The only reason not to vote for increased privacy for financial data would be the cost of said legislation to business, government or both. Yet their response is to call for increased lobbying restrictions that presumably will cost the government more money.
Like most here, I think this is an effective demonstration of the ease with which personal information can be obtained, whether on the Interweb or elsewhere. The mere fact that these legislators are reacting so badly to release of fairly benign personal information is probably an indicator that they made a mistake in their voting. If they truly believed in their position they would have looked at this release and shrugged, or even been amused.
Amen, brother. I know Slashdot exists and I *do* care about truly unjust cases of legal attacks on ANYONE (including, obviously, open source developers). Despite that, I will continue buying Blizzard games, both because they're fun and I think that in this case THEY'RE RIGHT.
The developers of Freecraft were, in essence, making a Linux port of a game to which they have NO LEGAL RIGHTS, and to top it off they were even making their intentions clear by naming the game as they did.
You're missing the fundamentals here. If someone releases an RTS game in a medieval setting and calls it *Craft, it's clearly intending to call to mind the Warcraft name and ride those trademarked and copyrighted coat tails. If, on the other hand, someone opens a burger stand and calls their restaurant "Meat Craft" it clearly has nothing to do with the Blizzard video game.
You can continue coming up with similar examples. Taking the above further, if I open a burger joint and my name is Bob McDonald I still can't call my place "Bob McDonald's" because the McDonald's name is already trademarked and it would be argued that I'm trading on the well-known corporate brand. If I instead open a hardware store and call it "Bob McDonald's Hardware" I'm in the clear because I'm not using the name in association with fast food.
"Oh come off it, Blizz has know about freecraft for as long as its existed. You can't employ a company full of programmers that somehow is unaware of the #1 download at sourceforge.net for years running. I'm unclear on why they decided to take action now."
The programmers and others at the company might have been aware of it and not had a problem with it. Once the bigwigs and lawyers (who probably don't hang out at Source Forge) find out, though, that's when something gets done.
"A scary legalistic cease & desist letter" is the way to a) get things done quickly and efficiently and b) establish evidence for a potential court case. Anything else (like an e-mail saying "hey, would you guys mind not doing this project?") would be far too open for interpretation and misunderstandings.
If Firaxis wants to let people have FreeCiv, that's certainly their prerogative. But it's certainly no reason that Blizzard should let someone copy their game.
Of course, this wouldn't be even be considered bad on Slashdot if Warcraft 2 was owned by a small group of Linux developers instead of a big company.
1) You're probably right but there's still time for Microsoft to make a deal and it's certainly possible that the rumor of Xbox-only Ghost could be traced back to those kind of negotiations.
2) What's ridiculous about calling PS3 features "rumors"? The specs haven't been finalized, so ANY predicted features are rumors. That particular entry isn't ridiculous at all. Obvious maybe, but not ridiculous. (I would also note that by your logic all three consoles should have come with some kind of network compatibility since Dreamcast "upped the ante" by including a modem.)
3) You're welcome to deride the idea of console versions of SWG, but the fact is that LucasArts THEMSELVES announced the development of said ports in the past. In their deal with SOE, in fact, they retained the rights to do the console versions themselves while using the code SOE has developed for SWG. It was only recently (just before E3, as I recall) that LucasArts made the announcement that console versions of SWG were on hold while they focus on the PC version.
My take on the SWG issue is that they've likely decided to push the console versions into the next generation so that they can get more bang for their buck - by this, I mean that if they did 2004 releases on PS2 and Xbox versions (the consoles previously announced - Gamecube was left out) they could have as little as 18 months' worth of subscriptions before the next console generation is released (note that the only date I've seen so far is Microsoft predicting a 2006 Japanese release of Xbox Next while not mentioning a US timetable). Add in the X-factor of the PS2 hard drive and how well it's going to be received stateside (which will be the biggest market for SWG), and it makes said release even more iffy.
In short, IGN isn't being ridiculous at all. They've merely tried to firm up or discount rumors. I consider it a laudable endeavor and something that should probably be a regular feature.
