Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ESRB Exposes Emails of Gamers Who Filed Privacy Complaints

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the well-played dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 75

simrook writes, "Many people filed privacy complaints with the ESRB over Blizzard's recent (and afterward recanted) move to require the display of users' real life names on Blizzard's official forums. 961 of those complainants had their email addresses exposed in the ESRB's response." The response itself didn't go into the organization's thoughts on Blizzard's plan, but they explained to the Opposable Thumbs blog that anonymity isn't a huge concern to them, as long as users are given the opportunity to opt out. "The role of the ESRB Privacy Online program is to make sure that member websites—those that display our seal on their pages — are compliant with an increasingly complex series of privacy protection laws and are offering a secure space for users to interact and do business online. ... But online privacy protection doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as anonymity. It's about making sure that websites collecting personal information from users are doing so not only in accordance with federal regulations but also with best practices for protecting individuals' personal information online."

cancel ×

75 comments

Oblig. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32883614)

Yo dawg, I heard you like exposing your personal data

Re:Oblig. (5, Funny)

spamdog (646409) | about 4 years ago | (#32883654)

So we tied Battle .NET in with Facebook so you can have privacy concerns while you have privacy concerns.

Or something.

Re:Oblig. (1)

ImNotAtWork (1375933) | about 4 years ago | (#32890518)

Expect these folks to have -10 dkp modifier to their loot drops.

Re:Oblig. (1)

Deorus (811828) | about 4 years ago | (#32894768)

So we [reddit.com] decided to give you a hand [imgur.com] ...

Disclaimer: The reddit comment isn't mine.

Some old saws don't translate too well.... (3, Interesting)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 4 years ago | (#32883638)

Like, "What is good for the rooster is good for the hen." doesn't translate into "What is good for the corporation is good for the consumer." worth a damn.

Apparently.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (1)

Soilworker (795251) | about 4 years ago | (#32883838)

Anyway, it's just a e-mail address, it's public.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32883990)

So yours is public on /., then?

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32885022)

touché

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (1)

Soilworker (795251) | about 4 years ago | (#32892654)

It's not public for now since no one know it, if you did you could post it here and I would have nothing to say about it.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32897396)

It's not public for now since no one know it, if you did you could post it here and I would have nothing to say about it.

Except maybe "What the hell did you do that for!? Do you know how many spambots are raking this site!?"

admin@3rdlab.info [mailto] I proved a point for ya.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (1)

Soilworker (795251) | about 4 years ago | (#32907144)

thx :)

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32884130)

Different AC.

An e-mail address is only as public as you make it.

Just because I send an email to person/corporation X, it doesn't mean I've added it to a fucking yellow pages directory. (Which is what you're essentially doing when it's being plastered on a webpage, etc)

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (2, Insightful)

Maestro4k (707634) | about 4 years ago | (#32884412)

Anyway, it's just a e-mail address, it's public.

It's as public as YOU make it. Those people opted to share their E-mail address with ESRB, NOT with those other 900+ people they've probably never heard of before.

Not to mention that this probably violated the ESRB's own privacy policy, in the process of talking about how companies should... obey their privacy policies.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32885286)

You're conflating "publicized" or "published" with "public". The two aren't the same.

Addresses are inherently public, at least within the scope of the network. If they weren't they wouldn't be addresses, because you couldn't use them to uniquely identify a resource.

For example, your street address is public. It's assigned by a central authority and anyone willing to put in some effort can find the assigned address for any piece of property. However, you may choose not to publicize your street address by (where permitted by law) removing any visible address markings from your property.

