few things:

The EULA asks you to agree that, (1) you are aware that Punkbuster is considered as invasive software, (2) that Punkbuster will scan (all of) your harddrive and memory, and will upload files/data to their servers for inspection it deems suspicious, (3) that Punkbuster allows server admins to request screenshots from your system, without your knowledge, and (4) that your ability to play in a cheat-free environment is more important than any security or privacy that may be impared by Punkbuster.

This scanning and uploading is also carried out by a background service, which runs even when the game in question is not. Scanning would keep it in the realm of anti-virus software, but IMO uploading data as well would, by definition, make it a type of spyware.

The questions i'm posing are:

Despite the need to prevent cheating in online games, is it ethical to include these sorts of clauses in an EULA that the user effectively *has* to accept if they want to play on any decent server (afaik, some games don't even give you an option to not install PB)?
Is it ethical to scan *all* of your hard disk, and upload any information it feels like?
Is it ethical to force a user to concede privacy for the operation of their software?

The uploading of data and screenshots seems to me to be a particularly...invasive...invasion of privacy.

It also doesn't help that, based on what I've heard from others, that PB tends to pick up a lot of false-positives and kick/ban legit players.

Anyway. Have at it. Discuss. Argue. I need ideas :p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychopath

Despite the need to prevent cheating in online games, is it ethical to include these sorts of clauses in an EULA that the user effectively *has* to accept if they want to play on any decent server (afaik, some games don't even give you an option to not install PB)?

---

I do not find this easy to truthfully answer. On a purely personal opinion, of course not. It is an imposition on my privacy and I'm not given any decent alternative.

But in the field of normative ethics, one could apply the concept of virtue and assume the EULA is well intentioned and will not eventually translate in abusive behavior. Ethically such an EULA can exist, I guess.

Quote:

---

Is it ethical to scan *all* of your hard disk, and upload any information it feels like?

---

Definitely not. PB is installed in the context of the game which it shipped with. And should only operate in that context. It's a clear invasion of privacy since there is absolutely no way PB can justify the action of going outside its zone of influence.

One could argue PB could be seen as having a similar behavior to a diskscan or backup utility in that these tools operate anywhere on the hard drive. But the fact is these tools zone of influence is indeed the entire hard drive. It's acceptable for them to access any area of the HD. But PB is an anti-cheat/hack application which only reason it needs to use the whole hard drive is because its programmers don't have a solution to have it operate solely in the context of the game it comes with. In essence PB acts as if under a Police State, where law enforcement agents are allowed to enter my house, do a search and take any material they see fit without even a warrant.

PB cannot take the role of law enforcement. It should not download any data, or inspect anything outside game files. The only legal way for such thing to happen would be with a warrant and a knock on my door. And the only reason these type of things are allowed is because our legislators are way behind this IT world we so quickly started to live in. I'm expecting new generations of legislators, born in the aftermath of the early days of the internet, will be more capable and better informed to start producing laws that regulate and even stop this type of behavior. In essence, software regulation. I understand it is a dangerous and not very popular notion. But inevitable, as freedoms become increasingly attacked by software developers, but also as the industry eventually starts to feel the need for regulating itself. The internet and software development will not be lawless forever. No other industry in the world is so lacking of regulations.

Quote:

---

Is it ethical to force a user to concede privacy for the operation of their software?

---

Yes. Within reason and if well justified, in many areas of our daily lives it is acceptable to concede privacy for access to certain services. Online Gaming doesn't need to be any different.

And on a more broad concept of privacy, it's not even acceptable that if one wants to join a public community, they should be allowed to preserve some aspects of their privacy. This actually means that I'm not a proponent of internet anonymity. Naturally internet technologies preserve anonymity because of technical limitations. But if it came the day such limitations ceased to exist, I would probably be a supporter of the end of what I personally call "unaccountability through anonymity", which I see as being the stigma of a whole generation of cybernauts and of generations to come.

After my many experiences with PunkBuster I'm convinced it only ever kicks legitimate players and all the illegit's play along happily with no troubles.

PB is terrible and only works if the server is setup correctly which most do not use it correctly. Novalogic bragged about PB on their servers but we found out that they weren't streaming it or something which really caused it to lose most of it's functionality. Many times it kicked me out of games for packet problems or something along those lines. I had to go to the game console and type in some command to stop it from kicking me for this. Very annoying. If you want to know how well it works go into a Delta Force server or Joint Ops server and watch the cheaters run rampant.

So not only is PB an invasion of privacy although I've nothing to hide so it really doesn't affect me it also does nothing to stop cheaters. I'm not so sure it doesn't interfere with the normal operation of the games that use it and/or cause crashes and lockups in those games.

You are asking the wrong questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychopath

The uploading of data and screenshots seems to me to be a particularly...invasive...invasion of privacy.

---

Sure. This and the other examples you give here are answered very simply if I am an average consumer of games:

"It doesn't matter, the chances of me being willing to accept absolutely any and all conditions demanded of me are 95% +." Ie, the number of people that would in reality reject this if the option was not to play is insignificant, even if it include a complete scan of their hard-drive etc.

The reason I say this is because I would give you very low grades for considering this an "aspect or example of computer technology that has affected society or had a cultural impact" unless you absolutely assert that this is an example of the cultural acceptance of the invasion of privacy. Ie, YOU must provide "an ethical analysis" or else this is not something that has a cultural impact. You do not make that dependent upon the attitudes of your interviewee or survey: that's not ethics, that's statistical trivia. You would be fulfilling a different kind of assignment "Take an example of something considered to have a cultural impact and demonstrate that it may not have any."

Rephrased: Doing some sort of survey of whether people think it is ethically right or wrong presupposes that in fact the issue may not have any "cultural impact" at all. If it is okay, then you are trying to present. eg., signing for registered mail as something that merits discussion of it's "cultural impact".