Nifty. I've never seen anything like that but it certainly does answer that question that hasn't been nagging me at all: Why are there holes in power plugs?:)
I see nothing in the article (and nothing on the company's website) about how this product would prevent the youngster from unplugging the device from the unit and then plugging it into the wall. I assume that there's some sort of locking mechanism that prevents access to the power plug.
Apart from the above, what about multi-TV households? I suspect that any family ready to blow $70 on a device like this has multiple televisions and would need one of these devices on each one. If only one is attached then, of course, the product can easily be evaded by moving to another TV.
Realistically, the only way this product works effectively (if only one is bought) is in stopping kids from using their console (again assuming that there is a locking mechanism as described in my first paragraph). They can still vegetate in front of one of the TVs in the house, and frankly I would find that more disturbing were I a parent than having the kid playing video games (at least their brain is engaged with the latter).
I guess there's one more way this could work, and that's by integrating the idea into televisions and consoles themselves. Then, parents could simply choose to buy only components wtih the card access technology. Otherwise, there are just too many ways around it, and by the time the child is old enough to play videogames they're going to have the ability to evade the system.
--Note that all of the above assumes that the concept is a "healthy" idea in terms of parenting which is another argument entirely.
I really hope that when EQ2 comes out they'll say "$20 a month for SWG & EQ & EQ2"
It's already been announced that they aren't going to do that. They have the all-you-can-eat deal that applies to the other SOE (Sony Online Entertainment) games (including EQ, EQ2, EQOA and Planetside) but they specifically stated that it will not apply to SWG. I figure it's partially because they have a specific amount per subscriber that they have to kick back to LucasArts and partially because they know that people are going to be willing to pay extra for a Star Wars MMOG.
I mean, damn. People are too scared now of unemployment.
People bloody well should be scared of unemployment. Not making money in a capitalist society is not usually a pleasant ride unless you're in the clergy (even then, a great many members of the clergy have to get day jobs). Add into that the fact that the majority of people will eventually be married and have kids. Unemployment isn't a real option if you've got to pay for rent/mortgage, utilities, etc. and then maintain the expense of children on top of all that.
All that being said, sure you can get good jobs even with visible tattoos or "odd" piercings (odd to me means anything visible and not in the ear). But if you're looking for a job, especially your first job, why borrow trouble? Wait until you have a real resume and then start "expressing yourself." Then again, it's far more likely you'll realize that getting a tattoo or "odd" piercing is a silly way to express oneself and be happy that you never did it.
If the above sounds old-fashioned, oh well. To me, unless you're designing the jewelry or applying the tattoo yourself it's not really self-expression. After all, the canvas doesn't express itself (except in the most abstract, metaphorical terms) when someone paints on it.
Furthermore, I still contend that the purchase of Rare was a mistake. Rare is most certainly a great company...however, I wonder how much Microsoft is going to let Rare be Rare. Just a thought.
If you mean letting Rare be Rare by making good games, I'm sure that Microsoft is not only letting them but encouraging them to do so. If you mean letting them get the game just right instead of rushing, I'd suggest taking a look at other MS development teams and recent history - Crimson Skies was allowed to slip in order to make the game better (Xbox Live style) and they let Halo 2 slip into next year when Bungie indicated they didn't feel comfortable getting the game they want to make out by Christmas. To put it simply, there's no evidence that Microsoft has pressured anyone to rush out an inferior product (some maintain that Halo was rushed but I don't believe that was an inferior product) since they learned their lesson with Unreal Championship - while Microsoft has published some inferior games (Tao Feng for example) I don't think rushing was involved.
Fable and Halo 2 do not a system make. Of course, MS tends to want to put games like that silly volleyball game or Tao Feng on the same level. Whatever that means.
There's nothing wrong with a console manufacturer being an advocate for any and all games available for their system. It's the responsibility of players and game reviewers to separate the wheat from the chaff. The console manufacturers don't care what games their players buy except in terms of making exclusivity deals and deciding what to develop in-house - and that's as it should be.
I hate replying to myself, but I have this side-note: I think it far more likely that, considering the development costs associated with current video games, fewer games will end up being developed in the future, or there will be a LOT more standardization in terms of graphic engines and other portable code. We'll just have to hope that those fewer games include the really good games and not the really average/bad games.
