> Well, my company uses the internet, but doesn't do internet-based work, so
this permutation didn't occur
> to me. 1) My company has more than enough internet security stuff on our
network to prevent me from
> running EQ altogether; 2) when we work on proprietary or secure data
and/or systems, we do it on
> stand-alone machines and transmit the information on cd-roms via courier;
3) for the same reason, I have a
> stand-alone machine in my own home. Plus, I never play EQ with any other
processes running. Yeah, I'm a
> dinosaur.
Hehehe. I don't either but the potential is there. I have, in the past,
forgotten to turn off my email client or my word application before I launch
EQ. My system is sufficiently powerful (PIII 550 w/384mb RAM, I use 256 meg
of ram as a RAMDRIVE which I have my windows swap file set to ;) ) that if I
leave applications running in the background they don't hinder EQ. I don't
play EQ at work. I think those who do should be shot. Or at least fired so
I Can get their job ;)
> I think Verant is caught between a rock and a hard place here. If they
pull information up to their own
> servers, they get hammered by the arguments you've presented, but if they
deny people access to a service
> that they've paid for without some form of proof, they get sued from the
other side. I'm quite certain
> that the reasons they wanted to pull the data up were to: 1) have proof
if they chose to ban a player and
> 2) give them the ability to review the data to make sure that they weren't
making a mistake. Given the
> number of clients they have, the number of machines that are running EQ at
a given time, and a whole slew
> of practical resource limits, I couldn't pulling much of anything up, and
even if it contained something
> that perhaps it shouldn't have, they wouldn't have the ability to
understand it.
Nope, they could very easily have the client shutdown with a message to the
player to please call Customer Support at Verant. Verant could then work
with the customer to get them back online if they were locked out by
mistake... Having the client shut down when the signature they're looking
for is found is sufficient "proof" for them to lock a customer from the
game.
> Since the point is moot, I'm really just wrestling with the philosophical
and technical implications
> here. I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to get a handle on this.
Technically what they did was take the easy way out (big surprise).
Philosophically they broke a lot of common moral values held by people world
wide. Not to mention really freaked security experts out. Legally they
broke the California Penal Code (someone posted the relevent sections on the
EverQuest message boards, I'm not a lawyer (evidently this guy was)).
I suspect that an earlier message summed it up nicely: They probably got a
Cease and Desist order from the courts.