So female politicians leading a country isn't empowerment of women?
The upperclass has always operated under different rules from general population. We've had queens, emperesses and princesses going back forever in both the west and the east. If female politicians leading a country were a sign of general female empowerment then women have not been repressed since at least the days of Cleopatra.
What pray tell is empowerment of women then?
Economic and social parity with men in the general population.
You mean the one I have specifically referenced multiple times in this and other threads to which you have been responding?
"We reserve the right to disclose your personal information as required by law or in special cases"
Holy shit you are a total moron. Did you even bother to read the rest of that sentence? You know, the part where they limit the special cases in which they will make that disclosure? The list that does not include this situation?
Man you SUCK at betting. This should have been a sure thing - after all you can read can't you? But you made yet another losing bet...
I was really just trying to point out your complete lack of reading comprehension. The anonymous coward seems to have handled it pretty thoroughly, though.
No, not really. Because (A) your argument is completely different from the AC's. You said it was all about the first "or" and that it stopped at the period you invented. He seems to think that one of the clauses AFTER your period applies to this case. And (B) since you are now trying to ride the AC's coattails in order to hide your fuckup, apparently missed my original post where I had already discredited the argument that AC tried to make.
So it seems like the only one with a "complete lack of reading comprehension" here is yourself, the AC at least gets points for reading the whole quote, but no points for failure of critical analysis.
While I suspect we are in ideological agreement, I think citing female politicians as a sign of a country's empowerment of women isn't a terribly hot idea because I can name a couple of contrary cases: Pakistan and Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the Philippines with presidents Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Both countries are very restrictive of their women - although they are both in the grip of different religions.
WOW's TOS is incredibly clear and up front about this; if law enforcement 'requests', they give.
Good find. The problem is that the ToS is modified by their Privacy Policy which phantomfive has already posted - the privacy policy explicitly limits when they will cooperate with law enforcement so that it is not just any old request by law enforcement that will make them bend over, it is a request under certain specific circumstances and none of those circumstances apply in this situation.
criticize all you want, but your suggesting the police strong armed blizzard
Where the hell did you get that from? I am suggesting that Blizzard doesn't give a damn about their responsibilities to their customers.
i'm betting your wrong....
So far, in just this one topic you have made so many obviously incorrect posts - like the taser one - and even your most recent post, see above paragraph, that your track record of bets is a total losing streak.
unable to refute or come up with a decent rebuttal of your own, so your going on the attack (much like a frustrate ape would, ironically)
Lolz. You mean like this: "you ranting reeks of the typical daddy didn't love me enough now i'm going to rebel against everything crap so common these days." Oops, yet another really bad bet you made. You have so little self-awareness it's ridiculous.
blizzrd have never said they will protect your privacy, you've just assumed it.
Gee, here we are in a thread discussing Blizzard's privacy policy, the one where they give a list of special cases where they are allowed to disclose your information and giving it up on a general request by law enforcement was not on the list. Seems like a pretty straightforward promise to me.
in their terms and condidtions they have a clause stating they will co operate with law enforcement.
Even more interesting is that the "Last Updated" date on the Privacy Policy is newer than the Terms of Service (January 14, 2009 versus July 29, 2008). Seems to me that the most current document is the controlling one since Blizzard says they can change the terms of the ToS at anytime.
So I guess that means you are "BAM" out of the game, doesn't it?
Hey dumbshit. Yeah, you ildon, you are a total dumbfuck. Know why?
Because you quoted a period. Yeah, quoting a period makes you a total dumbshit. Because YOU MADE UP THE PERIOD. It is not in the privacy policy.
That whole "BRING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU" is followed by the word "if" NOT a period. None of the clauses that follow the word "IF" apply to this situation. It isn't like Blizzard just listed those clauses as examples, they are restrictions on the "BRING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU" part. Therefore Blizzard did NOT follow their policy to the letter or otherwise.
Now, here is my question to you - did you do that on purpose? Did you think that I had not actually read the entire sentence myself - despite having fully analyzed it over the last couple of comments? Did you think that was going to just slide by and you would convince me by lying? Or are you just an asshole out trolling?
I'm really curious what makes someone like you tick... that they think such a blatant stupidity would even be worth posting? I get phantomfive, he's such a bootlicker he doesn't care about the truth and he's invested a whole lot of posts into denying the truth in this topic so I fully expect him to keep on denying it - he's a hopeless victim of his own cognitive dissonance. But you? You pop in out of nowhere with such an obvious lie that I just gotta wonder what the hell were you thinking?