I didn't see a single thing in that article that points to higher prices coming for video games besides the opinion of one marketing analyst. The articles says that this guy "has been tracking some of the biggest players in the industry." Yeah, and so have I. And MY tracking indicates that not only is there no evidence that prices are going to go up (they've remained static for YEARS) but there's every possibility that prices could go down (as an example, I bought GTA Vice City in its first week at $40).
MY analysis, were I so bold as to make one, would including looking at a similar industry and the trends there: VHS/DVD sales. Specifically, when pre-recorded VHS movies hit the market, they were sold entirely for the purpose of rental. The prices would start at around $50 and peak at around $100 per copy. Once enough people had VCRs and production costs for VHS tapes had dropped enough, movie studios took a look at the market and wondered if they could actually get people to BUY the movies. ET debuts at $20 (discounted soon after to $15) and just about everybody ran out and got a copy. Seeing that they had something there, everyone started jumping on the bandwagon. By the time DVDs started their meteoric rise BRAND NEW VHS movies could be had for $10-15 a piece and bargain bins were filled with videos between $5-10 each. DVD has followed suit, though much faster because of the incredibly rapid adoption of the format by consumers.
Even more on point, one could look at the prices of Atari 2600 games. Those prices dropped significantly once the 2600 reached a critical mass where just about everybody had one - and those were on cartridges which are more expensive to produce than DVDs. (Prices also fell when the video game market went to pot but we'll ignore that here.)
If we then look at video games, it's clear that a similar result is on the horizon. While it's unlikely that top-flight games are going to drop as low as $20 a piece (they don't get box office revenues like movies do), the number of consoles in use today is so much larger than it ever has been that even a bad PS2 game can sell 50,000 units ($2.5 million retail) in the US and great games can sell into the millions. If console makers ever manage to understand the potential benefits, they could all change their royalty structures (as Nintendo recently has) and a $10 price drop across the board could end up spurring even more sales. A $10 price increase, on the other hand, will likely show an even more significant negative effect.
Obviously, I'm no market analyst so you can take my thoughts and words with a grain of salt. But I certainly wouldn't give any more weight to the ideas of a single market analyst (and a writer who was probably desperate for a story and happened to see a press release) who, unless he has access to actual top executives who are TELLING HIM that prices are going to go up, is also just talking out his ass.
If prices do happen to go up $10, I expect that they'll drop right back down once they see what I expect will be a chilling result on sell-through.
It seems ironic to me that the program being used to backdoor into the Gamecube is a game which has a) been around for years now and should in theory be tight as a drum at this point and b) been all but ruined in its past incarnation on the Dreamcast by cheating - something Sega apparently STILL hasn't seen fit to address.
Seat belt laws have been around quite a while. What "unforeseen negative consequences" have resulted from them? Besides taking money out of the pockets of dimwits, I can't think of any myself.
...the way they think is diffirent from here (EU/US) and it is quite obvious that GTA3 will do badly there for pointless violence (as mentioned before) is not really their thing.
Two things stick out to me in your post:
1. Most citizens of the EU would resent being lumped in with the US and vice versa - it's not just nationalism (continentism?) as we're very different from each other in many ways.
2. "Pointless violence"? The violence in GTA3 is only as "pointless" as you want it to be. If you follow the missions, the violence advances the plot and therefore cannot be called "pointless."
I feel compelled to note as well that I've killed far more living things in each of the many Japanese RPGs I've played than in the GTA series. I could even argue that much of the violence in those games is just as pointless at times since oftentimes the only reason I was still fighting was to get a couple more experience points.
We'll see how it plays out, but if it sells well in Japan (being a very non-Japanese style game, which I admit freely) it will cement itself as one of the best (as opposed to simply one of the best-selling) video games ever produced.
I think any lack of over-reaction on privacy matters sets the bad example of saying that intrusions into privacy are OK.
And I think that over-reacting to things that are NOT intrusions into privacy by saying that they ARE sets a bad example. Even worse, it sets up the Chicken Little syndrome where even if there really is an intrusion into privacy down the road nobody will pay attention because they've heard it all before and nothing happened.