If you want to do a good assignment on this, you need to commit yourself to the position I think you have already taken and consider it as DEFINITIVELY having a cultural impact because it represents an acceptance of a violation of privacy. People who play online games by and large understand completely what searching their entire hard drive means and that they are (most likely) committing themselves to something they have not had to commit to before.

That is an irrefutable objective observation. Don't waste more than a paragraph on contemplating how to think about it. What you should be doing is surveying people to whom it applies: that is, people who have never otherwise knowingly signed an agreement which allows the service provider to search their entire hard drive, but ACTUALLY HAVE for this reason. Then you need to ask them why they consider this okay.

That's an essay. $0.02.

It's annoying yes, and I have been "banned" for writing an OpenGL wrapper that I hadn't even loaded for that game (no, it wasn't a cheat at all -- it was an OSD). Not to mention various bugs with my graphics card driver (8600GT) caused blank screenshots which Punkbuster obviously didn't like.

In my opinion if you agreed to the Punkbuster EULA, then they can do whatever it states (ethical or not). However, forcing Punkbuster on you is another story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychopath

Despite the need to prevent cheating in online games, is it ethical to include these sorts of clauses in an EULA that the user effectively *has* to accept if they want to play on any decent server (afaik, some games don't even give you an option to not install PB)?

---

Yes I think it is. If you don't like it then choose to not accept the EULA and return the game to where you bought it.

Quote:

---

Is it ethical to scan *all* of your hard disk, and upload any information it feels like?

---

If you willingly accepted the EULA and gave them permission to do so, then yes. If they however were scanning without informing you about it then it would be unethical. (And possibly also illegal depending on where you live)
A better question would be; is it reasonable or necessary to scan that much? I'd say no.

Quote:

---

Is it ethical to force a user to concede privacy for the operation of their software?

---

Key word here being their software. They wrote the software, they get to choose who is allowed to use it. Again, you have the choice to not accept the EULA so you are not actually being forced to do anything.

So to summarize, I don't think it's unethical at all to do the things punkpuster (and others) do. I do however think it is completely pointless and self-destructive because people who intend to cheat always find a way around any anti-cheat system. The only ones who are affected by the anti-cheats are the legit users because of the false positives, crashes due to bugs, etc..
There was also once an exploit in valve's anti-cheat VAC where you could get any player banned if you knew their user id.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

People who play online games by and large understand completely what searching their entire hard drive means and that they are (most likely) committing themselves to something they have not had to commit to before.

---

My impression is that most people who play online games are completely clueless about being scanned, since they just clicked accept on the EULA without reading it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Mike

My impression is that most people who play online games are completely clueless about being scanned, since they just clicked accept on the EULA without reading it. :)

---

Makes sense. So maybe surverying specifically people who have would be better, because a first question would be "Are you aware that..."; then "How do you feel about that and that"? Of course, this will be a little more work because you'd have to post in an actual gaming forum and make up some more concrete questions.

As Mike says, granting your permission kind of "makes it ethical". My interest in this is that if people are willing to do so individually for the sake of gaming online, then why not collectively if the government said it is a matter of state security, etc: everyone will install software allowing the government to inspect their HD's without notice. This has already been attempted in China; while Western nations would justify it in a completely different way, there is already plenty of precedence WRT enforcing file sharing policies indicating most Western governments are willing and able to do things of this sort.

So "Is it ethical?" still seems like a non-question to me. Just using the word in a sentence does not an ethical discussion make. "Why do you consider this justified?", put to someone who has already surrendered their rights, is more to the point. As Mario observes, a completely rational answer might be "I assume the EULA is well intentioned". The same thing can easily be said of the government. But without this explicit link the EULA is not really something with "cultural impact".

Quote:

---

...while Western nations would justify it in a completely different way, there is already plenty of precedence WRT enforcing file sharing policies indicating most Western governments are willing and able to do things of this sort.

---

In the US, they are not able to do this unless they have probably cause to believe you have somehow broken the law which requires a significant burden of proof.

PunkBuster may not be unethical but it is an invasion of my privacy, it is a huge POS, and any game that uses it in the future will not be on my shelf or on my drive. Obviously the courts do not agree with you MK27 concerning the EULA. The case against Securom and EA was won by the consumers and every single one of them clicked on the EULA yet they won the case. EULAs, like NDAs, and other agreements are not allowed to cover everything under the sun. In other words just b/c your users clicked on a EULA doesn't mean you can now do anything and install anything you want on their system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

In the US, they are not able to do this unless they have probably cause to believe you have somehow broken the law which requires a significant burden of proof.

---

Sure, but it didn't take much for them to retroactively legalize warrantless wiretapping, which means they currently can gain access to your internet activity and phone line with no warrant and no burden of proof. Installing mandatory data-mining and searching software is just a slightly more "active" seeming proposition.

In the US and elsewhere, there is certainly a trend toward considering "the threat of filesharing" so important that we are moving into a situation where your right to access the internet will be summarily revoked without trial -- the mechanism will simply be the RIAA goes to a judge and says person X is engaged in illegal filesharing as far as we are concerned, and then you find out afterward and have no recourse. That legislation has already passed in England and will probably start passing in various states here soon. If that is okay, mandatory "file scanning" software operated by the RIAA might as well be too. I haven't read the EULA but from the sounds of things they are not committing themselves to only perform certain actions -- they could easily go, well, we found pirated games on your system and the cops are on their way, or we've forwarded your list of mp3s to the RIAA. Etc.

Quote:

---

The case against Securom and EA was won by the consumers and every single one of them clicked on the EULA yet they won the case.

---

Well that's certainly good and sets a precedent that the courts do consider demanding this of your users unethical. I guess it would be interesting to see in a general voluntary survey of "EULA users" whether they then consider it to be a form of forcing them to "assent" to an ethical compromise.

It also means people are being punished for standing up for their individual right to privacy, I guess it would be interested to hear from people who have refused (there is no way in hell I would sign that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

EULAs, like NDAs, and other agreements are not allowed to cover everything under the sun.

