EVE General Discussion

what's practical is a question of how common this 'plausible situation' is

like, if it doesn't happen at all, obviously there's no action that needs to be taken

if it happens all the time (it doesn't), then the function of the api would probably need to be removed

i don't know how to discover how commonly this mistake is made

yeah, I think the issue is with Tim for sending it and Bob for sharing it, though it's more understandable that Tim wouldn't know as he hasn't set up a key and that's where that info is given out. I like Bennys idea of just giving that notification when you first open you mail however. That to me is a better place to say "hey, anything you send in here may be shared, so don't be a douche and send personal information", as you see it before you send the mail, not just if and when you choose to set up a key.

That said, I don't think it's a particularly large problem and like you say, it's their own faults, so it's more of a "nice to have" than a "need to have" thing.

yes i guess it would be nice to have, but i still think most will not read the warning and click accept and tick the do not show again box.

at that point i don't give a damn, there's no way this happens commonly enough or severely enough to justify modifying the api function

agreed

You are aware that missions basically tell you how to run themselves now right..

I simply have no sympathy for people who can't burn 1 brain cell in their own defense, whiich is why I asked a stupid question about EVemail 8 years ago instead of just assuming that everything will be ok because "someone is supposed to help me take care of myself".

Just putting stuff "on the internet"? No such animal. Case in point - secure transactions. A secure transaction is done using the internet, but can't be legally or otherwise considered to be broadcasting your credit card information. There is a right of expectation that the one receiving the information - all verifications of legitimacy being met - will keep the data confidential. Violation of this NOW opens the recipient to legal ramifications. This "putting things on the internet" statement is an -ism that can now take its place beside "the boogyman."

It is understood by all legitimate legal authority there are many types of information which receive various considerations in law, and law expects from professionals specific sorts of treatment for this. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the U.S. is keen on paying visits to people who would challenge this, and U.S. federal sentencing has no plea bargaining for sentence reductions.

Certain transactions have always been circumventable, or open to felonious obstruction. From the time someone could dip a quill into a bottle of ink, forgery was possible, for instance. Law enforcement has always seen itself as responsible for making strides in keeping up with new criminal inventions, and even anticipating potential areas of criminal exploitation whenever possible. The internet is no different. It is not viewed as a wide-open, anything goes environment. I'm not familiar with Europe's approach to this through the EU, but I'd be willing to bet (all YOUR stuff) it's quite similar with Scotland Yard and Interpol. I think Iceland even has police. (Right?)

This is CCP's responsibility, with their legal beagles, the Icelandic Legislature and the legal structure within which EVE can be said to operate under statutory obligation. It is neither a matter for speculation by a playerbase, nor the jurisdiction of armchair legal experts. The framework under which this sort of thing is bound by law to function is established. No amount of our getting on our high horses here and declaring what the superior reality must be has any standing.

The way things like this are tested, if the powers that be refuse to make their own examination of it, is by filing a legal case and forcing the issue in a court of law; probably civil or tort law, but especially with how internet laws intended to protect minors are being written (these days) quite possibly criminal, as well.

I know this won't stop anybody from expounding their mighty pontifications. I just thought I'd MENTION IT.
If you don't like how the LAW is written, vote. Vote early, and often!

You appear to be forgetting that Eve characters are fictional in the sense that they don't exist outside of the Eve universe or its associated media. If we were talking about an actual real life privacy breach then you'd have a point, but we're not, we're talking about fictional characters in a fictional universe where the only physicalities those characters have is as database entries and avatars.

If somebody is daft enough to give out information, that may be used in real life, to others within the Eve universe then that's their lookout.

Me too!

Now I want a burrito and I don't have one.