Again, there was no intrusion into privacy here and I don't see anything in this that sets us up for anything sinister in the future.
So disconnect the thing. There's no law on the books compelling you to have one of these EDR devices in your car.
Of course, I disagree with you mainly because you're making a false assumption. Specifically, you mentioned that if police wiretap you without a warrant that would be wrong. Good, great. By the same token, though, aren't they going to have to get a warrant to inspect your EDR (or anything else in your car, for that matter)? True, if a law is put on the books that states the police can take the data from your EDR anytime they want, that would be wrong. But this story shows no evidence of that. In this case, the car was involved in a fatal accident - that means that automatically the entire car is potentially evidence of a crime and that everything in it (by virtue of "probable cause") is subject to search.
I think that any outry over privacy springing from this is an over-reaction.
By that logic, the pound of cocaine found in a freezer as a result of a valid search warrant would be considered as self-incrimination. After all, the freezer was your property, right? Even more on point would be claiming your rights were violated because they recovered a videotape from your home security system that showed you murdering your wife.
The fifth amendment was written (and has been interpreted through the years) to cover your "right to remain silent." In other words, you can't be compelled to confess to a crime. If your own property is evidence that you've committed a crime that's another matter entirely.
I might go along with you, except that those games cover many gaming genres: Third-person action/adventure, FPS, puzzles, space combat, rail shooter, real-time strategy, racing, etc. Further, your PC list covers a much bigger time period than the others (in what I assume was an effort to pad your post and make your point) - anyone shopping for games today (in a CompUSA for example) wouldn't find half the games in that list.
Further, the differences between generations of Star Wars games are quite significant. The difference between the first and last X-Wing games on the PC, for example, is huge (heck, the difference between X-Wing and Tie Fighter was huge, besides the obvious). The Street Fighter series, on the other hand, has such slight differences between versions that it would take real knowledge and play time to tell the difference between Street Fighter 2 and Street Fighter 3.
If the EDR in question took audio and video, plus your speed, plus the status of your seatbelts, etc. and transmitted all that in real-time to some central authority, you might have something. Since it doesn't, you're in Hyperboleville (population growing every day).
All of what you say is probably true, but the data gleaned from the EDR in any case wouldn't exist in a vacuum. If there are other factors in the mix, that's why you have a lawyer to point those things out.
Do you then think that they shouldn't have the right to inspect the rest of the car after the accident? After all, it's YOUR front bumper, so why should they be able to use it to "make [their] job easier" in convicting you?
Until there's some kind of requirement to have these devices in every car and then subsequently the authorities start pulling data on a routine basis off without a search warrant, IMO there's nothing consitutionally interesting here. This isn't about "acquiring data on citizens" in some sort of sinister context - it's acquiring data regarding the conditions of a fatal car accident.
If driving without a seatbelt is illegal, why shouldn't you be ticketed?
My take is that these EDRs are just fine as long as they stop short of audio/video snooping and transmitting real-time data, and as long as a defendant has the opportunity to have the equipment analyzed themselves to make sure the thing isn't screwing up - particularly important in very serious cases like the one described. The devices are simply reporting objective data and doing so after the fact. Presumably, a police officer would need a search warrant to examine the data (for anything short of a serious accident where inspection of the entire vehicle would be automatic), thus civil liberties are ostensibly left intact.
As for insurance companies requiring them, where's the benefit? When it comes down to it, I'm sure they would rather have their expensive lawyers talking about "reasonable doubt" instead of having real data shoved down their throats. The only possible benefit would be the ability to scan the device regularly and increase insurance premiums if they find that you're speeding a lot - something the courts would squash quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Like most here, I think this is an effective demonstration of the ease with which personal information can be obtained, whether on the Interweb or elsewhere. The mere fact that these legislators are reacting so badly to release of fairly benign personal information is probably an indicator that they made a mistake in their voting. If they truly believed in their position they would have looked at this release and shrugged, or even been amused.
The developers of Freecraft were, in essence, making a Linux port of a game to which they have NO LEGAL RIGHTS, and to top it off they were even making their intentions clear by naming the game as they did.
Go Blizzard (and Vivendi).
You can continue coming up with similar examples. Taking the above further, if I open a burger joint and my name is Bob McDonald I still can't call my place "Bob McDonald's" because the McDonald's name is already trademarked and it would be argued that I'm trading on the well-known corporate brand. If I instead open a hardware store and call it "Bob McDonald's Hardware" I'm in the clear because I'm not using the name in association with fast food.
The programmers and others at the company might have been aware of it and not had a problem with it. Once the bigwigs and lawyers (who probably don't hang out at Source Forge) find out, though, that's when something gets done.
"A scary legalistic cease & desist letter" is the way to a) get things done quickly and efficiently and b) establish evidence for a potential court case. Anything else (like an e-mail saying "hey, would you guys mind not doing this project?") would be far too open for interpretation and misunderstandings.
If Firaxis wants to let people have FreeCiv, that's certainly their prerogative. But it's certainly no reason that Blizzard should let someone copy their game.
Of course, this wouldn't be even be considered bad on Slashdot if Warcraft 2 was owned by a small group of Linux developers instead of a big company.
2) What's ridiculous about calling PS3 features "rumors"? The specs haven't been finalized, so ANY predicted features are rumors. That particular entry isn't ridiculous at all. Obvious maybe, but not ridiculous. (I would also note that by your logic all three consoles should have come with some kind of network compatibility since Dreamcast "upped the ante" by including a modem.)
3) You're welcome to deride the idea of console versions of SWG, but the fact is that LucasArts THEMSELVES announced the development of said ports in the past. In their deal with SOE, in fact, they retained the rights to do the console versions themselves while using the code SOE has developed for SWG. It was only recently (just before E3, as I recall) that LucasArts made the announcement that console versions of SWG were on hold while they focus on the PC version.
My take on the SWG issue is that they've likely decided to push the console versions into the next generation so that they can get more bang for their buck - by this, I mean that if they did 2004 releases on PS2 and Xbox versions (the consoles previously announced - Gamecube was left out) they could have as little as 18 months' worth of subscriptions before the next console generation is released (note that the only date I've seen so far is Microsoft predicting a 2006 Japanese release of Xbox Next while not mentioning a US timetable). Add in the X-factor of the PS2 hard drive and how well it's going to be received stateside (which will be the biggest market for SWG), and it makes said release even more iffy.
In short, IGN isn't being ridiculous at all. They've merely tried to firm up or discount rumors. I consider it a laudable endeavor and something that should probably be a regular feature.
Nifty. I've never seen anything like that but it certainly does answer that question that hasn't been nagging me at all: Why are there holes in power plugs? :)
Apart from the above, what about multi-TV households? I suspect that any family ready to blow $70 on a device like this has multiple televisions and would need one of these devices on each one. If only one is attached then, of course, the product can easily be evaded by moving to another TV.
Realistically, the only way this product works effectively (if only one is bought) is in stopping kids from using their console (again assuming that there is a locking mechanism as described in my first paragraph). They can still vegetate in front of one of the TVs in the house, and frankly I would find that more disturbing were I a parent than having the kid playing video games (at least their brain is engaged with the latter).
I guess there's one more way this could work, and that's by integrating the idea into televisions and consoles themselves. Then, parents could simply choose to buy only components wtih the card access technology. Otherwise, there are just too many ways around it, and by the time the child is old enough to play videogames they're going to have the ability to evade the system.
--Note that all of the above assumes that the concept is a "healthy" idea in terms of parenting which is another argument entirely.
It's already been announced that they aren't going to do that. They have the all-you-can-eat deal that applies to the other SOE (Sony Online Entertainment) games (including EQ, EQ2, EQOA and Planetside) but they specifically stated that it will not apply to SWG. I figure it's partially because they have a specific amount per subscriber that they have to kick back to LucasArts and partially because they know that people are going to be willing to pay extra for a Star Wars MMOG.
People bloody well should be scared of unemployment. Not making money in a capitalist society is not usually a pleasant ride unless you're in the clergy (even then, a great many members of the clergy have to get day jobs). Add into that the fact that the majority of people will eventually be married and have kids. Unemployment isn't a real option if you've got to pay for rent/mortgage, utilities, etc. and then maintain the expense of children on top of all that.