I agree that these addresses should not have been publicized, but they *are* public, whether the ESRB sent them out or not.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (1)

eyrieowl (881195) | about 4 years ago | (#32886868)

Except email doesn't have a "central authority" which keeps a master list of email addresses. It's NOTHING like street addresses. Instead, it's like the location of each of my pieces of furniture. I am the only central authority with knowledge of what furniture I have and where it is. My street address (i.e., domain name) is public. The furniture I buy (email addresses I create) are not public. If I send an email to someone and say the polka-dotted couch is in the kitchen, that is a private communication between two parties. It's not public unless the other party chooses to publicize it.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (1)

Soilworker (795251) | about 4 years ago | (#32892712)

Send me your email and I'll post it every where I can, we'll see if you can do shit against that.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (2, Insightful)

eyrieowl (881195) | about 4 years ago | (#32892868)

Your ability to disseminate my email after I've told you what it is does not make my email public. It simply means that sending it to someone unscrupulous (hope you recognize yourself) is unwise, and puts me at risk of having it made public. After you've made it public? Yes, it's public. But it's not inherently public simply because the risk exists. Risk of being made public. Fact of being public. Not the same thing.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (2, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | about 4 years ago | (#32886798)

Anyway, it's just a e-mail address, it's public.

Boldly stated, Soilworker (795251) (email not shown publicly) [slashdot.org]

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (1)

Soilworker (795251) | about 4 years ago | (#32892736)

Yes I DECIDED that I don't show it here, if I send you something and you decide to post it here ( without anything illegal, like notice to spam me, or harassment) then there is nothing I can do about it, except asking you to stop, and even if I do that, you're don't even have to stop.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 4 years ago | (#32883854)

In this case, it's more of a fox and a hen. Namely latter seeking protection from former :)

Not really (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | about 4 years ago | (#32884704)

Actually, it strikes me more like some hens going to the foxes' own self-regulating organization to complain that a fox is harassing them. And being told basically that none of the foxes on the commission sees a problem with what that, and furthermore oops, here's where one can find the hens that complained.

The ESRB isn't some government agency, nor even some really independent group, but the game industry's own attempt at saying, "wait, we don't need no stinking government giving ratings for our games, we can do it ourselves." It's main reason to exist is as some organization who won't give an AO rating when the publisher doesn't want one, because WalMart doesn't carry AO games. Whereas a government agency might actually do such nasty things as actually slap an AO rating on a couple of games.

And even if you want to think they're still somehow independent, the fact still remains that they have no legal power or anything. Getting an ESRB rating is entirely voluntary. They rely on the major publishers actually being arsed to submit their games to them instead of getting together to make another rating agency. Or just deciding that a government agency wouldn't be that much worse after all. (The promise of a well paid honorary advisory job after a few years of bending over for the right folks, has worked wonders to buy government bureaucrats in other domains, after all.) Or they might just use the PEGI ratings they get in Europe in the USA too, since they have to go through with those anyway. It might even help their cause if they can pull that stunt off, since seeing tits is ok here at earlier ages.

And doubly so since we're not talking an indie market with lots of small publishers, where one breaking front would just hurt itself. We're talking a market dominated by a few big names who are so important not to lose, that even console manufacturers or major reviews sites bend over backwards to accomodate them. Ask for example Sega how well getting into a pissing contest with EA and giving "we don't need no stinking EA games" speeches worked for them back in the Dreamcast days. You don't even need to lose more than 1 or 2 of the biggest ones for the ESRB to become basically irrelevant.

At any rate, the ESRB has nothing to gain by helping _you_ against Vivendi, and everything to lose if it makes itself hated by the likes of Vivendi.

And these people went complaining to the ESRB about privacy? This strikes me as... well, not _exactly_ like going to the RIAA to complain about Sony's lawsuits, but not very far off that mark anyway.

Re:Not really (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 years ago | (#32885046)

And these people went complaining to the ESRB about privacy?

They obviously didn't know who they were really dealing with, which is not surprising considering the ESRB has an interest in not making the facts you just stated well known.

Or maybe they did and thought "This is a concern for me, so this might be a concern for the industry. Plus there's no way they're dumb enough to reveal my e-mail address, so it's safe to e-mail them about my privacy concerns, what harm could it do?"

Even if they knew the ESRB was a whore for the game industry, it's not like saying "Hey, I have privacy concerns" is something you'd expect retribution or stupidity for.

Re:Not really (1)

Moraelin (679338) | about 4 years ago | (#32885374)

Well, maybe not expect retribution, but the tech savvy needed to be a glorified rubberstamp office doesn't put the whole incident past what Hanlon's Razor adequately describes either.