---

Yup. Even private contracts are regulated by laws that establish what cannot exist in them, exactly to preserve a notion of grace and fairness. Just because I signed a contract, it doesn't mean the contract is legal. And we can extend it: A contract is not legal if its provisions go against the law. And this will be the case of an EULA too. So all it takes in fact is a set of laws that regulate personal freedoms and the guarantee certain rights to privacy in order for these EULAs to be illegal. And these laws exist and they are behind the court rulings.

There's also another problem with diskscan and download like activities that can infringe on rights of Property because software like PB does not differentiate between files the onwer of the game owns and those they don't. So, a kid who installs the game on his father computer gives room for PB to actively seek and download information from someone who didn't read, agreed or in most cases is even aware of the game. A computer cannot be seen as "one instance of property" (for the lack of a better term).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

I guess it would be interested to hear from people who have refused (there is no way in hell I would sign that).

---

I'd go as far as say some here have already refused certain EULAs. Personally, I never did and never will install a game on my computer protected under PB. And Securerom has been denied by me on many occasions before with the exception of a very limited number of games I absolutely must had.

For a gamer who refuses EULAs and decides not to buy (or return) a game, the feeling is one of frustration. Each title is one entity diferent from any other. It's not like choosing between different brands of refrigerators. Because of technical limitations of the game, the incompetence of its developers, the greed of its publishers, the still insecure nature of the internet, some, or all above, I'm barred from gaining access to the game. Not because I don't like the game, or I don't meet its requirements, or even because I can't afford it. Instead the reason is totally alien to the nature of the game and its promise as a tool of entertainment. The reason is simply because it infringes on my privacy and it installs spy-like software on my computer.

It's even more frustrating to me because I actually don't play any games online. I'm a pure single-player and have no interest whatsoever in playing online.

Quote:

---

That legislation has already passed in England and will probably start passing in various states here soon. If that is okay, mandatory "file scanning" software operated by the RIAA might as well be too. I haven't read the EULA but from the sounds of things they are not committing themselves to only perform certain actions -- they could easily go, well, we found pirated games on your system and the cops are on their way, or we've forwarded your list of mp3s to the RIAA. Etc.

---

England's laws and their trends have nothing to do with what happens in the United States. California is the place to look to see where our laws and legal trends are heading. I do not see a trend towards more invasive practices...rather I see a trend towards less invasive practices. Several software companies have now gone back to the good old CD key and nothing more. The beauty of capitalism is that we the people determine the trends of the industries b/c we can choose to support or not support various companies due to their practices. In the current economy any lost sales is huge so companies are taking a step back and re-examining their business practices.

I doubt you will see the internet become more restrictive in the near future. Obama is too concerned about Obamacare and the FBI is more concerned with terrorism. Most of the spammers who had clear cut cases got off without much. A couple of the people who knowingly not just pirated audio CD's but made them available via the internet were prosecuted and given hefty sentences. Other than that I haven't seen much in the way of companies attempting to become more invasive. As for the local police they are too busy playing Barney Fife the tax collector on the highways and roads to care one lick about the internet.

And you cannot use evidence found through illegal means in a US court of law. So if the software found illegal games on your computer but the software that found it was illegal then the evidence is void. You see this happen all the time in high profile murder cases where the police drop the ball somehow and illegaly obtain evidence only to have it thrown out. You can't just raid someone's house or take them to jail because you think they have this or that. You must have proof and must have a warrant. No judge in his right mind or who cared about his job would ever issue a warrant based on items that an already questionable program had found on someone's computer.

Excellent responses here so far :D.

@MK27: If i'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that I shouldn't be using the PB EULA specifically as having a "cultural impact", but rather as a specific example of something more broad?

That's my intent, but I probably didn't explicitly mention it. We were told to pick a specific example (such as Punkbuster and it's EULA) of an issue that has a cultural impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prof

...you should choose a specific aspect of a technology or an event to help you to narrow down your topic and provide an incident to isolate a question of ethics. For example, rather than discussing hacking in general, you should focus on a specific incident that received media attention. Rather than discussing online gaming in general, you should focus on the impacts of a specific game. Rather than only discussing intellectual property or privacy infringement in general, you should discuss a specific incident or law suit..

---

This part of the assignment does seem to contradict slightly the first part, since a specific example isn't really having a cultural impact in and of itself.

Although I could just be completely misunderstanding you :p.

Quote:

---

privacy infringement in general, you should discuss a specific incident or law suit..

---

The EA/Securom suit would be a good example of privacy invasion and/or malicious software being installed by legit programs. There is a wiki about the entire case. SPORE had quite a bit of controversy surrounding it so you could Google for it and get tons of info and links as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

England's laws and their trends have nothing to do with what happens in the United States.

---

100% False, since these are exactly the kinds of things that international trade agreements deal with. The United States is generally considered to have draconian intellectual property laws (which are what would permit having your internet service summarily revoked). Far from backing away from the issue, the Obama admin. is actively pursuing it in exactly the same way as the Bush admin:

Quote:

---

final approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States is languishing in the Legislative Assembly [ of Costa Rica] due to concerns over the copyright provisions. The CAFTA copyright provisions are similar to those found in the other major U.S. trade agreements concluded in recent years: DMCA-style protections, ISP liability, and copyright term extension are all part of the package.

---

Michael Geist - U.S. To Costa Rica: No Sugar Access Without Copyright Reform

So I've gotta observe you have it ass-backwards in observing that there is (objectively) some "trend towards less invasive practices". Ass-backward. Completely.

The RIAA is an American organization, nb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychopath

Although I could just be completely misunderstanding you :p.