Maybe you should do homework to find out all the different situations in which majority rule *was* the right way to go instead of choosing only 3 examples of when majority rule did not make sense.
You want him to do your homework? And we are supposed to take you seriously after that?
Here is the quote: W"e reserve the right to disclose your personal information as required by law or in special cases when we have reason to believe that disclosing such information is necessary to identify, contact, or bring legal action against you"
Are you serious? Still trying to do the selective quote thing when I ALREADY quoted the relevant part that shoots your argument down in flames?
Is it possible that you don't understand the meaning of the word "when?"
bottom line is that this data is blizzards to hand over
And the top line is that we have the right to criticize the fuck out of them for doing it.
you ranting reeks of the typical daddy didn't love me enough now i'm going to rebel against everything crap so common these days.
And your ranting reeks of the typical subordinate-male personality that requires a rigid societal hierarchy in order to feel good about themselves. And that mentality goes back to the apes.
It isn't about being afraid of being personally tasered - whether it causes death or is just used for torture. It's about being afraid for the health of our society because of the prevalence of abuse by the people wearing those boots.
I've seen the same thing in Star Wars fan films. Some of them are really quite good and required a huge amount of effort. Had they put that effort into an original story in a vaguely similar universe, they'd own it.
I think it should be obvious that anyone doing fan-fiction of any sort is not interested in "owning it" - no one with even the tiniest sense of the real world expects the sort of monetary gain that can come from rights ownership to occur with fan-fiction. Instead they are looking for the benefits that have little to nothing to do with rights ownership - public accolades from the community and the satisfaction of creating something being at the head of the list.
I want the cops to have as easy a job as possible.
And there we have it. You are fundamentally incompatible with basic American values. A free society does not exist for the convenience of the police.
Its also funny that you've demonstrated once again that you just throw out rationalizations and hope they will stick. After all, I just shot down your entire rationalization of "well their privacy policy said they would do it" so you switched arguments. Instead of being ticked off that Blizzard really did violate the terms of their privacy policy you just rationalized it with yet another authoritarian argument about saving tax dollars.
given that the wow TOS/EULA basically say they will respond to requests from all forms of law enforcement
It does not say that. It isn't like you need to be a lawyer to understand it, all you have to do is keep your attention focused until the end of one lengthy sentence to figure out that this situation does not fit any of cases they list.
Who cares? If the police ask me for help, I'll as likely as not help them.
Who cares? Gee, what did I say in my original response to you? The people who care are those who have implicitly trusted their privacy to Blizzard.
And quit your bullshit with trying to paint me as having some weird fears. Blizzard's customers have an expectation of privacy, your selective quoting of the privacy agreement notwithstanding. We as a society have a process in place that enables the police to get the information they need and companies like blizzard to protect the privacy of their clients - its called a subpoena. There is no need for your red herring about "changing society."
Oh, wait a second. First you said it was a general case, now you are arguing that it is a special case?
That's a laugh. Coupled with your half-quote of the policy, seems like you know exactly why that "special case" clause doesn't apply. Hint - the list of special cases is what you left out and this situation didn't fall under any of them.
Surely you are joking? Almost every country in the world has laws against suicide. In the US it was only a decade or so ago that the last states took felony suicide and attempted suicide laws off the books.
They were upfront about it: it's in the privacy policy. In general it says they won't give out your information to third parties without informing you, but they do make an exception for law enforcement:
Gee, did you even read what you quoted?
It says "required by law" not "make it easy for the cops." There was no valid subpoena, it was just "a politely worded request."
And if you are thinking the last part about "causing injury to... anyone else" is an escape clause - the guy was not causing (present tense) injury, he may have sold illegal drugs in the past, so any possible threat was (a) long past and (b) not a direct result of his actions either as an action simply being illegal does not make it injurious.
Slashdot Mirror
Note: "in response to a request by law enforcement". Pretty clear.
Echo... Echo... Echo...
So female politicians leading a country isn't empowerment of women?
The upperclass has always operated under different rules from general population. We've had queens, emperesses and princesses going back forever in both the west and the east. If female politicians leading a country were a sign of general female empowerment then women have not been repressed since at least the days of Cleopatra.
What pray tell is empowerment of women then?
Economic and social parity with men in the general population.
did you even read the privacy policy?!
You mean the one I have specifically referenced multiple times in this and other threads to which you have been responding?
"We reserve the right to disclose your personal information as required by law or in special cases"
Holy shit you are a total moron. Did you even bother to read the rest of that sentence?
You know, the part where they limit the special cases in which they will make that disclosure?
The list that does not include this situation?
Man you SUCK at betting. This should have been a sure thing - after all you can read can't you? But you made yet another losing bet...
I was really just trying to point out your complete lack of reading comprehension. The anonymous coward seems to have handled it pretty thoroughly, though.
No, not really. Because (A) your argument is completely different from the AC's. You said it was all about the first "or" and that it stopped at the period you invented. He seems to think that one of the clauses AFTER your period applies to this case. And (B) since you are now trying to ride the AC's coattails in order to hide your fuckup, apparently missed my original post where I had already discredited the argument that AC tried to make.
So it seems like the only one with a "complete lack of reading comprehension" here is yourself, the AC at least gets points for reading the whole quote, but no points for failure of critical analysis.
it appears that the reward is roughly 1,172 USD, 1,233 CAD, 725 GBP, or 818 EUR. That number seems much more persuasive.
Is that a typo? Do you mean renminbi? Or something else? I can't figure out what word you could have meant when you wrote "reward."
Maybe you are talking about something like the Big Mac Index?
While I suspect we are in ideological agreement, I think citing female politicians as a sign of a country's empowerment of women isn't a terribly hot idea because I can name a couple of contrary cases: Pakistan and Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the Philippines with presidents Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Both countries are very restrictive of their women - although they are both in the grip of different religions.
WOW's TOS is incredibly clear and up front about this; if law enforcement 'requests', they give.
Good find. The problem is that the ToS is modified by their Privacy Policy which phantomfive has already posted - the privacy policy explicitly limits when they will cooperate with law enforcement so that it is not just any old request by law enforcement that will make them bend over, it is a request under certain specific circumstances and none of those circumstances apply in this situation.
criticize all you want, but your suggesting the police strong armed blizzard
Where the hell did you get that from?
I am suggesting that Blizzard doesn't give a damn about their responsibilities to their customers.
i'm betting your wrong....
So far, in just this one topic you have made so many obviously incorrect posts - like the taser one - and even your most recent post, see above paragraph, that your track record of bets is a total losing streak.
unable to refute or come up with a decent rebuttal of your own, so your going on the attack (much like a frustrate ape would, ironically)
Lolz. You mean like this: "you ranting reeks of the typical daddy didn't love me enough now i'm going to rebel against everything crap so common these days."
Oops, yet another really bad bet you made. You have so little self-awareness it's ridiculous.
blizzrd have never said they will protect your privacy, you've just assumed it.
Gee, here we are in a thread discussing Blizzard's privacy policy, the one where they give a list of special cases where they are allowed to disclose your information and giving it up on a general request by law enforcement was not on the list. Seems like a pretty straightforward promise to me.
in their terms and condidtions they have a clause stating they will co operate with law enforcement.
Ah, so now we have a case where the privacy policy contradicts the terms of use. That's interesting.
Even more interesting is that the "Last Updated" date on the Privacy Policy is newer than the Terms of Service (January 14, 2009 versus July 29, 2008).
Seems to me that the most current document is the controlling one since Blizzard says they can change the terms of the ToS at anytime.
So I guess that means you are "BAM" out of the game, doesn't it?
"Bring legal action against you" *is* the "special case".
Dumbfuck x2.
I see you are here again with the same old bullshit.
Hey dumbshit. Yeah, you ildon, you are a total dumbfuck.
Know why?
Because you quoted a period. Yeah, quoting a period makes you a total dumbshit. Because YOU MADE UP THE PERIOD.
It is not in the privacy policy.
That whole "BRING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU" is followed by the word "if" NOT a period. None of the clauses that follow the word "IF" apply to this situation. It isn't like Blizzard just listed those clauses as examples, they are restrictions on the "BRING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU" part.
Therefore Blizzard did NOT follow their policy to the letter or otherwise.
Now, here is my question to you - did you do that on purpose? Did you think that I had not actually read the entire sentence myself - despite having fully analyzed it over the last couple of comments? Did you think that was going to just slide by and you would convince me by lying? Or are you just an asshole out trolling?
I'm really curious what makes someone like you tick ... that they think such a blatant stupidity would even be worth posting? I get phantomfive, he's such a bootlicker he doesn't care about the truth and he's invested a whole lot of posts into denying the truth in this topic so I fully expect him to keep on denying it - he's a hopeless victim of his own cognitive dissonance. But you? You pop in out of nowhere with such an obvious lie that I just gotta wonder what the hell were you thinking?
