BattlEye To Support Valve's Steam Deck / Proton

[oiaohm]

BattlEye is separate software package accompanied with games, you'll need to agree with it's EULA before actually installing it. Isn't agreeing to it's EULA actually "consent".

I wrote "informed consent" legally there is a difference. Yes EULA is technically "consent" but the fact you have agree to an EULA does not mean you cannot latter on dispute it. If the consent is classed as "informed consent" that the person at the time absolutely understood what agreeing to then latter on it cannot be disputed.

Here is the horrible part lots of countries if you don't have "informed consent" and you breach someone privacy you break the law. That right EULA level consent with cryptic legalise is not good enough. The general rule if you are breaking someone privacy and a 7 year old native english speaker cannot make out this is going to happen from what in the EULA the EULA has giving you the "informed consent" you need. At some point someone is going to challenge batteye and others and they are going to rip coals and they absolute deserve it for the wording of their EULA.

[aht0]

oiaohm Taken care by Steam, which itself requires you to be at least 13 years of age.

And particular BattlEye using game I am playing is "suitable for 16y or older".

As I said, don't like it, don't use it.

[oiaohm]

oiaohm Taken care by Steam, which itself requires you to be at least 13 years of age.

And particular BattlEye using game I am playing is "suitable for 16y or older".

As I said, don't like it, don't use it.

The law test of a 7 year old english test even applies to 13 year and 16 year and older suitable for. Its the level of english you expect out a person with english as a second language.. To be correct its the level of english you expect out of second/third year of schooling depend on the country.

Sorry the age requirement to use does not alter the language requirement to get informed consent. The 7 year old metric roughly is the quality of english you are allowed to use to get informed consent to breach privacy. Its the same level of informed consent requirement to have a medical operation that a doctor has to be able to explain the procedure to and yes this is for a person who has adult to give consent. If you cannot explain to that level at times you will have not legally got consent even that you have the papers signed for a medical operation as well.

Lot of EULA are truly playing with fire the english used is too complex in the areas that breach privacy and the result of this is those areas have not in fact given them the legal informed consent to do what they are doing if they are challenged.

Please note you can only sign contract if you are over a particular age was attempted on medical contracts to avoid the plain english requirement and has been struck down in all countries including cases where it was over privacy law about the storage of records and the transfer of records with medical software. Yes stupid a person with a PHD and 40 years old was able to claim not having informed consent because a bit of software EULA was written in more complex than a 7 year old could read and yes won the case. These laws over privacy have precedence even against software EULA. Just game developers have not had this law applied to wake up they are putting their ass on the line..

[aht0]

..

1) So much pseudo-lawyering bullshit. Factually, EU's privacy laws are hell of a lot more stricter than anything in US, if Valve and BattlEye comply with European privacy laws then "fuck you"-US.

2) Game devs =/ Steam/BattlEye, which are all separate entities.

3) Anticheats do not "send data to third parties" and such bullshit, which would create the need for applying privacy laws in the first place. It's basically specialized form of antivirus engine scanning your PC and referencing shit in your PC's memory/files against cheat signatures, allowed/disallowed drivers and stuff like this. If your game files are on your C: drive, it won't go and scan D: or F:. Additionally it creates infrastructure for server admins allowing them to create access-control rules to their servers (timed bans, permanent bans, kicks when you break rules - it keeps their servers from descending to anarchy and killing the particular game itself).

4) English not english.

[oiaohm]

3) Anticheats do not "send data to third parties" and such bullshit, which would create the need for applying privacy laws in the first place.

https://www.reddit.com/r/arma/commen...lao/?context=3

That is a common mistake. Send data to third parties is not the only trigger to privacy law issues.
"private activities"

Private activities is common in many privacy laws covers something. Lets say some is making a mod to game for their own private usage. This is part of their own private activities right. Battleye not being clear in their EULA that they might upload .dll/.exe out of someone computer so they can scan it they can find themselves in the wrong side of snooping into someone private activities.

This is the funny one the reality here is the makers of Battleye would be the third party illegally receiving private information.

You have to remember some of the early anti-virus software got done for the same thing with automatically sending samples back to their core servers as well. Send data to third party the application on the user computer that is battleye is technically sending data off that computer to a third party. Yes just because you make the software does not mean you are not legally a third party.