---

No, you understand me. I'm just saying you need to be more focused with the nature of your survey, which hopefully fits in with the prof's desire for specifics. Simply asking a bunch of people "Do you think this is ethical?" is a little bit limp noodle. You need to present it as an ethical issue with cultural impact -- which means you need a broader context than just waivers signed to play video games. The acceptance and continued use of those waivers have to be understood as setting a precedent.* Losing a few preliminary legal battles, as Bubba mentions, may well only inspire the industry to re-strategize. For example, they can link up with the RIAA and also (behind closed doors) present this as paving the way to more "anti-terrorist" surveillance measures. Which may be irrelevant to them, but if it could in the end give EULAish things more legal status they are big corporations and they will fund the election campaign of politicians who support BOTH initiatives. This is already a normative political practice.

It might even be wise -- you have some substantial bunch of voters who have already been agreeing to this for a while, so they can easily go "well, I've already agree to that and I don't think it's a big deal" esp. it the larger concern is National Security.

Consider some Time magazine article of the near future. Let's give this technology a name (maybe it has one already): Local Filesystem Reporting Software (LFRS). So the article begins:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Time Magazine October 2011

Local filesystem reporting software (LFRS) is nothing new to many consumers and desktop computer owners -- in fact, it's been in widespread use and accepted within the gaming industry for years...

---

Ha ha ha. Now all you need is enough right wing conservatives (who generally only favour individual freedoms of the sort that involve gun ownership or not having to pay taxes) of the "busybody" variety to jump at the opportunity to create more laws restricting things like freedom of speech, etc, and this cat is in the bag: everyone in the US will be subject to warrantless wiretapping, warrantless net eavesdropping, and (perhaps soon enough) mandatory LFRS. And then they will still turn around and try and pretend they live in the freest country in the world, when what they really mean is they live in the richest most powerful country in the world and will give up individual freedom at the drop of a hat if they think it contributes to this wealth and power.

Anyway, good luck psychopath :p "Permission granted" to use my Time joke if you want, I think it's funny and succinct.

* also critical and maybe more pertinent to a class on software and ethics would be the point that the pre-existence and large scale successful implementation of such software only opens the door to further consideration of it's usefulness. That's compounded with the fact that those corporations are software developers and could lead the field! Picture EA bidding on big government security contracts and using their record of success as a leverage point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

100% False, since these are exactly the kinds of things that international trade agreements deal with.

---

It's irrelevant. It will be England that will eventually need to change those laws if they indeed end up passing in the House of Commons (which I doubt). It just so happens the EU is preparing exactly opposite laws that instead protect consumer privacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

It will be England that will eventually need to change those laws if they indeed end up passing in the House of Commons (which I doubt). It just so happens the EU is preparing exactly opposite laws that instead protect consumer privacy.

---

Hopefully -- for the EU. My point being England has been following American policies because the American and English recording industries are closely tied together.

Even if they can't take Europe, the RIAA will not give up on the USA, which is under no such commitments. Plus, they will probably learn from the outcome in the EU and modify their public campaign in the US accordingly.

Sad to say, but these are the kinds of rights and freedoms which get more respect in Europe than here (which as I mention: the US is the stronghold of intellectual property rights legislation). If the US can force this down the throats of enough non-EU countries (eg Costa Rica -- these countries will go like dominoes because they have no choice. Also, many small developing world governments would love to impose laws whereby they can spy on your hard drive and will participate eagerly), they have some chance of eventually turning a table and presenting EU policy as the exception, thereby stirring up the right wing in Europe to correct the situation.

If you don't think the video game industry would set it's sights higher than just catching people who cheat on-line, you are hopelessly naive. They are digging in for a long term complex fight over file sharing.

I just don't think the video industry has such a weight. Sure they are an important lobby. But often this leads people to give them more power than they actually have. They can't even properly charge someone and win (trying to remember some of the recent cases RIAA ended up looking like an arse) much less influence half the world governments.

What could happen between UK and USA/EU transactions was simply that any UK product would have to strip itself of any invasive DRM features if they wished to export it. Meanwhile any product made in US or EU could be sent to UK with full DRM features. This wouldn't otherwise affect transactions. I can't see how; censored titles are a far worse form of restriction and it happens all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I just don't think the video industry has such a weight. Sure they are an important lobby. But often this leads people to give them more power than they actually have. They can't even properly charge someone and win (trying to remember some of the recent cases RIAA ended up looking like an arse) much less influence half the world governments.

---

They don't have to influence them at all. They just have to get smart and team up with the right people for mutual benefit. So, EA may not care one way or another whether the government spies on you, and many elected politicians may not care one way or the other about people cheating at online games, but if there is a common interest there (the development, implementation, and acceptance of invasive software), then there's a match made in Hell.

As I was trying to point out, the US government is already actively trying to out maneuver the EU globally by enforcing international trade agreements with very severe "intellectual property" enforcement policiers.

Quote:

---

So I've gotta observe you have it ass-backwards in observing that there is (objectively) some "trend towards less invasive practices". Ass-backward. Completely.

---

There is. I didn't say the government had less invasive practices - I said companies do. What are we discussing here? Do you really think the feds give a crap about PunkBuster? How does the federal government have anything to do with this? I'm telling you that as of right now the US government has more on its plate than it can handle and isnt going to get anything done.

You somehow falsely believe that b/c one country has certain laws that if we have a trade agreement with them we must then pass those same laws. This is utterly absurd. Having come from manufacturing I have firsthand experience what happens when you send an American product overseas. The product must meet the laws and regulations of the country it is being sent to, however, it does not mean that the originating country must have the same laws. The EU has some of the most ignorant laws concerning industrial equipment that you would think they somehow think earth movers should be like automobiles. Because of this we were forced to comply to their laws and add various features and lights that were required in their country. For products going to other US States we did no such thing. The product is all that must meet the regs - and this can be added to any product after the core manuf. process has been completed.

So whether or not England has this law or that law it is totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. It is has no bearing on what the US is going to do or not going to do. The US isn't in the habit of passing laws just to be more like the other guy. Each country is different and each country will remain that way. Just b/c the European countries got together one day and pooled their resources under some common banner does not mean the USA is going to do one single thing different because of it.

As well the privacy laws you are talking about are related to communications and wiretapping. You cannot apply those situations to software to make a point. They are different mediums and different situations.