All that being said, sure you can get good jobs even with visible tattoos or "odd" piercings (odd to me means anything visible and not in the ear). But if you're looking for a job, especially your first job, why borrow trouble? Wait until you have a real resume and then start "expressing yourself." Then again, it's far more likely you'll realize that getting a tattoo or "odd" piercing is a silly way to express oneself and be happy that you never did it.
If the above sounds old-fashioned, oh well. To me, unless you're designing the jewelry or applying the tattoo yourself it's not really self-expression. After all, the canvas doesn't express itself (except in the most abstract, metaphorical terms) when someone paints on it.
If you mean letting Rare be Rare by making good games, I'm sure that Microsoft is not only letting them but encouraging them to do so. If you mean letting them get the game just right instead of rushing, I'd suggest taking a look at other MS development teams and recent history - Crimson Skies was allowed to slip in order to make the game better (Xbox Live style) and they let Halo 2 slip into next year when Bungie indicated they didn't feel comfortable getting the game they want to make out by Christmas. To put it simply, there's no evidence that Microsoft has pressured anyone to rush out an inferior product (some maintain that Halo was rushed but I don't believe that was an inferior product) since they learned their lesson with Unreal Championship - while Microsoft has published some inferior games (Tao Feng for example) I don't think rushing was involved.
Fable and Halo 2 do not a system make. Of course, MS tends to want to put games like that silly volleyball game or Tao Feng on the same level. Whatever that means.
There's nothing wrong with a console manufacturer being an advocate for any and all games available for their system. It's the responsibility of players and game reviewers to separate the wheat from the chaff. The console manufacturers don't care what games their players buy except in terms of making exclusivity deals and deciding what to develop in-house - and that's as it should be.
I hate replying to myself, but I have this side-note: I think it far more likely that, considering the development costs associated with current video games, fewer games will end up being developed in the future, or there will be a LOT more standardization in terms of graphic engines and other portable code. We'll just have to hope that those fewer games include the really good games and not the really average/bad games.
MY analysis, were I so bold as to make one, would including looking at a similar industry and the trends there: VHS/DVD sales. Specifically, when pre-recorded VHS movies hit the market, they were sold entirely for the purpose of rental. The prices would start at around $50 and peak at around $100 per copy. Once enough people had VCRs and production costs for VHS tapes had dropped enough, movie studios took a look at the market and wondered if they could actually get people to BUY the movies. ET debuts at $20 (discounted soon after to $15) and just about everybody ran out and got a copy. Seeing that they had something there, everyone started jumping on the bandwagon. By the time DVDs started their meteoric rise BRAND NEW VHS movies could be had for $10-15 a piece and bargain bins were filled with videos between $5-10 each. DVD has followed suit, though much faster because of the incredibly rapid adoption of the format by consumers.
Even more on point, one could look at the prices of Atari 2600 games. Those prices dropped significantly once the 2600 reached a critical mass where just about everybody had one - and those were on cartridges which are more expensive to produce than DVDs. (Prices also fell when the video game market went to pot but we'll ignore that here.)
If we then look at video games, it's clear that a similar result is on the horizon. While it's unlikely that top-flight games are going to drop as low as $20 a piece (they don't get box office revenues like movies do), the number of consoles in use today is so much larger than it ever has been that even a bad PS2 game can sell 50,000 units ($2.5 million retail) in the US and great games can sell into the millions. If console makers ever manage to understand the potential benefits, they could all change their royalty structures (as Nintendo recently has) and a $10 price drop across the board could end up spurring even more sales. A $10 price increase, on the other hand, will likely show an even more significant negative effect.
Obviously, I'm no market analyst so you can take my thoughts and words with a grain of salt. But I certainly wouldn't give any more weight to the ideas of a single market analyst (and a writer who was probably desperate for a story and happened to see a press release) who, unless he has access to actual top executives who are TELLING HIM that prices are going to go up, is also just talking out his ass.
If prices do happen to go up $10, I expect that they'll drop right back down once they see what I expect will be a chilling result on sell-through.
