Fine, I can accept that. Not sure what the proper word to use would be. Deceptive is also close but not really accurate. Under-the-radar ??
My argument about the other middleware is it is necessary to play the game. I would say you are being somewhat disingenuous in relating the two together. The piece of software in question has no use other than in tracking how well their advertising is working. I do not deny it is important to them. However, there is no way it is necessary for that software to be a requirement without them making it that way on purpose. If they were tracking debugging information with it, it would be somewhat plausible. In my opinion, of course as all of this is, there would still be no reason to link performance/debugging with advertising/marketing by a 3rd party.
Fair enough, my initial argument should have been stated as:
"this shouldn't exist on my computer" without my implicit permission.
Under the radar, sure. Which is why I was talking about the other middleware.
I'm not being disingenuous at all, I simply fear you can't look past the implicit bias in anonymous data being a part of your gaming experience vs. something as integral like the physics engine. If this data was somewhat recognisable, I would share your concerns. The fact that I've mentioned technical and first-line support twice now, and you still maintain the only use of this data is for advertising purposes.
You're free to dislike it. You're free to request the opt-out. I don't disagree that there are ways these things could be made more visible. But unfortunately, as I mentioned at the very start of the thread, the law often trails behind on these things. GDPR has been coming for two years and tons of companies still scrambled to do something about it. But when people call it spyware, it's a fundamental misunderstanding - at best. At worst, it's to spread a malicious rumour, as I alluded to in the past. I don't believe this here with you, at all. However, I do think it's more than a misunderstanding. I think it's easier for you to believe that this is bad, or underhanded in some way. And that's fine - we often have personal experiences and stories that back up these misgivings.
But that's why I came into this thread in the first place - to try and inject some discussion around it. Screen resolution, Steam ID, browser version - these are all things that are relevant to both customer and technical support. Why do you think that they're not?
I admit I had to laugh at the statement made that no one can access the data but valve and people using valve's api. I wonder what was said to the banks, defense and corporations that have had their data hacked. I am sure they were all told nobody could access their data. The point for me is that the use should be listed right up front, not buried in legalese (or perhaps both places to satisfy the legal beagles) with the option to opt out. It should never be a requirement to play a game you just paid for.
I'm confused. Is or is not Red Shell's access legitimate?
If you're concerned about a third party hacking, then of course, that's a serious matter. But absolutely nothing to do with Red Shell, and something that can happen to anyone nomatter how good their security is. Again, I raise the example of this forum, if that's something you're worried about. It's your right to be concerned, but I don't think you're applying that concern fairly, here.
You can demand things be listed upfront. You can ask for change. You can attempt to argue what a game does and doesn't need to run. But none of that is was debating (though I seem to have morphed into that last bit over time).
That's a forced interpretation, not reality. "Sneaking" carries a negative implication, but does not imply illegal activity any more than a sneak attack during Civ 6 implies cheating.
It's usage in this context is reasonable. Nobody's doing anything illegal, but at the same time this was implemented in a way people are less likely to notice and requires active effort to avoid if playing Civ 6.
"furtive and contemptible", according to Google. There's no forced interpretation, other than the worldview that
all interpretations are forced because we're likely to side with the specific dictionary definition (of which there are obviously more than one) that we personally agree with. Sneaking is, by your agreement, a negative term. If we load the discussion with these, it doesn't help anyone. The illegal implication is arguable, which is why I called it an inference. Though the person I was talking with has moved on from that, so I'm kinda puzzled at your goal here. Other than to state your agreement with the description of this software we're all talking about, which you could do by simply saying that.
But you've also skipped over all the posts pointing out how other companies do it, and I'm afraid at this stage in the thread given your stated dislike of specific companies, selective behaviour doesn't wash. Other companies doing it doesn't make it morally right, absolutely. But people not caring about something until an incident like this indicates that, again, your perception might be being clouded by bias.
We've had people claim Red Shell could do something unsavoury with the data. We've had people talk about successful hacks on high-profile targets. Rather far-fetched scenarios, honestly. And yet, the best I've gotten in response to "how about these forums" is one person saying "I trust these forums". Data security is an important topic, we should always challenge ourselves on why we criticise some apparent (unproven) violations more than others.
EDIT
I use these forums as an absolute hypothetical, mainly because I was staring at the GDPR-inspired banner for a week or so before I did something with it. There are a billion other examples of services people take for granted that they assume a modicum of trust with. If you're going to argue from the position that you can't, won't, or shouldn't trust this company with your data, you should explain why, using comparative examples.
