EVE General Discussion

He did however fail to explain and state that water is wet, so the OP is right about not having been given all the necessary information.

Wait what ?!

this changes things



This changes everything!

Very similar to where I work. Of course, using government systems, everything is monitored and 'big brother' can look at my mails anytime. I accept that, in the same way I accept that CCP might need to see people's mails in the event of complaints or incidents, just like CCP Falcon mentioned.

However the social club at work doesn't have access to my emails, and I see no reason why they should just so I can go out drinking with them every Friday night.


That's good advice, and I follow it personally.

However in doing so one also cuts themselves off from 90% of the social content (corps) here that they can get involved in. Why does it have to be that way? Because of things like the mail API.


Why bother implementing new warnings, disclaimers, etc.

Just remove the mail API, as you suggest also in your last comment.


Well, as per CCP Falcon's post, CCP's view is that not only should "private" communications not take place here, but it's not allowed.

So let's change the game up on them a little, and instead of saying you're sharing "private info" let's say we're sharing "personal" info. That little change in terminology shifts the ballgame quite a bit imo. As Mr Epeen mentioned earlier, while there may not be anything "private" in some of these communications there is still plenty of "personal" things you wouldn't want to be exposed to anyone but the intended recipient.

So we have "private" info, the transmission of which is regulated with rules and legalities. But we also have "personal" info, which is regulated by morals and respect. CCP are doing a good job in one of those aspects, a very poor one in the other.

Well morality and respect are general concepts that, like your local laws, most people should have a general sense of.

Though it's true a lot of people, and companies, still struggle with both concepts.

But you're right. We're all responsible for whatever info or content we transmit. Being humans this means it's easy for us to trip over sometimes, and you'd like to think CCP have done all they can to not only cover their own asses but their users' too.

(Edit) And so we take a look at the lovely text wall from Falcon which shows us all the ropes, harnesses, fences and barriers they've put up to protect themselves from falling off a cliff. While all we get is a crumby warning sign that says "Don't go near this cliff - it's not allowed". Building a fence to make it harder for us to fall off would cost them next to nothing, but they haven't. I'd like to see mail API removed giving us a barrier to help keep us safe from falling off, allowing us to enjoy the corp social scenery in relative comfort.

The ones who don't really comprehend this issue aside, which should happen more frequently, it appears this glaring hole in the system (large enough to drive a truck through) needs to be plugged, but good. Therefore, noting an apparent apologetic tone from the powers that be, the remedy must be rather involved. (That's how they react when you point out the plumbing needs to be entirely replaced before the new toilet will work.)

I'm forced to recall the handful of "other" games I play have a considerably better mail system than this. I'm also forced to speculate on why EVE is so behind in such a significant "social" tool if EVE (as all the pros will tell you) is supposed to be the be-all end-all to GROUP play.

Those who claim you give up rights to privacy by joining corps, those who say failing to use caution puts the blame on me, and those who say "it's a matter of indifference I'm exaggerating" first fail to recall, the OP is referring to a condition outside all three of those considerations. This affects a third-person who made no decisions with regard to corporations and APIs. That aside, if you grant all three of those points, then the only INTELLIGENT thing for anyone to do is not use the message function at all.

That of course puts us back to square one - the message system at present suffers from advanced sucktitude. Take this condition, half-dozen others which exist within the game then add the idiocy found in seriously continuing the WiS discussion and you see how disjointed the playerbase actually is with regard to the condition of this game.

Suffice to say the majority look at it only in terms of a gaming smorgasbord. They lift what they wish from the tray
and ignore the rest. SO....if you were a corporation....who would YOU listen to?

If that eventuates then just remind CCP of when they stopped API system kill data from being pulled by 3rd party wormhole mapping tools. A change that an enormous swathe of wormholers were against that resulted in some threadnaughts in that subforum. CCP went ahead and did it anyway with apparent ease.

And yeah, I accept I'm coming at this whole thing from a different angle than OP, but we're looking at the same destination.

The cowboy mentality of the Icelandic overseers could use a bit of adjustment, too.
Mixing whiskey and Samuel Colt never did bode very well.
Mixing Jaeger and iNTEL might be akin.

Oh, CCP haves that very well covered, as the EULA forbids to share personal data through CCP's services.

It has one already. That's what boggles me the most. How is this even being discussed at all?

In character trades you request the ISK to the character being sold, so it makes sense to request the account name to be mailed to that character also to provide a clear trail for GMs in case of a dispute later on. In which case the mail is transfered along with the character, and after that point it's for the new owner to ensure their mailbox is clear before sending their full API to anyone. If you're trading characters and requesting the account name is sent to a different alt to the one being sold, or you are forwarding them on for record keeping, one would hope you have the sense not to generate an API for that alt which can be trawled. The character trading system could certainly be improved, and people should be careful about their account name, but the link you're trying to make between API keys and account name security is flimsy at best.

Recruiters who have to do background checks are usually looking for specific flags and skimming multiple accounts, not snapping fingers at 40 blackops employees to sift through your bin and launch a satellite over your house. I'm not keen on groups who demand continuous API access, so I don't play with those neckbeards. You don't have to either. In reality, you should be more concerned about IP monitoring and yakking on across various platforms where you inadvertantly divulge personal info and create a trail which can be used to generate a database of intel. Most corps who ask for a full API key will ask for it once, at the point of recruitment (which you can set to expire). They might ask for a limited one later on to access certain services - some of which is set up for your protection to keep unknowns from joining comms, which you're arguably entitled to demand to protect your privacy.

Personal responsibility or nanny state CCP? I can see why people have an issue with privacy to a degree on this (when I put pants on head and try to think seriously), although it makes me wonder exactly what you think is safely transmittable electronically in the first place? If CCP cull parts of the API to protect players who are breaching their own privacy, we all lose the ability to monitor our characters using 3rd party tools. You can't stop corps and alliances from demanding access to your API without a major policy change (which I'd be in favour of in spirit, but would be diabolically difficult to implement). Even if you protest loudly enough to enact some sort of review of this, CCP still would not be able to guarantee your privacy if you use the client to transmit personal info.