Quote:

---

They don't have to influence them at all. They just have to get smart and team up with the right people for mutual benefit. So, EA may not care one way or another whether the government spies on you, and many elected politicians may not care one way or the other about people cheating at online games, but if there is a common interest there (the development, implementation, and acceptance of invasive software), then there's a match made in Hell.

---

The government is not going to spy on me via video games. Wow - black helicopters must fly over your house everyday or something. Contrary to popular conspiracy theories the government probably doesn't have enough time or manpower to do any such thing. Not to mention it is completely against the Constitution to spy on citizens without due cause - which is why you see all the fallout from the Bush admin's policy of wiretapping. It is illegal.

Quote:

---

As I was trying to point out, the US government is already actively trying to out maneuver the EU globally by enforcing international trade agreements with very severe "intellectual property" enforcement policiers.

---

And why do you think they are trying to do that? It is to protect US interests not to spy on citizens. We have always had really odd trade regulations in order to protect our own interests. And they can write as much literature as they want but the logistics of the matter is no one has enough manpower to enforce half the crap that is on the books. I just don't see your point and think you are making a big deal out of nothing here.

Let's not turn this punkbuster ethics thread into a debate about whether or not your government wants to spy on you or not. I hardly think they are related. PB was invented to stop cheaters...not spy on people. The reasons they scan the drives and so forth is b/c cheaters often use other programs to cheat. However PB has become quite invasive and if they don't stop...well they won't be around b/c no one is going to buy a game with it in it....and no company is going to use PB if it stops people from buying their game. Simple economics.

Quote:

---

What could happen between UK and USA/EU transactions was simply that any UK product would have to strip itself of any invasive DRM features if they wished to export it. Meanwhile any product made in US or EU could be sent to UK with full DRM features. This wouldn't otherwise affect transactions. I can't see how; censored titles are a far worse form of restriction and it happens all the time.

---

Yes it does and this is exactly how it is done everyday in every factory in every town USA. It is nothing new and it's certainly not rocket science. I've seen product ship to Dubai, Africa, Germany, England, Russia, etc. All required different things be done prior to shipment and some were required to meet local laws where they would be shipped...not just national laws. All that stuff is figured out and put on the invoice long before it is manufactured. It happens in every industry that has gone global and ships to many countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

Let's not turn this punkbuster ethics thread into a debate about whether or not your government wants to spy on you or not.

---

And as you hinted before, it's left to be known if our governments actually would have the capacity. Collecting this kind of data, mining, analysing and interpreting it is a gargantuan task that couldn't go unnoticed by the general population. It seems to me more like an orwellian vision on a theory of conspiracy panflet, than a possible reality. And ignoring the government and moving to the possibility of a lot of mini big brothers in the shape of companies, I find it even more detached from reality, being that their resources are even smaller.

Instead, the issues of privacy that are brought in by PB and others are centered around our civil rights. This is not about the ability of a company spying on me, it is about the fact that my power to decide what I want to make public about my personal life and what I want to keep private is being removed.

And this is one of the reasons I reject the argument "I have nothing to hide". I don't either, but that's not what is at stake. Never was. And if it was, then we would need to go back discussing Big Brother because that then would be the root of the problem.

Instead PB, similar tools and other services were a clear invasion is being performed, strip my civil right to decide on the grade of my public life. This is in any democratic country illegal. So there is no EULA that can make it legal. The reason PB and others do this becomes irrelevant after a certain point. It may be useful to try and understand the problem and fight it there at its root. but for all matters what is at stake right from the start is an infringement of my right to privacy.

The problem with ethics is that they are, after all, a matter of philosophy. They are however at the base of our judicial systems, which may seem ironic. In any case, PB and others support themselves behind a veil of seemingly ethical behavior to justify their presence. No one likes cheaters, not even cheaters themselves. So it's noble and ethically correct to fight it. But what means justify the ends? Did this ancient question lose its value in the minds of the makers of PB and those including it in their games?

Obviously. To protect the business, pretty much anything goes until enforcement of the law stops it from happening. This is, after all, one of the building blocks of any commercial power. The thing is by adopting an unethical method to enforce an ethical idea, PB becomes unethical. It's the same thought behind the reasons we do now allow torture of prisoners.

What I find distressing and worrying are two things:

- A general acceptance by an important percentage of the society of PB-like activities motivated by the fact its target is in fact mostly teenagers who value more the entertainment aspect of the game, then they care about their civil rights. This implicit acceptance grown from justified ignorance, provides PB-like activities with a tacit validation.

- The almost complete blind-eye our governments are giving to all of it. But also the society in general. It's actually kind of scary that a tool like PB is actually allowed to circulate among us with very little awareness.

Quote:

---

Despite the need to prevent cheating in online games, is it ethical to include these sorts of clauses in an EULA that the user effectively *has* to accept if they want to play on any decent server (afaik, some games don't even give you an option to not install PB)?
Is it ethical to scan *all* of your hard disk, and upload any information it feels like?
Is it ethical to force a user to concede privacy for the operation of their software?

---

Lets compare E-Sports to real Sports. In most major leagues or nationwide championships, doping tests are the norm. I don't think it gets any more invasive than getting your blood and testing it. Yet, it is accepted. It may not be ethical, but it's accepted practice to have a sort of "EULA" to sign. If you don't, you may not attend the league/championship.

While in real life, everyone would agree that when no one is watching your results, cheating is not worth it, in computer games, it's the other way round. If no one is watching (i.e. single player) why would you not cheat?

Therefore, in real life cheating increases with the possible reward while in online games cheating decreases with the possible chance of detection because in most games the reward stays the same.

From my point of view it is ethical to scan your entire computer. Because the entire computer can hold parts used for cheating. I agree that scanning someones passwords for online banking while searching for a game cheat is way overblown, but the scanner cannot know what to find or there would be no need for a scanner. If you don't want your online bank account scanned, don't put it where you play your games.