Maybe you should do homework to find out all the different situations in which majority rule *was* the right way to go instead of choosing only 3 examples of when majority rule did not make sense.
You want him to do your homework? And we are supposed to take you seriously after that?
without them police have no option other then to shoot,
Sure they do.
It's morons like you who can't distinguish between appropriate use and abuse that just need to sit out of the conversation entirely.
why? subpoena is only required when you refuse the polices request, there's no law against willingly handing over data or information to the police.
Has anyone anywhere in this thread said that what Blizzard did was illegal?
NO.
So drop that lame-ass red herring already, OK?
It isn't about following the law, its about respecting your customers.
Here is the quote: W"e reserve the right to disclose your personal information as required by law or in special cases when we have reason to believe that disclosing such information is necessary to identify, contact, or bring legal action against you"
Are you serious? Still trying to do the selective quote thing when I ALREADY quoted the relevant part that shoots your argument down in flames?
Is it possible that you don't understand the meaning of the word "when?"
bottom line is that this data is blizzards to hand over
And the top line is that we have the right to criticize the fuck out of them for doing it.
you ranting reeks of the typical daddy didn't love me enough now i'm going to rebel against everything crap so common these days.
And your ranting reeks of the typical subordinate-male personality that requires a rigid societal hierarchy in order to feel good about themselves. And that mentality goes back to the apes.
You really are a bootlicker.
It isn't about being afraid of being personally tasered - whether it causes death or is just used for torture.
It's about being afraid for the health of our society because of the prevalence of abuse by the people wearing those boots.
Anyone who has a problem with this should simply not use their services.
... and make as loud a noise as they can about it so that anyone else who shares their sensibilities about privacy will know about it too.
Especially when they disclose this in their terms of service.
Not the case.
I've seen the same thing in Star Wars fan films. Some of them are really quite good and required a huge amount of effort. Had they put that effort into an original story in a vaguely similar universe, they'd own it.
I think it should be obvious that anyone doing fan-fiction of any sort is not interested in "owning it" - no one with even the tiniest sense of the real world expects the sort of monetary gain that can come from rights ownership to occur with fan-fiction. Instead they are looking for the benefits that have little to nothing to do with rights ownership - public accolades from the community and the satisfaction of creating something being at the head of the list.
I want the cops to have as easy a job as possible.
And there we have it. You are fundamentally incompatible with basic American values.
A free society does not exist for the convenience of the police.
Its also funny that you've demonstrated once again that you just throw out rationalizations and hope they will stick.
After all, I just shot down your entire rationalization of "well their privacy policy said they would do it" so you switched arguments.
Instead of being ticked off that Blizzard really did violate the terms of their privacy policy you just rationalized it with yet another authoritarian argument about saving tax dollars.
given that the wow TOS/EULA basically say they will respond to requests from all forms of law enforcement
It does not say that. It isn't like you need to be a lawyer to understand it, all you have to do is keep your attention focused until the end of one lengthy sentence to figure out that this situation does not fit any of cases they list.
Who cares? If the police ask me for help, I'll as likely as not help them.
Who cares? Gee, what did I say in my original response to you?
The people who care are those who have implicitly trusted their privacy to Blizzard.
And quit your bullshit with trying to paint me as having some weird fears. Blizzard's customers have an expectation of privacy, your selective quoting of the privacy agreement notwithstanding. We as a society have a process in place that enables the police to get the information they need and companies like blizzard to protect the privacy of their clients - its called a subpoena. There is no need for your red herring about "changing society."
Oh, wait a second. First you said it was a general case, now you are arguing that it is a special case?
That's a laugh. Coupled with your half-quote of the policy, seems like you know exactly why that "special case" clause doesn't apply.
Hint - the list of special cases is what you left out and this situation didn't fall under any of them.
Since when is killing oneself illegal?
Surely you are joking? Almost every country in the world has laws against suicide. In the US it was only a decade or so ago that the last states took felony suicide and attempted suicide laws off the books.
They were upfront about it: it's in the privacy policy. In general it says they won't give out your information to third parties without informing you, but they do make an exception for law enforcement:
Gee, did you even read what you quoted?
It says "required by law" not "make it easy for the cops."
There was no valid subpoena, it was just "a politely worded request."
And if you are thinking the last part about "causing injury to ... anyone else" is an escape clause - the guy was not causing (present tense) injury, he may have sold illegal drugs in the past, so any possible threat was (a) long past and (b) not a direct result of his actions either as an action simply being illegal does not make it injurious.