Report: Blizzard Blizzcon APP is spyware(video)

Community General Discussion
335

There is an interesting thread that people are conveniently ignoring about a person that has used the App in question. And that OP breaks down how things are being used.

I find it interesting how this thread which is guessing how things might be used, has a ton more traffic than one explaining exactly how its used.

I think it would be crazy if it does the worst case scenario that everyone is freaking out about. I agree.

336

I understand that credit card information is involved. That’s sketchy af.

337

I understand differently.

338

Not everything is spyware even under Wiki’s broad definition. But THIS app? AXS? It certainly falls well within the boundaries of what most reasonable people would construe to be spyware.

No. Not even close. You apply online through Indeed.com or Monster or whoever and your resume is posted along with your profile (which usually tells you to not provide contact information in your resume body and if you do this often as not a client’s HR staff will usually roundfile your resume (the theory being that if you would be so careless with your own data they probably don’t want you working with their data)) and is bound by legal statute not to disclose PII without your express written consent accompanied by some form of signature digital or otherwise. Its why many staffing firms adopt the last 4 of ssn + month and day of birth as digital verification of who is authorizing release of data.

Again no. Transactions for the Battle.net account can be anonymized if you wish. You can use drop box style email accounts, fake or no phone number. Fake or no Address. As long as the billing information is correct and the birthdate meets requirements you can still be very anonymous to Blizzard. Even if you choose not to be anonymous you are still in relatively little danger of disclosure as their are legal protections in place if Blizzard Entertainment does inadvertently or willfully disclose PII.

1 Like
339

A job application online is a form of software that aims to gather information about a person. That is the only thing in that definition you listed spyware must do.

Everything else is “mays” or “sometimes”, meaning it doesn’t have to do it.

So going by the technical definition you listed, anything that is designed to gather information about a person is spyware.

1 Like
340

Give it a rest troll. I gave you a CURRENT definition of Spyware from a reliable source. You gave us a definition from a source that was suspect when it was written nearly 12 years ago. You got a beef with Wikipedia? Go edit the article.

3 Likes
341

I gave you nothing.

I only showed how your definition also has issues.

Strikes me as odd. When you point out a definition of spyware you don’t like, due to it having issues. Its fine.

When I do the same exact thing, I am a troll.

1 Like
342

A wiki definition? :roll_eyes:

The definition I gave isn’t 12 years old. It is from this year, from three different places: Apple, Microsoft and Norton.

Any random person can update a wiki. That’s like using Urban Dictionary as the definitive meaning of a word.

2 Likes
344

And I showed everyone else here how yours is suspect and told them WHY it was suspect. May in legalese almost certainly means will. Sometimes in legalese almost certainly means always. Don’t hand me a Kodo dropping and tell me its a lemon.

346

I think you are missing a key point. That is you are getting people confused.

Second, it looks like the definition you are stating is suspect, is supported by Microsoft, Norton, and Apple all within the last year.

Maybe you should contact those companies and let them know they don’t know what spyware is?

2 Likes
347

After I saw Quartering’s video I came here

348

Can’t you just deny AXS access to your personal information? The iPhone has always had app permissions, and Android added them a while back.

“AXS wants access to your contacts list.” [Deny]
“AXS wants access to call history.” [Deny]
“AXS wants access to your photos.” [Deny]
etc.

349

Evidence suggests you can do this.

1 Like
350

Why isn t Blizzard using their own authenticator to allow access? This is a third party that does the exact same thing via a qr code? Why? What is Blizzard gaining from using a third party?

1 Like
351

You do see the issue with Apple, Microsoft, and Norton as reliable NPV sources right? Apple, Microsoft, and Norton are either in the Antivirus Anti-Malware Anti-Spyware industry, or have a vested interest through third party affiliations that provide revenue and so their definitions are going to be narrowly tailored to their specific industry.

Now if you had said that they come from someplace like oh say the FTC then I would say you were both Neutral and had a Reliable source. The current Wikipedia definition given in the lead is sourced from the FTC. You may feel free to peruse the pdf on that at your leisure:

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/spyware-workshop-monitoring-software-your-personal-computer-spyware-adware-and-other-software-report/050307spywarerpt.pdf Yes. It predates even your definition that you scraped from Ghu knows where.

However, for clarity this is the 2005 attempt at a definition for the purposes of the FTC Workshop on cybersecurity:

As explained in detail below, based on the information received in connection with the
workshop and other available information, FTC staff concludes:

  • It is difficult to define spyware with precision. The working definition proposed for purposes of the workshop was software that aids in gathering information about a person or organization without their knowledge and which may send such information to another entity without the consumer’s consent, or asserts control over a computer without the consumer’s knowledge. Panelists and commenters agreed that this was a useful starting point for defining spyware.

  • However, the workshop discussions also highlighted additional challenges in defining spyware relating to what constitutes adequate consent, and what constitutes sufficient harm to merit software being labeled spyware. In FTC staff’s view, a consensus definition of spyware cannot be developed until fundamental issues concerning consent and harm are resolved.
    ‱ Spyware is distributed in the same ways as other software; it can be downloaded from the Internet, bundled with other software, transferred via peer-to-peer (“P2P”) filesharing networks, installed from CDs, or pre-installed on new computers. In addition, spyware may be distributed by instant messaging, emails, or web pages.

