It really is not difficult to read the terms of service page. The problem lies in how some of those terms can be interpreted. -----use or distribute cheats,exploits, automation software, bots, hacks mods, or any unauthorized third party software designed to modify any users experience with the service-----Quote:
Originally Posted by mxz
This one seems pretty self explanatory. Extracting user data certainly sounds like exploiting the system to me.
The point being if this is against the tos then why is GREE not saying so and even let a thread stay on the forum to promote it
Bump still waiting on admin response.
Nothing against you, but its obvious you don't understand what's happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Drake
There's a decent amount of people who do and not one thinks this is in the top 10 problems in CC. Like cave man said - the admins know this is happening and haven't nuked the thread like they do with cheat/glitch/hack threads.
With a&f back maybe she can answer this
You sir are solely mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstik
This involves digging to view. Take a car for instance. You can't tell how much oil is in the car, or how clean the engine is, or what modifications have been made to the engine or what's in the trunk WITHOUT opening the hood and trunk. This is not a plain view search as it is NOT in plain view to an officer or anyone average citizen from where he/she stands. Opening the hood or trunk would require one of three things, suspicion, a warrant or the right to do so given by an owner or occupant.
Being that in the terms of service, gree clearly states that they are the sole owner of each character and anything dealing with the game..I haven't seen them give permission to anyone, nor have I seen anything that gives you reasonable suspicion to 'look under the hood', I'm assuming anyone that is doing so has a warrant or is breaking the law.
@OP-
Check your facts and do some research before accusing. Brewskis do not and will not use exploits, cheats, hacks, or any database that could be considered as improper use. And to clarify, we have been and always will be top 25.
AKA - Hacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Evolution
Definition of "hacker" (from wikipedia)- a hacker is someone who seeks and exploits weaknesses in a computer system or computer network.
Secure your game GREE
It's amazing she hasn't yet... Unless GREE is just avoiding this glaring issue altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by cave man kid
Bingo. Now, A&F, post the official word from GREE. Please and thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Drake
Not just mistaken, but "solely mistaken," huh? Your analogy to a car search would be more appropriate if we're talking about the police opening their OWN hood or trunk. I can promise you that if a criminal prosecution in the united states ever hinged on the police doing exactly what we're talking about here, they would not need a warrant to do it, and the reason would be the plain view doctrine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swedevil
actually, the question of plain view in context of electronic data has not been fully resolved by the courts.
an officer would not be using his sight WITHOUT AID to get this info, and as such, it can be argued that its not in plain view.
The open question regarding plain view of electronic data deals with an officer searching a computer for one type of data (drug records) and therefore getting to see every piece of electric data on the system (porn?). If you send a text message to the wrong number and it pops up on a police officer's phone, they don't need a warrant to see it. This is similar. If you don't want me to see data, don't send it unencrypted to my device.
Edit: Also, as a defense attorney I'd love to see the courts limit the plain view doctrine for electronic records, but I really don't think it's as open a question as you think, either. People are making the argument, but good luck. You can't tell an officer to close his eyes when he sees something.
that's not the only open question and this isn't a case of someone sending their info to the wrong place. this is a case of a third-party intercepting data. without digging through all the references to verify, i'd link it to AZ v Hicks (a step has to be performed to make this info plainly visible).
No, it's really not 3rd party data intercepting software. I don't think you know what we're talking about here. The information is sent right to your phone intentionally and unencrypted. You just need to know how to look at it.
Is there a special program that needs to be used to view this info?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstik
Obviously. Software is usually the interface between data packets and people.
So someone developed software to be able to view this info?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dipstik