But at any rate, my point is more like: if you do expect them to be the whore of the industry, and a whore with no regulation power either at that, even if you don't expect them to lose your email, still... why bother? It's like writing to the boss's boytoy to complain about her business practices. You don't really expect him to set her straight, do you?

Re:Not really (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#32885862)

The ESRB is gaming's equivalent to movies' MPAA. Both have ratings that often seem bizarre, and neither is accountable to anyone but the big players in the industries they represent. I'd rather ratihngs for both be done by government, so they would be accountable to me. I at least have a vote in who is in government, I have no vote with MPAA or ESRB.

Re:Not really (1)

chonglibloodsport (1270740) | about 4 years ago | (#32892960)

I think you're confusing them for the ESA. The ESRB is supported by the ESA.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32894222)

You don't have a vote with the government either.

When was the last time you got to vote on your country's budget?

When was the last time you got to vote on whether to give bailouts to bankers? (if US)

When was the last time you got to vote on whether to attack Iraq and Afghanistan? (if US)

The only "vote" you get is whether you get fucked with a spiked baseball bat or a spiked lead pipe.

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32883938)

What is good for the farmer is certainly NOT good for the hen...

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#32886090)

What is good for the farmer is certainly NOT good for the hen...

Unless the farmer makes a good living selling organic, free range eggs. I'm... erm... I'm not sure how to tie that back into ESRB. Maybe support indie developers?

Re:Some old saws don't translate too well.... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#32885824)

"What is good for the corporation is good for the consumer" translates to "what is good for the lion is good for the lamb." The rooster-hen (goose-gander) is about equality, and there is no equality in dealings between a human and a corporation.

Wow (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 4 years ago | (#32883648)

What a tech blunder by a group that's suppose to deal with rating video game content. Email fail.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32883690)

Yeah, these guys are supposed to be the game industry's self regulation group. It doesn't help certain issues out if they appear careless by doing things like this.

Re:Wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32883782)

Are they supposed to remove the stamp because you choose to post your name and address on a forum? By taking an action that explicitly and knowingly puts your data on a public facing site, how is it their responsibility to hold a content provider responsible? This uproar is by the lowest common denominator, the average WoW player, who are only interested in someone continuing to protect them from themselves. The ESRB is doing their job by being impartial and fair. You're just upset they aren't as foolish as you.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32884110)

You couldn't be more clueless if you were intentionally TRYING to be clueless (then you'd just be the average troll). These email addresses were not posted on a forum.

Re:Wow (1)

Mitsoid (837831) | about 4 years ago | (#32884564)

Technically this part of the ESRB is the web privacy section of the organization.

(making sure businesses protect peoples privacy online)

They forgot about bcc (1)

gravos (912628) | about 4 years ago | (#32883666)

Looks like they forgot about bcc. Whoops.

Re:They forgot about bcc (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#32885952)

What's the first thing that you learn at ANY corporation when you start using company email? You never, EVER hit "reply all"!!!

Re:They forgot about bcc (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#32886208)

Totally. I worked for a big FTSE100 company a few years back that was incredibly poorly managed, constant company re-organisations, people regularly being put on "consideration" (i.e. just to let you know, we're considering whether you'll have a job in three months), usually over christmas just to add to the fun, closing sites and moving people around the country, etc. A friend who still works there told me recently one of the developers who decided to leave in the last bout of restructuring wrote a long, not particularly complimentary email slating all the reasons why the company was a mess, citing lack of training and review, lack of skills, incompetent management, poor communication, etc. He sent this email to everyone in the department, his bosses, their bosses, high level management in other departments, everyone, I mean serious bridge burning. That was bad enough if not totally unexpected (I had pretty much the same sentiments when I left but I was wise enough to keep them to myself, knowing it's a small world in development), but then one of the other developers who was staying replied to him along the lines of "well said, couldn't have put it better myself", not realising he'd hit "reply to all"...

Haha! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32883676)

Maybe now people will stop b*tching so much when everything doesn't go their way.

Re:Haha! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32883840)

die in a fire you fucking jew!
oh... too soon?

