This is standard in most platforms with social features, companies record chats in case someone gets reported for negative behavior. It's also temporarily stored so they're not just listening in and hoarding your chats.
The terms also lay out that "these recordings are available only if the report is submitted within 24 hours," suggesting that recordings are deleted from local storage after a full day.
The good news is that the mic is a piece of cake (relatively speaking, as someone who has tinkered with electronics before) to disconnect. Will it throw any errors/refuse to boot? Dunno, haven’t seen that attempted yet.
We should assume that our chats/calls are being recorded on services like this. But why exactly is this done? Seems like it leaves a lot of liability on their end and then added costs for the storage of all that data.
Are they required to or are they selling the data?
The first time some coworkers told me the personal things they discussed with other work friends over the internal chat service, I was in shock over the stupidity. Also internal shit talk to other people in the company. Shocked
In a previous role our QA team went from 5 to 2 due to this sort of thing happening. one person chose to offer his resignation rather than get sacked, another returned whilst looking for other work (which he found fairly easily as he was really good) and the 3rd guy is still there in post. Interestingly though the guy they were bitching about was fairly universally disliked and this made life even harder for him which I thought was somewhat unfair on him as it wasn't him who was at fault in this instance, he was just an arse.
When i was younger and only a few years into my career, I and a coworker talked crap about our 2 bosses for a while over Google chat. It’s what we were asked to use back them internally, but it wasn’t even our work accounts. We only talked because they were being absolutely awful. Well, joke was on us when they got suspicious and searched our computers and found the chats were locally saved… Oops! They gave us another chance shockingly but did chew us out. I’m still at this place, but none of those people exist here anymore and that was super long ago.
I joked to my wife “hey I got a joke I got to tell you about the government away from microphones” and my phone’s flashlight turned on across the room. My nsa agent is working overtime.
Answer (without even needing to read the article): they can’t legally brick your console, but we live in an oligarchy that refuses to enforce the law against the powerful.
Assuming this article is talking about the USA? This doesn’t sound like the kind of thing that would fly anywhere with half-decent consumer protection laws.
While these kinds of “bricking” clauses haven’t been tested in court, lawyers who spoke to Ars felt they would probably hold up to judicial review.
This is laughable at best, would 100% never go to court. The cost of losing would destroy so many models… and defending in it in the light of real consequences is going to make them popular… Ask the RIAA how suing customers made them look.
“Although users own the hardware, the software that’s needed to run it is subject to a license agreement,” attorney Jon Loiterman told Ars. “If you violate the license terms, Nintendo has the right to revoke your access to that software. It’s less common for software makers to revoke access to software in a way that disables hardware you bought from them, but the principle is the same.”
i guess that sort of makes sense, like if you’re hacking the thing to install your own software, Nintendo says “have fun outside but you can’t come back to our garden”.
But it also doesn’t because Nintendo has the power to remove functionality that I already paid them for. Even if I tinker with my device, why does that mean that I can never go back to the stock Switch experience that I paid for?
If SIE Inc determines that you have violated this Agreement’s terms, SIE Inc may itself or may procure the taking of any action to protect its interests such as disabling access to or use of some or all System Software, disabling use of this PS5 system online or offline, termination of your access to PlayStation Network, denial of any warranty, repair or other services provided for your PS5 system, implementation of automatic or mandatory updates or devices intended to discontinue unauthorized use, or reliance on any other remedial efforts as reasonably necessary to prevent the use of modified or unpermitted use of System Software.
Although I’ve never heard of any reports of that, and I’d love to see it tested in a courtroom. Deliberately bricking someone else’s hardware because YOU believe for some reason that they’re not using it properly is on a whole other level than just disabling online accounts. It’s vindictive.
arstechnica.com
Najnowsze