  • Spyware is a serious and growing problem.

    • Spyware can impair the operation of computers, causing them to crash and
      interfering with the ability of consumers to use them.
    • Spyware, especially keystroke loggers, can create substantial privacy risks.
    • Spyware can assert control over computers, and use that control to create security risks and cause other harms.
    • Spyware often is more difficult to uninstall than other types of software.
    • The incidence of spyware can be decreased if the private sector and the government act,
      separately and in concert.
    • Technological solutions – firewalls, anti-spyware software, and improved browsers
      and operating systems – can provide significant protection to consumers from the
      risks related to spyware.
      • Industry should: (1) develop standards for defining spyware and disclosing
        information about it to consumers; (2) expand efforts to educate consumers about
        spyware risks; and (3) assist law enforcement efforts.
      • Government should: (1) increase criminal and civil prosecution under existing laws
        of those who distribute spyware; (2) increase efforts to educate consumers about the risks of spyware; and (3) encourage technological solutions.

  • II. DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING SPYWARE AND ITS DISTRIBUTION

    • A. Defining Spyware
      The first issue discussed at the workshop was the definition of “spyware.” Despite its recent vintage, the etymology of “spyware” is unclear. Until 1999, it appears that the term was used to refer to monitoring equipment such as small cameras. “Spyware” first began to be used in the computer software context in 1999 when Zone Labs used it in a press release for its Zone Alarm firewall product.

    • In 2000, Gibson Research launched the first anti-spyware product, OptOut. Steve Gibson, the developer of OptOut, described spyware as “any software that employs a user’s Internet connection in the background (the so-called ‘backchannel’) without their knowledge or explicit permission.” The term “spyware” thus apparently was used at the outset to refer to software that was installed without the knowledge and consent of users and that operated surreptitiously.

    • Spyware has evolved to have a variety of meanings.8
      Panelists generally agreed that reaching an industry consensus on one definition has been elusive because of the technical complexity and dynamic nature of software. Several panelists observed that it is also difficult to
      define spyware because consumers and the business community may differ on what they believe is appropriate behavior in distributing software and because harmful software may cause a wide variety of problems.

  1. Challenges in Defining Spyware

  • Panelists identified three main conceptual challenges in reaching a consensus definition of spyware. The first challenge concerns knowledge and consent. There appears to be general agreement that software should be considered “spyware” only if it is downloaded or installed on a computer without the user’s knowledge and consent. However, unresolved issues remain concerning how, what, and when consumers need to be told about software installed on their computers for consent to be adequate. For instance, distributors often disclose in an End User
    Licensing Agreement (EULA) that there is additional software bundled with primary software, but some panelists and commenters did not view such disclosure as sufficient to infer consent to the installation of the bundled software.

  • Second, another question is whether the definition should limit “spyware” to software that monitors and collects data relating to computer use. Such a definition would be consistent with the fundamental concept that the software must “spy” on computer users. However, it presumably would not include software that does not collect data but adversely affects computer
    performance or otherwise interferes with the use of computers.

  • A final challenge in reaching consensus on the definition of spyware is determining the nature and extent of harm that the software must cause. For instance, some would treat software that “trespasses” on a computer as spyware because they consider trespass to be per se harmful, even if the software is otherwise benign or beneficial. In contrast, there was general consensus throughout the workshop that software should cause some harm to users before being labeled spyware. There was disagreement, however, as to the type and magnitude of injury needed to meet this definition.

As can be seen there are a magnitude of issues with the term “spyware” and it does not have a strictly accepted definition.

My definition is as good as your definition according to the FTC.

So you see, no Microsoft Apple and Norton DON’T know what it is because no one’s definition seems to be sufficient to completely define the term.

My definition at the least has the benefit that it is the spearhead definition of the term as recognized by the Federal Trade Commission.

/ball your court

1 Like
352

I never go to blizzCon; its always in Southern Cal and those people are WEIRD!

353

i escaped cali when i was young i made it out alive.

1 Like
354

Here’s the thing. Yes anyone CAN edit articles on wiki. Those that edit with intent to vandalize are pretty well locked out of major articles because for every vandal Wikipedia has three or more editors who will go back and undo the vandals edit. Since revisions to articles are kept back quite a ways reverting to a consensus decision is the work of a few moments.

For every point of contention raised there are rules to editing the article. If you are providing factual information you must have a Reliable Neutral Point of View Secondary Source. Wikipedia ISN’T the source of any of this information and all you have to do to find the relevant source for an article is to look in the references section at the bottom of the page. If the reference says NYT then its from the New York TImes. If its from the FTC then a link to the Federal Trade Commission PDF of the article will be posted and a footnote will be added to the pertinent section of the article.

So you can :roll_eyes: all you want but on well maintained articles (and nearly every single articles dealing with the government of any kind will be well maintained) they are sourced and the sections quoted will be backed up with at least two sources of neutral view point and reliable publisher.

1 Like
355

Im going to go out on a limb and say either revenue or reduction in cost to provide ticket services to them, thereby increasing their margins on ticket sales.

356

Last year we found out that Blizzard is outsourcing game development to China. This year they’re outsourcing their customer billing process. How long before there is nobody left at Blizzard but suits all talking about synergy?

2 Likes