Figures, Industry self-regulatory body (4, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | about 4 years ago | (#32883688)

Industry: I want regulatory capture [wikimedia.org] , but I'm too cheap to even pay off politicians on a regular basis... I know, how about I tell the politicians and public that we can "police ourselves" and create a (not really) autonomous, "self regulatory" board where only the meaningless crap can be discussed and Industry gets to do what they want on substantive measures.

Re:Figures, Industry self-regulatory body (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 years ago | (#32885080)

Alternatively, industry says "Hey, you know what is bad for everyone (aside from vile politicians, idiotic talking heads on the radio and TV, holier than thou hypocrites, Jack Thompson, spiteful people who don't like games or gamers, people who hate free expression, sheep who would give up freedom based on the nonexistent threat of violent gamers, and other worthless individuals)? Government enforced censorship on an evolving media form. How can we prevent that?"

For God's sake, you say "too cheap to pay off politicians" as if that's a bad thing. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY OFF THE POLITICIANS, THAT SHOULDN'T BE NORMAL. The industry may be doing it for mostly selfish reasons, but preventing regulation in the first place when "regulation" is code for censorship is not a bad thing. Don't put this in the same terms that we describe telecoms and BP.

Cancel your account. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32883738)

If you don't like Blizzards privacy policy, don't complain, cancel your account. That is the only language that big companies understand. If all you spineless idiots do is whine, then all Blizzard is going to do is continue taking your money.

Re:Cancel your account. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32883798)

smell my finger

Re:Cancel your account. (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 4 years ago | (#32883882)

10,000 people canceling their accounts will do little to sway Blizzard.
On the other hand, a concise list of what you disagree with that is signed by a 10,000 customers will absolutely get their attention.
(No, that's a letter, not a petition.)

Just quitting the game will probably be put down as simple customer churn and since you're no longer a customer, you just aren't that important anymore.
Now if you, as customers, tell them specifically what they are doing that is upsetting you, it might not change their minds, but they will at least consider it.

So are you really sure leaving without a word is the way to change the actions of a company with millions of customers?

Re:Cancel your account. (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about 4 years ago | (#32884560)

actually if you cancel your account and put "real names on forums" as the reason in the handily provided "reason for quitting" box they pay attention. Despite the idiocy of the idea in general they are pretty good at trying to do what their customer base wants, hence the canceling of the policy.

Re:Cancel your account. (0, Redundant)

Vaphell (1489021) | about 4 years ago | (#32884992)

first of all, when you cancel on the website, they ask for a reason and be sure many many people put 'i don't want my name in the context of a computer game on the internet'
second - people not only cancelled their current wow subscriptions but also preorders for Starcraft 2 and WoW: Cataclysm released this year (SC2 in 2 weeks). PR disaster would simply kill sales. Suddenly the pile of money involved is bigger and profits from deal with facebook would not be enough to cover the easily measured losses.

and from personal experience from regular reading the official forums - you can be damn sure that what customers want is a secondary issue for Activision Blizzard now. Pretty much all concerns fall on deaf ears and only a massive outcry (that WoW thread grew 15 posts/min for 2 days straight) with flood of cancelled subscriptions/preorders plus media outlets describing the problem, adding to PR damage can do anything meaningful. Only non-issues or already answered questions get any official replies that have any substance in them and Blizzard changing the already set course is unheard of.

SC2 community gets no LAN and crappier, less useful, regionalized, tailored for nickel-and-diming XBoxLive imitation. Be sure nothing of value was said by Blizzard to explain why exactly Battle.net 2.0 is shit when compared to a decade old Battle.net classic.
Quite recent quote from a high rank guy showing that Blizzard got drunk with all that money from WoW and now they know what their customers want better than the customers themselves:
- Do you really want chat rooms?
(duh, you think why that interviewer asked you a question about this? maybe because community wanted them and expressed that desire in countless threads?)

Re:Cancel your account. (1)

Rent A Ham (865093) | about 4 years ago | (#32884942)

Have you actually read the article at all?

