OT: SPYWARE/TROJAN and Off Topic!

[PhilD]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
As the saying goes, it is better to be perpetually suspicious than occasionally cheated.

Is that really your point of view?

I much, much prefer to be occasionally cheated, if it allows me to live a simpler, quieter life.

I don't drive a card, but I do ride a bike to work, occasionally. Then I have to make a choice, whether to "simply" lock my bike outside the building I work in, or take more drastic measures and take my bike to my office so I can keep an eye on it.

I would never choose to take my bike into my office, simply because it's way too much trouble. I leave it outside, with a reasonable lock on it, and if someone really wants to steal it, I lose a bike. But I believe that's acceptable risk for all the times I don't have to bother taking my bike in, with the associated trouble of not leaving mud all over the place, and so on.

Of course, if the stakes were much higher, I might get worried. But my bike isn't a very fancy one, and that's a significant part of it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
However in principle I think the program should explain and ask permission up front before phoning home.

PvK

Good point.

---

If it was "opt in" as in a button you have to push saying you agree to having it phone home before you can play a multiplayer game then it will still may noise. People will come here saying they baught a game THEN found out they have to be willing to allow this. Maybe fewer complaints, Im not sure.

[ April 08, 2004, 13:25: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[PhilD]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
There's a world of difference between destroying things you own, and destroying things other people own, which is illegal and immoral. Excuse me if I don't have much respect for someone who's admitted that they don't respect the property of others.

There is, of course, a minor point: The property in question is entirely mine, the code in question never intended for distribution. As such, any unauthorized individual found to be running it is automatically the enemy, having stolen it from me, and deserves his fate. Destruction of stolen item was deemed to be of paramount importance, and all else was deemed collateral damage. Being that the damage was inflicted upon those also complicit, I see nothing wrong with this.

---

Someone stealing your stuff doesn't entitle you to steal theirs, or destroy it. This looks more and more like vengeance, and less and less like justice - and the two have nothing to do with each other.

I'm also worried about your use of the word "enemy" in this context.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
There is, of course, a minor point: The property in question is entirely mine, the code in question never intended for distribution.

Wrong. Like I expected, you are continuing to ignore the fact that you were also planning to destroy the user's other files.

As such, any unauthorized individual found to be running it is automatically the enemy, having stolen it from me, and deserves his fate. Destruction of stolen item was deemed to be of paramount importance, and all else was deemed collateral damage. Being that the damage was inflicted upon those also complicit, I see nothing wrong with this.

Well, you wouldn't, but that's because you have no morals to speak of, and have demonstrated that your maturity level is less than that of a 15 year old.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Wrong. Like I expected, you are continuing to ignore the fact that you were also planning to destroy the user's other files.

Clearly, you don't understand the concept. This is no different from wiring your own car with explosives and setting it such that if an unauthorized person attempts to remove it from the garage, it will explode. It's your car, you can do what you please with it, and it will be entirely the fault of whoever steals it for swiping something that will bring him harm.

Well, you wouldn't, but that's because you have no morals to speak of, and have demonstrated that your maturity level is less than that of a 15 year old.

This is an irrelevant bit of sophistry. Clearly, you don't understand the concept of deterrence and object lessons: I only had to do this ONCE, and immediately everyone who heard of it was intimidated into NEVER DOING IT AGAIN. I call this results. You may not be familiar with the background on the matter, but in the community where this occurred, the vast majority have taken my side on the issue.

Furthermore, this morality you speak of is entirely a human construct, and appears to be entirely a product of Judeo-Christianity. Being that I have never Subscribed to this, I simply don't believe in it. I have my own code, which may or may not mesh entirely with yours, and I follow it to the letter.

[ April 08, 2004, 14:21: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Karacan]

I am more inclined to sharing Norfleet's point(s), here, although my main concern is that there hasn't been anything in the ToS about data privacy. For all I know, Illwinter could grab my CD-key and sell it again because of a personal dislike or some strange buisiness scheme. Since this key is acquired on another way apart from the purchase registry, it's basically theirs to do with whatever they want.
At least MS and game companies have you sign these things noone ever reads through anyway. I don't remember clicking "yes" on anything like that by installing Dom2.

I like Illwinter, and I'd like to trust them, but in a world full of Microsofts and Blizzards, trust is a very hard thing to earn by any company who does undocumented things in a patch.

Send me a kevlar vest, Norfleet.

[JaydedOne]

Clearly, you don't understand the concept. This is no different from wiring your own car with explosives and setting it such that if an unauthorized person attempts to remove it from the garage, it will explode. It's your car, you can do what you please with it, and it will be entirely the fault of whoever steals it for swiping something that will bring him harm.

Just so you know -- while this may be true according to the laws of your own personal morality, it's illegal according to criminal code at least within the United States and the U.K. Sadly, I can't claim any knowledge for any other countries where you might reside, so if this isn't helpful for your particular situation, my apologies. I thought it might be best to give you the heads-up in case your own Mustang was in fact wired to blow.

That said, I'm not sure that this thread is serving any productive purpose at this point. Most people disagree with the intensity of Norfleet's violent reaction. Some other forumers don't. Can't we just leave it at that?