These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Hide your ISK, Team Security is out of control. (Allegedly)

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#321 - 2013-02-12 17:17:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:

If you read my posts you might have noticed that I am not defending the botter.

My posts centered around three issues

(1) CCP IA being part of the security team rather than standing outside the company's regular hierarchies. As I pointed out before it is standard to have Internal Investigations report directly to the board of directors, CCP having their IA team report to some middle management dude is highly unusual and highlights the weak position of CCP IA.
CCP Sreegs chose to address this point with ridicule implying that employees at other companies (who follow best practices) are "unemployable" and not trustworthy.


Having worked in internal investigations for over a decade at very large companies I can inform you from experience that this statement is patently false in common practice. I've actually never even heard of this scenario, though I agree with its spirit.

I'll admit that primarily reading case studies (rather than having first-hand experience) can easily make you take the exception for the norm v.v

The idea that IA should be the board's watchdog is due to (a) the shareholders' equity being ultimately at stake and (b) management often being tacitly complicit in malpractice (as long as is profitable and leaves them room for plausible denial).

(the recent tax fraud scandal at Deutsche Bank is a good example for the role of IA as their internal investigations team had been unsuccessfully racing to uncover the scheme [and contain the damage] before the prosecutor's office could do so; now Deutsche's top management is under investigation for signing off on fraudulent reports and very possibly having been aware of the fraud.
Their Head of Internal Audit and Head of Compliance report to the Supervisory Board's Audit Committee btw to ensure independence from the Managing Board. Also Internal Audit's budget must not be touched by the Managing Board without the Audit Committee signing off on the change.)

I am speculating here but I guess that CCP IA suffers from being established in reaction to relatively minor, and, most importantly, in-game incident. If it had been established in reaction to, say, an Executive funneling money out of the company its standing would probably be quite different. Currently they seem to be perceived as glorified GMs.

On the other hand (and to stay realistic) it is great that CCP has an internal affairs team at all - it seems to be very hard to establish that sort of department in small and medium-sized companies as its mere existence is often taken as a personal slight by employees and management alike.

.
Dante Uisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#322 - 2013-02-12 17:19:23 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:

So, what I'm getting from this is :

Sreegs considers cache scraping "illegal" but it really isn't, according to the EULA because nothing is modified.

So, carry on because he would have to ban everyone who uses EVEMon, everyone who uses EVE-Central, etc.

Which is pretty absurd.

Tells me all I really need to know about CCP Security.


We are allowed to use the cache files, because CCP allows it i don't think it has much to do with the EULA.

If CCP decided to encrypt the cache files and make it impossible to use them, you could not claim you had any right to do so because of the EULA.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#323 - 2013-02-12 17:22:40 UTC
Finalgear wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:


While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.



I believe if CCP had a perfect track record, most pilots would not be here asking for proof of the botting allegations.
(As the methods I've read about being used by John were not in fact 'botting' by definition, but were using quick copy and pasting at its best.)

Transparency is paramount, the now removed ISK means nothing in light of possible recurring corruption, and selective oversight after the matter is brought in to question.


If CCP had a perfect track record I would be more inclined to ask WTF was happening behind the scenes. It's the same logic I use when I go looking for my kids because they're "too quiet".

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Karbox Delacroix
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#324 - 2013-02-12 17:23:20 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Mai Khumm wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Frankly we're a bit disturbed by the allegations made here given that the person in question waited until they exhausted every resource possible prior to posting this then lamented the lack of an escalation path. Not getting the answer you like isn't a lack of an escalation path and never will be.


With this games interesting.......history, do you REALLY blame half the allegations made. I mean, all of them, not just in this thread.


While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.


*cough* Hydra/Reloaded *cough* AT *cough* Holding an investigation and saying your decision stands regardless of the outcomes of the investigation *cough*
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#325 - 2013-02-12 17:24:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Callie Cross wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Callie Cross wrote:

A private convo between CCP and Kelduum (who was involved directly) isn't the masses. This issue has now been brought to the masses because this very basic and simple information wasn't conveyed in the first place. It's unnecessary, pure and simple.

Despite what he apparently thinks, Kelduum is indeed "one of the masses" and is not entitled to full disclosure of information on sensitive security matters.
Blink
This is actually the root of the problem.



You are forgetting the tiny "300 billion ISK" transaction that landed Kelduum's lap. That kind of made him part of the "matter".


Not in any way that entitled him to more information than he has received. So no, I do not forget the isk involved.

If illegal isk were deposited in your or my wallet, we would have gotten the same brief response and the isk would have still be removed. Kelduum was not satisfied with that because of his "connections".

Being the recipient of illegally obtained isk does not entitle you to full disclosure, nor should it ever.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#326 - 2013-02-12 17:24:44 UTC
Well done Screegs.