First of all, the privacy concern here was ESRB, not Blizzard.
Secondly, Blizzard backed down on the name issue after your so called 'spineless idiots' complained.

But... (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | about 4 years ago | (#32883790)

They'll be alright if they've got nothing to hide! Think of the children!

Re:But... (2, Informative)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about 4 years ago | (#32884576)

Absolutely, i have nothing to hide so i have no need for privacy. That's why i installed a webcam in my toilet!

ESRB Does Not Take Notice (1)

Cylix (55374) | about 4 years ago | (#32883852)

In a not-so-surprising move the ESRB affirmed it's position on not giving a damn about the people or companies involved. The ESRB went onto say that we really don't care what you do as long you don't bother us and continue to fund our worthless existence.

The ESRB representative declined to provide his identity on the grounds that he really didn't want to be bothered with wasting his breathe. He went on to further shout obscenities and shake his bum at those attempting to pose questions regarding the recent actions by the ESRB.

In a follow-up interview they clarified their position and noted that the ESRB had never been in a position in which it listened to consumers. A representative apologized for the confusion and stated the company had never actually done anything to warrant such a view. In a prepared statement release early today, "The ESRB does not believe it has created any such illusions by statement, action or even accidental means whereby the consumer would would be in a position to believe we operate in ANY of their interests."

Well (4, Insightful)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | about 4 years ago | (#32883956)

The value of being "Privacy Certified" by the ESRB just went to zero.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32884184)

The value of being "Privacy Certified" by the ESRB just went to zero.

Because no one has ever accidentally cc'ed instead og bcc'ed before...

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32884250)

No, it is worth nothing, because the ESRB "privacy certified" doesn't add anything beyond the privacy laws that already exists in the countries the game companies operate in.

So the ESRB logo only means that the game company is not violating the privacy laws. It is sort of a slippery slope, soon you will have all sorts of companies that certify (through self-certification of course) persons and companies for all sort of laws they don't break.

Re:Well (1)

Maestro4k (707634) | about 4 years ago | (#32884428)

The value of being "Privacy Certified" by the ESRB just went to zero.

And their ability to deal with a technology industry like videogames is put into serious question. If they can't handle basic E-mail technology, how can they understand videogames?

Best practise (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 4 years ago | (#32884354)

best practices for protecting individuals' personal information online.

In other words, anonymity.

Re:Best practise (1)

Zironic (1112127) | about 4 years ago | (#32884574)

When you press the big shiny button that says "If you press this big shiny button your name will be posted to the internets" then you've forsworn the protection of that piece of personal information. ESRB will only care if the company in question publishes the information without making so explicit to the user.

Re:Best practise (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#32886302)

Do you think it would have bene a "big shiny button" or do you think, just maybe, they would have buried it away in 15 pages of click through terms?

Re:Best practise (1)

Zironic (1112127) | about 4 years ago | (#32886762)

They said it would have been explicitly noted each time you make a post.

the need for a anonymous face (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32884422)

We have built things like governs, agencies, corporations, religions... that are more powerfull than a single human. A corporation has the rights of a person, but if a corporation kills 1 persona, or 1000, something bad will happend, but the corporation will continue. Is like a lord in the medieval ages, is beyond any accountability.

Is just fair that we protect the innocent here, the single human that has something ugly to say about these powerfull entities. And something must be said, because these org's serve on nefarious purposes. Corporations has been described as squizoid for a reason.

So we have all-powerfull entities like Corporations, with tremendous powers, that act like jerks, and nothing really bad can happend to then. And we have the individual.

I am on a point, that I think we need privacy, not for itself, but because what we really want is anonymous, and we can't be anonymous withouth privacy.