It seems ironic to me that the program being used to backdoor into the Gamecube is a game which has a) been around for years now and should in theory be tight as a drum at this point and b) been all but ruined in its past incarnation on the Dreamcast by cheating - something Sega apparently STILL hasn't seen fit to address.
Seat belt laws have been around quite a while. What "unforeseen negative consequences" have resulted from them? Besides taking money out of the pockets of dimwits, I can't think of any myself.
Two things stick out to me in your post:
1. Most citizens of the EU would resent being lumped in with the US and vice versa - it's not just nationalism (continentism?) as we're very different from each other in many ways.
2. "Pointless violence"? The violence in GTA3 is only as "pointless" as you want it to be. If you follow the missions, the violence advances the plot and therefore cannot be called "pointless."
I feel compelled to note as well that I've killed far more living things in each of the many Japanese RPGs I've played than in the GTA series. I could even argue that much of the violence in those games is just as pointless at times since oftentimes the only reason I was still fighting was to get a couple more experience points.
We'll see how it plays out, but if it sells well in Japan (being a very non-Japanese style game, which I admit freely) it will cement itself as one of the best (as opposed to simply one of the best-selling) video games ever produced.
And I think that over-reacting to things that are NOT intrusions into privacy by saying that they ARE sets a bad example. Even worse, it sets up the Chicken Little syndrome where even if there really is an intrusion into privacy down the road nobody will pay attention because they've heard it all before and nothing happened.
Again, there was no intrusion into privacy here and I don't see anything in this that sets us up for anything sinister in the future.
Of course, I disagree with you mainly because you're making a false assumption. Specifically, you mentioned that if police wiretap you without a warrant that would be wrong. Good, great. By the same token, though, aren't they going to have to get a warrant to inspect your EDR (or anything else in your car, for that matter)? True, if a law is put on the books that states the police can take the data from your EDR anytime they want, that would be wrong. But this story shows no evidence of that. In this case, the car was involved in a fatal accident - that means that automatically the entire car is potentially evidence of a crime and that everything in it (by virtue of "probable cause") is subject to search.
I think that any outry over privacy springing from this is an over-reaction.
The fifth amendment was written (and has been interpreted through the years) to cover your "right to remain silent." In other words, you can't be compelled to confess to a crime. If your own property is evidence that you've committed a crime that's another matter entirely.
Further, the differences between generations of Star Wars games are quite significant. The difference between the first and last X-Wing games on the PC, for example, is huge (heck, the difference between X-Wing and Tie Fighter was huge, besides the obvious). The Street Fighter series, on the other hand, has such slight differences between versions that it would take real knowledge and play time to tell the difference between Street Fighter 2 and Street Fighter 3.
If the EDR in question took audio and video, plus your speed, plus the status of your seatbelts, etc. and transmitted all that in real-time to some central authority, you might have something. Since it doesn't, you're in Hyperboleville (population growing every day).
All of what you say is probably true, but the data gleaned from the EDR in any case wouldn't exist in a vacuum. If there are other factors in the mix, that's why you have a lawyer to point those things out.
Until there's some kind of requirement to have these devices in every car and then subsequently the authorities start pulling data on a routine basis off without a search warrant, IMO there's nothing consitutionally interesting here. This isn't about "acquiring data on citizens" in some sort of sinister context - it's acquiring data regarding the conditions of a fatal car accident.
My take is that these EDRs are just fine as long as they stop short of audio/video snooping and transmitting real-time data, and as long as a defendant has the opportunity to have the equipment analyzed themselves to make sure the thing isn't screwing up - particularly important in very serious cases like the one described. The devices are simply reporting objective data and doing so after the fact. Presumably, a police officer would need a search warrant to examine the data (for anything short of a serious accident where inspection of the entire vehicle would be automatic), thus civil liberties are ostensibly left intact.
As for insurance companies requiring them, where's the benefit? When it comes down to it, I'm sure they would rather have their expensive lawyers talking about "reasonable doubt" instead of having real data shoved down their throats. The only possible benefit would be the ability to scan the device regularly and increase insurance premiums if they find that you're speeding a lot - something the courts would squash quickly.