In the end, it's the users choice. Do I want to have a seperate, clean gaming system? Or would I rather have my private data searched? Or would I like to play on servers/games that only host the scum of the internet testing which cheat beats which? That's my choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

There is. I didn't say the government had less invasive practices - I said companies do. What are we discussing here? Do you really think the feds give a crap about PunkBuster? How does the federal government have anything to do with this?

---

Because as I said once already "the pre-existence and large scale successful implementation of such software only opens the door to further consideration of it's usefulness".

Quote:

---

You somehow falsely believe that b/c one country has certain laws that if we have a trade agreement with them we must then pass those same laws. This is utterly absurd.

---

Wrong again. The point of the CAFTA article was that the US would only agree to lower tariffs on Costa Rican sugar if Costa Rica enforces a clone of US copyright law in Costa Rica. Currently, a lot of "intellectual property" that is protected in the US is not protected in the rest of the world. A major purpose of trade agreements is to create "unilateral" policies on certain issues. For example, subsidies are often regulated that way -- which one reason the US subsides domestic food production is to make tariffs on imports an effective bargaining point.

Quote:

---

Just b/c the European countries got together one day and pooled their resources under some common banner does not mean the USA is going to do one single thing different because of it.

---

It does when the EU threatens to imposed tariffs on imports from the US -- for example, many of those domestic food subsidies in the US have had to be reduced because of trade agreements such as NAFTA.

Altho I am actually talking about it the other way around, because my original point was that from everyone else's perspective, the US is actively pursing "more invasive practices" wrt computer privacy around the world.

Quote:

---

You cannot apply those situations to software to make a point. They are different mediums and different situations.

---

If you want to be absurd and walk around with your eyes squeezed shut, I could argue that just because an apple falls out of an apple tree does not mean an orange can fall out of an orange tree. They are different species and in different situations, after all.

Quote:

---

Not to mention it is completely against the Constitution to spy on citizens without due cause - which is why you see all the fallout from the Bush admin's policy of wiretapping. It is illegal.

---

Wrong still again. The process of retroactively legalizing it has been completed by the Obama administration. It is now perfectly legal.

Quote:

---

It is to protect US interests not to spy on citizens.

---

Except when it is in those "US interests" to spy on it's own citizens.

Quote:

---

and no company is going to use PB if it stops people from buying their game. Simple economics.

---

Right: so in places where consumers are used to a lower standard of individual freedom, they will be more likely to just bend over for this. Since in this case we are talking of the domestic market, those companies can then go to the government and make the case that the US should be trying to include the enforcement of US style intellectual property rights in trade negotiations. Which as I already demonstrated, is exactly what is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvoigt

Lets compare E-Sports to real Sports. In most major leagues or nationwide championships, doping tests are the norm. I don't think it gets any more invasive than getting your blood and testing it. Yet, it is accepted. It may not be ethical, but it's accepted practice to have a sort of "EULA" to sign. If you don't, you may not attend the league/championship.

---

In my opinion a better comparison would be that the blood testing is like an anti-cheat scanning the memory space of the game itself. An anti-cheat scanning your whole computer would be like the doping guys searching your entire house and everything else you (and the rest of your family, in the case of a shared computer) own.

There is no need for an entire computer scan because the cheat has to interact with the game somehow, so scanning the game itself should be enough.

Somehow I have trouble with any comparison. This notion that taking blood is an invasion of my privacy... ermm, whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

This notion that taking blood is an invasion of my privacy... ermm, whatever.

---

I suppose that with DNA analysis and related techniques it would be an invasion of privacy, but then it can be said that it is the analysis that is the invasion of privacy.

I pondered that possibility. But what is being done is testing blood to find evidence of any illegal agent. In fact, the actual professionals doing the analysis don't even know who the blood belongs too. It's part of the process to guarantee an unbiased analysis. Neither I know of any doping test that ends up in a DNA database (or even that DNA needs to be read to perform a doping test).

But honestly I don't even understand very well the whole anti-DNA database movement. But that's another story. Instead the word "invasion", it seems to me is being used with a double meaning. It's one thing invasion of privacy, it's another thing invasion of one's body. Different things -- so my criticism of the comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Mike

In my opinion a better comparison would be that the blood testing is like an anti-cheat scanning the memory space of the game itself. An anti-cheat scanning your whole computer would be like the doping guys searching your entire house and everything else you (and the rest of your family, in the case of a shared computer) own.

There is no need for an entire computer scan because the cheat has to interact with the game somehow, so scanning the game itself should be enough.

---

Scanning the game is not enough, you need to scan the game's system. In comparison, the locker room. It's not the scanners fault, that people keep all their other stuff on their gaming system. If I keep my private photo's with my sport stuff, it will get found in a scan. That's not the scanners fault, that's my own fault for not protecting my own privacy.

Quote:

---

I pondered that possibility. But what is being done is testing a game system to find evidence of any cheating agent. In fact, the actual programs doing the analysis don't even know who the data belongs too. It's part of the process to guarantee an unbiased analysis. Neither I know of any cheat scan that ends up in a database.

---

Sounds familiar? :)

Hehe. Nice one. :)

But also not applicable. Do I need to debunk it?

Quote:

---

If you want to be absurd and walk around with your eyes squeezed shut, I could argue that just because an apple falls out of an apple tree does not mean an orange can fall out of an orange tree. They are different species and in different situations, after all.

---

It is pointless to argue with you since you have an answer for everything. My eyes are wide open my friend. I do, however, think you lack a fundamental understanding of US government, US citizen's rights, and US laws. If you use the media as your sole source for legal information then I pity you.

Regardless of what you think the US government does not have the right to spy on anyone at anytime. Again I fail to see how this relates to the PunkBuster topic but there you have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

But what is being done is testing blood to find evidence of any illegal agent. In fact, the actual professionals doing the analysis don't even know who the blood belongs too. It's part of the process to guarantee an unbiased analysis. Neither I know of any doping test that ends up in a DNA database (or even that DNA needs to be read to perform a doping test).