Where is the FTC in all this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32884584)

What the FTC can crack on xanga and other small fish, but they don't have the balls to do anything over Blizzard's decision.....
If there are no 'faxed' or 'snail mailed' consent forms Blizzard has much underage banning to do, stealing mommies credit card is not consent as the law is written.
Hold their feet to the fire and let them cook

They aren't called BlizTard for nothing. (1, Redundant)

lexsird (1208192) | about 4 years ago | (#32884594)

Removing the cloak of anonymity from users, (no gaming pun intended) opens up a can of worms like S. Korea has with violence spilling over from inside the games to the streets. Posting people's information only sets up circumstances for some very bad scenarios to play out. The PvP server forums are often full of haters hating full tilt on each other. When is someone unstable going to get pushed too far and end up on someone's doorstep? When some horrible situation plays out on the evening news, BlizTard will end up sued down to foodstamps in a trailer park for liabilities. Not to mention once a politician with an ax to grind will take a look at the clime of these kinds of game and start preaching on a tall soap box how they are so very evil for our kids and basically anyone to be wasting their lives in. About the time someone in the media checks out any trade channel in the game on a Saturday night, they will flip out, and so will their religious buddies. Stuff like this sells.

This is a formula for some crazy people to do something crazy, then the government to step in and take a big bite out of the game industry cash.

Re:They aren't called BlizTard for nothing. (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#32886340)

Or maybe people wouldn't act like children in the first place if they thought there might be repercussions. Not that I agree with displaying people's names, but it would be an interesting experiment.

Re:They aren't called BlizTard for nothing. (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 4 years ago | (#32886690)

When some horrible situation plays out on the evening news, BlizTard will end up sued down to foodstamps in a trailer park for liabilities.

Or the better solution is to stop being a dick. If you're a dick 'IRL' then yes, somebody may beat your ass. So don't be a dick online and having your name out there wont matter.

Re:They aren't called BlizTard for nothing. (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | about 4 years ago | (#32890308)

Or the better solution is to stop being a dick. If you're a dick 'IRL' then yes, somebody may beat your ass. So don't be a dick online and having your name out there wont matter.

How about you go fuck yourself cupcake...

From the headline, seems fine (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 4 years ago | (#32884642)

Seems reasonable to me. These people complained about privacy, so the ESRB removed their privacy. Isn't that what they wanted? Wait, you want me to do what, now? RTF...huh? :)

ESRB likes (1)

BlkRb0t (1610449) | about 4 years ago | (#32884722)

to play too, you know.

Solution (1)

II Xion II (1420223) | about 4 years ago | (#32884866)

Used a standard, fake email address when I submitted my complaint. Though I just as easily could have used one of my inactive accounts.

Maybe that makes my complaint less valid in their eyes, but it helps avoid situations like this for me whilst still allowing me to at least (have the illusion of?) have my voice heard.

Sue their ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32885032)

Sue their fucking ass for damages

Should have used (1)

FunPika (1551249) | about 4 years ago | (#32885148)

They should have used Blind carbon copy [wikipedia.org] instead of regular carbon copy. ;)

I changed my mind about the ESRB (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#32885388)

I used to think they were a good measure to allow for a reasonable compromise between game companies and retailers without getting stringent political involvement. Now I say just let the government tear them a new one.

Kind of misleading (4, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 4 years ago | (#32885996)

By "exposing the address" they mean "reply-to-all-without-bcc" and not "posted to a public Internet location". In other words, it's the same mistake that office workers around the world make every day.

Re:Kind of misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32889528)

This is true, and why good admins set up their mail servers to not allow mass display of CC. Or even any. Well, sometimes it's ok, but that's why there's a special way to tell the server you want to do it.

Right?

Or am I the only one who actively works to prevent such stupidity? Or the one whose bosses would rather believe you that it's for HIPAA compliance than look into it themselves?

Re:Kind of misleading (1)

Deorus (811828) | about 4 years ago | (#32894872)

Reply to All doesn't mean "reply to everyone who ever sent you an E-mail", it means "reply to all the disclosed senders and recipients of the original message", which I'm sure was not comprised of all those E-mail addresses.

Re:Kind of misleading (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 4 years ago | (#32901242)

Fair point; but still I think my underlying point is valid -- they didn't actively publish this list anywhere. They exposed it via stupidity, and only to the people who gave them the information. Bad move? Sure. Worthy of crucifixion? Probably not.

5gio.com (1)

mrfuong (1855124) | about 4 years ago | (#32889508)

thanks information
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...