The law is an ass this way. The fact anti-virus companies in the past got prosecuted for this its really only matter of time until some decide to rake anti-cheat software over the coals not being truthful enough.

Its really simple to forget the owner of the computer is the first party and where software on that computer send stuff is third party. So like it or not the client side anti-cheat software is sending stuff to a third party without a clear written consent that is classes as informed consent.

[aht0]

BattlEye doesn't upload any of your files. It may block you from accessing some offending dll , it may kick you out of game server over offending file in your PC.

It does it based on internal file signature list. It also applies degree of heuristics.
It does not upload your files.

[oiaohm]

BattlEye doesn't upload any of your files. It may block you from accessing some offending dll , it may kick you out of game server over offending file in your PC.

It does it based on internal file signature list. It also applies degree of heuristics.
It does not upload your files.

https://www.reddit.com/r/arma/commen...lao/?context=3
However, it's true that BE can, from time to time, upload executable code (mainly .dll and .exe files) that have been flagged by certain hack-identifying scans to the BE master server for further analysis.

aht0 that about does not upload your files is false BE can and BE does under particular conditions what are not described clearly in the EULA that should be described clearly in the EULA. Battleye was caught doing in 2014 and the client side code still does it. Yes the parties who caught Battleye was cheat developers.

Just because their heuristics suspect something of being a cheat does not legally give them the right to upload it to their servers for analysis without the user consent or at least users consent in plain english in the EULA. Not having this put them at serous risk of being on the wrong side of privacy law and having someone take their hide.

You statement that BattlEye does not upload files if you are using BattlEye you just admitted you have not made informed consent. A person like me using BattlEye we have made informed consent we know what it really does.

My problem is a lot of people who are using BattlEye have not made informed consent. Not that people should not use BattlEye. Yes BattlEye does not ask user for permission to upload either it just does it in background without asking if something is flag to be uploaded by the scan.

Please note BattlEye is not the only client side anti-cheat with this miss behavour. Yes it could be legal if end users consenting to the EULA in fact believed the application did it and it EULA made it absolute clear that battlleye has this functionality. The functionality is written in the EULA using legalise that is totally as clear as mud.

[aht0]

I'm quite indifferent when it comes to BE, as long as it does its job. Same with legalese and murky lawyering around the thing. Not something I am worried or care about.

When you are concerned over privacy, you shouldn't use certain software (incl. Linux) in your pc to start with. I play on Windows, do other stuff in BSD.

[oiaohm]

I'm quite indifferent when it comes to BE, as long as it does its job. Same with legalese and murky lawyering around the thing. Not something I am worried or care about.

When you are concerned over privacy, you shouldn't use certain software (incl. Linux) in your pc to start with. I play on Windows, do other stuff in BSD.

The reality is if you are in a case you need to care about privacy you should not have to be dealing with murky lawyering and that is the law in most countries. The reason for the informed consent requirement instead of just consent when it comes to privacy things.

Yet you have not been indifferent you have been if you don't like it don't use it. Also worse aht0 you have been writing a total false hood be like it or not BattlEye does at times upload files. There are many other anti-cheat engines that hidden in the horrible legalise is terms that could be used for uploading files or remote access then when you monitor their behavour at times they do client upload files or worse full remote desktop access as well

Also the game cheat developer came aware of another thing that applies to more than just battleye as well noticing a account was banned and that developer had never played a single online game. Total offline game play for cheat development. This explains why you have people saying to server admins and the like saying I have never cheated on line yet I installed and messed around with a cheat offline. That would be highly useful in the EULA as well that cheat detection will be running the complete time the game is loaded be you playing on line or playing the offline single player.

Lack of being informed leads to some horrible problems of people getting bitten by client side anti-cheat engines when if they may not have been if they were aware of what the rules the client side anti-cheat engine was really enforcing.
What you have to presume until proven otherwise with client side anti-cheat is the following.
1) All ways running anti-cheat detection be it for offline play or online play.
2)If cheated when in offline play with no network connection the client side anti-cheat may have logged that for latter send as in send latter when you have restored network connection.

Now I would far prefer of people to be informed of the rules and break them knowing the rules than having to punish people for breaking the rules who really had no hope of knowing them.