---

Yes, I think that blind testing and official/legal controls are important aspects of the process, and these help to make such tests acceptable. The professionals do not have a free reign to do what they will with the samples, and any sign of incorrect procedure, tampering or misuse may result in the test results declared as invalid. Thus, nvoigt's use of the analogy to support the scanning of the entire computer is not a very good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvoigt

Sounds familiar?

---

No, considering:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychopath

(2) that Punkbuster will scan (all of) your harddrive and memory, and will upload files/data to their servers for inspection it deems suspicious, (3) that Punkbuster allows server admins to request screenshots from your system, without your knowledge

---

Besides, there is likely to be some kind of oversight committee to ensure that procedure and all is followed for drug testing. Who provides such oversight for Punkbuster and friends? You? (After all, if your lack of knowledge of "any cheat scan that ends up in a database" is to be taken seriously, then you must have inside information or information from other reliable sources to know that that is indeed the case, otherwise your lack of knowledge is just ignorance.)

Considering the fact, that with punkbuster, I can decide what it will scan (by keeping a seperate system or seperate data) it feels way less invasive than a blood or urine test where I can not decide which information it will reveal about me. If I were pregnant, it will show. No way to opt out. If I have pictures of the unborn and I don't want them scanned by punkbuster, I don't copy them to my gaming system. I would even call that opt-in.

I don't have intimate knowledge of punkbuster. Not more than say Ebay or Amazon or Activision. All of those could use the data for illegal purposes. Yes, maybe there is some evil PB developer who is just now playing my Pirates savegame because the program scanned it and decided to steal (copyright infringe?) it. Somehow, the possibility of somebody misusing my credit card data seems more threatening.

Well consider this nvoigt (just one thought among other issues),

I'm an ordinary computer user. No special knowledge about its workings. My daughter installs a PB-featured game in my computer and plays with it while I'm at work, hiding it from me. PB does not know the files actually do not belong to the player of the game. A slightly different scenario can be also created in that PB may be inspecting files of programs installed on other user accounts on a family computer at home.

Also of note the fact PB also inspects virtual memory. Not just the hard drive.

The issue with PB is not whether or not it is being used by evil gnomes to read our porno. I think a few of us pretty much covered that already when we rejected the idea of the Big Brother (or many mini big brothers). The issue is that you are not given the right to control the grade of your privacy which is exactly what is protected by law. It's all or nothing.


EDIT: Besides there's one major problem with the Big Brother theory. It puts the burden of proof on our side. So I'm even surprise to see some people actually trying to use this as an argument. It's a bad strategy because of this, but also a bad argument because it is highly questionable and does not focus on the real problem. While the actual protection of individual rights by our laws is not open for debate and thus make a much solid argumentation.

But in this scenario, it was your daughters fault. If she had left a sharp knife in the living room and you sat on it, it would hardly be the knife's fault. Had she played with fire in the kitchen, it wouldn't have been the kitchens fault. If she had told her best friend your dirtiest secret, it would have been a breach of privacy, too. Her action is the breach of privacy, not the tool. If she is not informed enough about computers, you need an extra gaming system for her to compromise like she pleases.

You don't need to play a punkbuster enabled game. It's your own free will. If you do, you don't need to share all your data with punkbuster. That's your own free will. It's perfectly legal not to and punkbuster will warn you about it openly.

In order to control the level of privacy on my computer once PB is installed, I'll need special knowledge not related to gaming which is the target of PB. So, I wouldn't say my daughter wields that knife. For that matter, I wouldn't even say an adult with only sufficient knowledge of computers wields any knife either.

But I do agree that under most circumstances we get to decide whether or not we play a PB-featured game. There's however a problem with the fact that each game is one entity unrelated to any other game; Refusing to buy a game because it has PB is not the same as refusing to buy a certain refrigerator brand and going with another brand. So, if I'm concerned about my privacy, I'll actually be barring my access to a whole individual product that is unlike any other.

Now, that should be fine. If I don't agree with the terms, I cannot use the product. This much is well understood. But then a few questions arise (because, mind you, as a citizen I should question):

• Exactly what's the connection between privacy and gaming? And why should there be a connection?
  
• Why is that these mechanisms are not implemented on the console market by the exact same games? Why are console users privacy protected, but PC users not?
  
• Being the most probably answer to this "because of piracy", why I am being treated as a criminal? Why do I have to surrender my privacy in order to legitimate my person when no other industry in the world does this, when not even law enforcement organizations can do this without a court issued warrant?
  
• Why is that these mechanisms which have proven themselves on a constant basis (and without any exception whatsoever in the 3 decades-long computer gaming industry) to fail, keep being implemented?
  
• What should stop me from getting myself a pirated version of a computer game? I'm better protected by law by doing this, since only a court order will allow anyone to enter my house and find an illegal game on my hard-drive. My own conscience perhaps? Well, it's wearing thin as time passes because on the other side is not a legitimate action, but instead an unlawful action that infringes my right to privacy, treats me as a criminal, as bars any access to the product even though I only play single-player.

FWIW, under Portugal legislation DRM measures are considered illegal activities. This much has been already said by numerous constitutionalists. I'll go as far to say the same is the case on a large number of countries, including Germany. In the USA, the only reason why they are considered lawful is, if I'm not mistaken, because of the Digital Milennium Copyright Act, which does not actually say these measures are lawful, but implies acceptance by penalizing any attempts to circumvent them. In Europe, the Copyright Directive has no direct implication of software DRM measures and can even be ignored by member states. Instead, a new directive is under the works that will try to bring all countries legislation together on this issue. But guess what? There will be no such thing as penalizing anti-DRM activities for personal copies, which has a far and wide implications to the gaming industry.

So, I wouldn't be so convinced PB-like activities are something as simple as "don't like it, don't buy it" as it seems to me is the notion you want to support. They are most probably at best unlawful, at worst downright illegal. Thet certainly do not have tacit approval by the legislators and constitutionalists over here. That alone should speak wonders.

However I do respect you opinion this issue. Contrary to some critics of DRM activities, I don't consider the fact you support them as being an attack on what I consider my freedoms. But I do return your argument to you: "if you don't like the fact there is no DRM on a game, don't buy it". And because this doesn't make much sense, I hope it gives you an hint as to why this is just not an issue of "don't like it, don't buy it". Your stance goes both ways. You will always be happy. Mine gives me restricted access to a commercial product. And this always warrants very careful thought on any democratic country.

Actually that last paragraph makes no sense. You are already limiting your access by defending DRM measures. So there's no need to "return the argument". Ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

In order to control the level of privacy on my computer once PB is installed, I'll need special knowledge not related to gaming which is the target of PB.

---

To keep your computer safe for online banking also requires more knowledge than normal banking does. Doing stuff with computers requires knowledge about computers. If you want to play games only, a gaming console would be more suited, it requires virtually no knowledge at all.

Quote:

---

There's however a problem with the fact that each game is one entity unrelated to any other game; Refusing to buy a game because it has PB is not the same as refusing to buy a certain refrigerator brand and going with another brand. So, if I'm concerned about my privacy, I'll actually be barring my access to a whole individual product that is unlike any other.

---

Compare it to a club with house rules. For nudist clubs, all members are required to be nude on the compound. We probably agree that nudity if not voluntary is a huge breach of privacy. But people go there. Voluntarily. You don't like the house rules, you don't join the club. Nothing will hinder you to open your own club and set your own house rules if you don't like the existing ones. Same with games. You don't like it? Buy one you like, if there is none, publish your own. You cannot force private companies or even clubs (in my time, punkbuster was an additional feature installed by the server admins) to not set rules.

Quote:

---

Exactly what's the connection between privacy and gaming? And why should there be a connection?

---

The connection is that privacy has been misused by so many people, that misuse became the norm rather than the exception. Privacy is protection for every one and we accept that under this protection some crimes will go unnoticed. However, if every single citizen started dealing drugs, we would probably think different about "privacy". When programs like PB started, you could not join a server of 10 with at least 3 people openly cheating. Why? Because they could.

Quote:

---

Why is that these mechanisms are not implemented on the console market by the exact same games? Why are console users privacy protected, but PC users not?

---

Because cheating in multiplayer console games is so difficult that most people don't. You have to modify your console to cheat. With your PC, all you have to do is run an installer from the internet. There simply is no reason to scan console players.

Quote:

---

Being the most probably answer to this "because of piracy", why I am being treated as a criminal? Why do I have to surrender my privacy in order to legitimate my person when no other industry in the world does this, when not even law enforcement organizations can do this without a court issued warrant?

---

No, piracy has nothing to do with punkbuster. The game itself checks if everybody is a legit user, then punkbuster checks if all legit users are playing fair.

I do not support DRM. I support PB and their likes. Because they do fundamentally different things. If I play a game, I want it to be free of cheaters. For this, I am willing to sacrifice my privacy concerning the gaming machine. Like I would do a drug test before a race or be checked for cheat sheets before an exam.

Maybe you have to experience what playing without punkbuster was like. This is the internet, with anonymous scum and villainy just around the corner and with people who think it's fun to ruin other peoples playing experience. Without punkbuster, you could not play a single game without a cheater or two. And it's not fun to lose 10 rounds 0-5 just because the other team has a guy who can teleport, look through walls and is uanable to miss a shot. Most rounds were decided by the team that had the better cheater. And with privacy you couldn't even get hold of those people. You had no ID. Kick him? Sure. He'll be back in 2 minutes under a different name when he's resetted his router to get a new IP. No thanks, I'll gladly give up the privacy of my gaming machine to play a fair game.

Your points are challenging nvoigt, I concede there.

All in all we are being forced into this situation over a lack of technical solutions to the problem. Yet I'm afraid, as a single-player, I shouldn't be forced PB or any other anti-cheating mechanisms that base themselves on an infringement of my privacy, since they do not apply to my use of the games. As is highly regrettable they are being forced also if I wish to play over LAN connections (which on a few games I do in fact).

As you may suspect, I don't need to experience what it was playing without punkbuster. What in fact I know very little about is what it is like to play with punkbuster. And that's one decision I don't regret the least.

You are absolutely right, as a single player, you should never be forced to use any cheat control software. That makes absolutely no sense. In a singleplayer game, even assuming a working internet connection or requiring an authentication mechanism outside of my control is a reason to not buy the game. I'm playing games who's publishers have long gone the way of the dodo. The still run, they are still fun, even if only in 256 colors. If a game today cannot deliver this, I won't buy it.

It's been a few years since I played the last online FPS (CS/Battlefield '42), in my time, it was the server admins decision if he enforced Punkbuster. If you didn't like PB, you could also join a server without it. You were the only one not cheating, but hey, if someone thinks it's fun... since PB came out, I only played on PB enabled servers. And it's been a lot better without the jerks. From my point of view, multiplayer gaming with one party cheating is not worth my time. I'd rather not play, than play a cheater. Because it really only needs a single cheater to ruin the game for 63 other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvoigt

I'm playing games who's publishers have long gone the way of the dodo.

---

Speaking of which (and going off-topic), EA has released just recently Westwood Studio's Command & Conquer Red Alert, Tiberian Dawn and Tiberian Sun + Firestorm for free.

Command & Conquer Classic | Command & Conquer

I couldn't miss this parallel, vis the idea that if we can make it okay, then it will be okay.

The story is about a school district in Pennsylvania, USA, which loaned laptops to students to take home with them, including covert webcam software which could be activated by the school administrators. AOK!

School district admits installing covert webcam activation software on student laptops, denies wrongdoing Boing Boing

Maybe I'm old fashioned but IMO if you can convince yourself of this much "semantic drift" you don't need a brain, you just need a QWERTY style weegee board.