Keep up the good work.

And go drink those beers, they are not getting any colder.

Senex Legio
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#327 - 2013-02-12 17:29:45 UTC
Markku Laaksonen wrote:


EULAs are not legally binding documents in America.


The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (part of the DHS) would disagree with you.

Quote from http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/EULA.pdf
Quote:

EULAs are legally binding. Some consumer advocates have challenged the legality
of EULAs, especially long agreements clouded in complicated “legalese.” The
advocates argue these EULAs are a strategy for discouraging careful review and
hiding controversial terms and conditions. However, a number of influential court
decisions have upheld the legality of EULAs, so you need to assume you’re entering
into legal agreements when you accept their terms.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
#328 - 2013-02-12 17:35:59 UTC
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#329 - 2013-02-12 17:38:15 UTC
Tisisan wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Tisisan wrote:
What scares me here is that it really looks like a player can 1) question a the legality of an action publicly, 2) get an official ccp response saying its ok, 3) do said action, and 4) get banhammered by CCP Screegs who doesn't give a **** what the rest of the company thinks, then laughed at and mocked when you question it.

That's a pretty crappy way to do business.


No, its a case of the dirty isk went away and people want it back so will try every way possible to get it back even if it means publicly trying to attack CCP into a corner.


I don't care about eve-uni, in fact i find it funny that they've been screwed in all of this. But you need to stop licking long enough to actually read what Screegs is saying, then you might be a little concerned too.



I have. I am not concerned at all with CCP. The people kicking up a fuss over this however are sparking my curiosity into finding out why they are trying so hard to discredit our bot hunters in such a clear cut case.
Arcaus Rotrau Romali
Empyrean Enterprise Conglomerate
#330 - 2013-02-12 17:38:57 UTC
Very interesting thread.

Also, thank you to the people who posted a few useful tips such as using the scroll wheel to adjust prices and the 000 button on the calculator.
Callie Cross
Tax Code
#331 - 2013-02-12 17:39:55 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

If illegal isk were deposited in your or my wallet, we would have gotten the same breif response and the isk would have still be removed.


And you and I (as well as Kelduum or anyone else) would still have a right and reasonable expectation to ask "is all 300b illegal, can some still be saved?" and not be shut out of the process entirely.


Ranger 1 wrote:

Kelduum was not satisfied with that because of his "connections".



That's speculation and your personal opinion, and you seem a bit tilted. Show me the parts of the post that support this claim.

Ranger 1 wrote:


Being the recipient of illegally obtained isk does not entitle you to full disclosure, nor should it ever.



Again... I'm not asking for full disclosure. I just believe that amount of ISK deserves more than a one liner or canned response. The response that was provided in this thread was more than enough, and did not in any way disclose how he was botting, how they caught him etc.

Kelduum posted as much as he could and said that he wasn't receiving much information back. I don't think it's "entitlement" to ask simple questions in this matter. We are not "entitled" by having read CCP Sreegs responses in this thread. He replied to my statements saying that he said all this to Kelduum. Kelduum says in his original post that he didn't get that information.

In the end it seems that it's word against word. Did CCP Sreegs just say "we don't discuss this with 3rd parties"? Instead of taking the time to mention the few lines he said here? (Which doesn't give away any priveldged info) Or did Kelduum get the full story then go through all of this just to stir up drama?

I know who I believe... You make your choice.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#332 - 2013-02-12 17:42:31 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Zakarumit CZ wrote:
I would like to see much more bot tiers, but oh well.
Anyway, as per using cache files for eve central or so, I would love to pull those mineral and module prices via API from CCP...problem is its not possible yet and I personally dont feel like typing 500-1000 numbers in my spreadsheets every day to see whats worth building manually. Smile


At least you have spreadsheets. With BCs manufacturing tool now broken and not looking like its going to be fixed I might have to see just how much spreadsheet voodoo I can remember from schoolUgh



Depends what you want, really.

http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/blueprints/ will do all the math for you.


What's "BC" tool? I always used EvE Meep and another very famous manufacturing Excel File. I am always open to learn more P

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#333 - 2013-02-12 17:42:31 UTC
Callie Cross wrote:


Again... I'm not asking for full disclosure. I just believe that amount of ISK deserves more than a one liner or canned response.


Why do people in possession of more ISK deserve more thorough treatment than anyone else? As long as they were being treated equitably to other people in this situation, that's all they have the right to expect.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#334 - 2013-02-12 17:44:14 UTC

Wow there are a lot of entitled people in this thread.

I worked in customer services once, you'd be amazed at how many customers assumed there "is a law" that means you can speak to my manager. There isn't, any company who has an escalation path for a customer or it's staff to follow is a business decision, not a legal right.

If there wasn't an escalation process at all, this would be fine, there doesn't need to be one. However what would happen is you would risk dissatisfied customers when mistakes were made which would have a larger business impact, so you put one in place allowing experienced management to review issues that are potentially not settled correctly. What it is NOT there for is for you to "escalate" higher and higher until you speak to the CEO.

I don't know or care about this individual, and I'll probably never know the true "facts", however EVE is a product just like everything else, if you feel they have broken the law or whatever and there is a regulator, sure complain to them. However having crap company policies (if that is your opinion of what they are) isn't something you can force them to change.

Oh and Sreegs, in terms of an independent IA function it entirely depends on what the team is responsible for. I work in Internal Audit currently (mostly auditing risks) and we report ultimately into the finance director, but we also have a Security team in the company (who we audit) who deal with actual investigations, who also reports to the finance director. Ideally we'd have the security team report into the finance director, audit reports into the Risk director and then the audit team is externally audited periodically.

I don't know if CCP has an internal audit function (I assume it does) but surely they would be the one watching the watchmen, as they would make sure the function is working properly.


TL;DR I'm sure it's all fine, if it's not tough luck. No-one's consumer rights are effected and it sounds like CCP did more then the bare minimum required by law anyway

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Annihilious
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#335 - 2013-02-12 17:44:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Annihilious
Le Badass wrote:
Too bad E-Uni couldn't have the ISK to do good with. Maybe next time.

WRONG

I'm glad they didn't get it...

Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:

Wow there are a lot of entitled people in this thread.

I worked in customer services once, you'd be amazed at how many customers assumed there "is a law" that means you can speak to my manager. There isn't, any company who has an escalation path for a customer or it's staff to follow is a business decision, not a legal right.

Exactly, I've seen this also. Many people are just generally whiners who never heard the word NO growing up...
Tisisan
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#336 - 2013-02-12 17:44:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tisisan
baltec1 wrote:
Tisisan wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Tisisan wrote:
What scares me here is that it really looks like a player can 1) question a the legality of an action publicly, 2) get an official ccp response saying its ok, 3) do said action, and 4) get banhammered by CCP Screegs who doesn't give a **** what the rest of the company thinks, then laughed at and mocked when you question it.

That's a pretty crappy way to do business.


No, its a case of the dirty isk went away and people want it back so will try every way possible to get it back even if it means publicly trying to attack CCP into a corner.


I don't care about eve-uni, in fact i find it funny that they've been screwed in all of this. But you need to stop licking long enough to actually read what Screegs is saying, then you might be a little concerned too.



I have. I am not concerned at all with CCP. The people kicking up a fuss over this however are sparking my curiosity into finding out why they are trying so hard to discredit our bot hunters in such a clear cut case.


If you were remotely interested in "why" you wouldn't have cut out the rest of my post. Licklicklick If you question anything you must be a botter! licklicklick... Yes there are people being dumb in this thread, on both sides, but that doesn't mean there aren't some valid concerns in this.
Sariah Kion
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#337 - 2013-02-12 17:45:26 UTC
Well done CCP.

Botting is a blight.

Eve-Uni has taken a severe credibility hit today. Arguing over a cut and dry case because they "couldnt keep the dirty isk". For shame Eve Uni, for shame.

Donations should cease until new leadership is in place at Eve-Uni.

[b]Librarian and Exotic Dancer Extraordinaire Champion of the Working Men and Women of Empire Space Anti-Null Sec Opium Den Movement President[/b] Not the woman high sec wants but the Woman high sec needs. [u]A modern girl for a modern world.[/u]
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#338 - 2013-02-12 17:45:41 UTC
Has anyone asked how this guy botted over 300 billion ISK before CCP caught on to what he was doing? Does the bot detector need some work, or was it just that he was sufficiently subtle in his botting that it took that long for CCP Sreegs's team to be sure it was actually a bot?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#339 - 2013-02-12 17:46:41 UTC
Imiarr Timshae wrote:
Has t20 been fired yet?

Last I heard he died of old age.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#340 - 2013-02-12 17:47:04 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Just for the record, dear CCP Sreegs, I like what you have done and that you take your time to come onto the forum and talk to us. It is very kind of you and one does not get to see this often. So thank you for doing this! Cool


Imo CCP Sreegs does just one thing wrong.

I also visit a RL traders forum where there's a quite knowledgeable guy who basically says correct things but has always everybody flaming and teaming against him. Why? Because his attitude is very defensive (more than mine! Twisted) / aggressive and shows off his superiority. This is usually not really well accepted so people end up flaming him all day long even if he's totally correct.

I don't say CCP Sreegs is like that, but he indeed takes a sharp approach towards persons and this is easily seen as a provocation. This might also be cultural. I find his posting allright, others see it as almost offensive.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials