Xbox One Reveal

I will just leave this here .
http://imgur.com/5WXh32l

That's very disturbing, especially if you have read the book.

It is not illegal surveillance, because it is completely anonymous, it is not releasing the information at all.

What makes you so sure about that? You have to be very naive if you believe it's completely anonymous and doesn't release any information.

Because the iPhone also has always on GPS, even if you don't want it. Because ISP's have complete knowledge of absolutely everything you browse on the internet.

The xbox surveillance CAN be turned off: you need to stop playing the game. Also, just because the xbox is always on, doesn't mean the technology is always actively being used (reading heartbeats, counting people, etc).

I retort with this: you guys have to be very naive to think this technology is as powerful as it is. It isnt. Its a hyped up, merchandizing scheme.

As far as the whole "enforcing legal stuff and the police goes" your statement, Naeras, is wrong. It is Microsoft's right to include measures to prevent their rights from being abuse. Ill give you an example: It is not up to the police to put a lock in your doors to prevent entrance. It is up to Microsoft to put DRM's in their consoles to prevent their games from being pirated.

Why? Because by putting said measures, they can legally prove in court that it was not an accidental breach of contract. The user must have to purposely break said security measures.

Privacy is a HUGE issue, but you guys need to remember that all of these things are programmed in such a way, so they can protect themselves from the legal loopholes. These features go through a HUGE legal department.

The measures are perfectly legal (as far as advertised thus far) in an American market (the strong one in gaming, unfortunately).

In Europe, courts could argue otherwise, seeing as how they have been kicking Google's ass recently. But remember this: Facebook is there, gladly accepting your life (legally), and the iPhone is there, gladly tracking your life for you.

I doubt microsoft has poured a couple billion dollars into features that will be legally blocked.

Because the iPhone also has always on GPS, even if you don't want it. Because ISP's have complete knowledge of absolutely everything you browse on the internet.

The xbox surveillance CAN be turned off: you need to stop playing the game. Also, just because the xbox is always on, doesn't mean the technology is always actively being used (reading heartbeats, counting people, etc).

I retort with this: you guys have to be very naive to think this technology is as powerful as it is. It isnt. Its a hyped up, merchandizing scheme.

See, there's a really significant difference between your examples and what's announced for the Kinect 2. As far as iPhones having built-in GPS and ISPs saving our surfing data, that's a legal gray area. This is new technology, and legislation of what is or is not allowed with or without user consent isn't really clear, simply because merely a few years ago this wasn't stuff people even considered to make laws around.

The Kinect 2 doesn't have the problem of nonexistent legislation. It's a surveillance camera and a microphone. There's very clear legalization around this stuff. Additionally, Microsoft have openly stated that these things can't be turned completely off.

As far as the whole "enforcing legal stuff and the police goes" your statement, Naeras, is wrong. It is Microsoft's right to include measures to prevent their rights from being abuse. Ill give you an example: It is not up to the police to put a lock in your doors to prevent entrance. It is up to Microsoft to put DRM's in their consoles to prevent their games from being pirated.

Why? Because by putting said measures, they can legally prove in court that it was not an accidental breach of contract. The user must have to purposely break said security measures.

This isn't really comparable to, say, copy protection on discs(which is still a waste of money, but I digress). What this camera does is stop movies if it thinks there are too many people watching a movie at the same time, because by Microsoft's logic that must be an illegal show. Of course, it probably isn't. It could be a student association having a private film evening, which is completely legal, or it could be a movie shown on a birthday party, which is completely legal, but now I have to pay extra for the movie because there are too many people in the room.
If I had an illegal, monetized showing of a movie, it wouldn't be Microsoft's job to crack down on that. It would be the police.

Also, why the hell would I use an Xbone for an illegal show if it checks how many people there are in the room? I wouldn't. This thing is an attempt to grab cash from people who don't know better, which in itself is of questionable legality.

Privacy is a HUGE issue, but you guys need to remember that all of these things are programmed in such a way, so they can protect themselves from the legal loopholes. These features go through a HUGE legal department.

The measures are perfectly legal (as far as advertised thus far) in an American market (the strong one in gaming, unfortunately).

In Europe, courts could argue otherwise, seeing as how they have been kicking Google's ass recently. But remember this: Facebook is there, gladly accepting your life (legally), and the iPhone is there, gladly tracking your life for you.

I doubt microsoft has poured a couple billion dollars into features that will be legally blocked.

You remember how Sony claimed that it had every right to remove marketed features from the PS3, and tried to get away with it? The Norwegian Consumer Association told them that they had to bring them back or they would stop importing the PS3 altogether.
These companies have a tendency of trying to get away with things simply because they don't think the consumers will notice/care. It's extremely evident that this has happened with the Xbone. And this time they went in the completely wrong way.

If you want me to, I can send a mail to the Norwegian Consumer Association and ask them how legal this is.

I retort with this: you guys have to be very naive to think this technology is as powerful as it is. It isnt. Its a hyped up, merchandizing scheme.

I'll have to ask again, what makes you so sure about this? You write like you somewhat knew thoroughly this technology and Microsoft's policies.

The Kinect 2 is enormous privacy issue if it scans environment and uses the collected data for marketing etc, as I have read. The fact that it can't be turned off completely... let's say it wont help people to be less naive to think this technology is more powerful than it really is.

Violating privacy, coming physically to your home (via camera and microphone) so that they can ensure you're not violating any "rules" (f.e. too many people watching a movie) is incredibly ridiculous. They are going over the line and far. Not saying that MS is the first to do so, but this is insulting. Looks like corporations actually believe they can do anything...

I'll have to ask again, what makes you so sure about this? You write like you somewhat knew thoroughly this technology and Microsoft's policies.

I am estimating, of course. Only a handful of people know the full capabilities of the hardware, but trust me, its not as powerful as they make it out to be. Why? Because its being marketed as the new rocket to reach Mars, just like the PS3 was, just like the Wiimote was, just like the PS2 was, just like the N64 was, etc.

Its good, advanced technology for homes, but it aint a damn FLIR scanner worth 40k and specialzied in motion capture animation. EA already stated that this new console generation is 5 years ahead(one full generation) of any high end PC, which is a huge lie.

The Xbox hasnt been released, so we don't know exactl what "turn off" entails. I doubt its a 24/7 IR camera, and in any case, unplugging the machine is a surefire way to feel safer from Skynet.

They are not coming physically to your home, if you agreed to purchase the product, as long as they explain the system's capabilities thoroughly. If they do, then you are agreeing to it. Much in the same way you agree for Apple and Google to trace your location at every damn second you have your phone. In the case of Apple, they can do so even when your phone is off.

Now, like I said: Im not saying this technology cant be used to do very dangerous, very illegal stuff. However, we can't instantly jump and put our tinfoil hats on, until the machine is released to the public, and we actually see what it is capable of (outside of their marketing ploys).

As far as iPhones having built-in GPS and ISPs saving our surfing data, that's a legal gray area. This is new technology, and legislation of what is or is not allowed with or without user consent isn't really clear, simply because merely a few years ago this wasn't stuff people even considered to make laws around.

They do not legally gray areas. They use perfectly black and white areas: They are surfing your information, but they are doing so anonymously. Apple, by default grabs general information about how you use your phone, and encrypts it before it reaches them. They use it for surveys and product improvement, yaddah yaddah. Unless someone proves they are leeching information with full details and interfering with your privacy, its perfectly legal.

About the Norwegian Consumer Association: That's one conutry. One market. Logically, there will be markets where this technology will not be legal. However, what I am referring to here, is mostly based on U.S. interpretation of privacy laws. The U.S. is, arguably, still the strongest videogame market in the world. Hell, a ton of their god damned stupid tv show and sports features won't work in many countries due to copyright issues.


The Kinect 2 is NOT a surveillance system, or at leats it doesn't sound like one. Could it be used for it? Yes, but it is not the primary or intended function. That would be akin to saying bleach and ammonia have to be classified as weapons, simply because you can make explosives with them. You can, but it is not their intended use. Microsoft CAN restrict you on how you use their console, there is a license to it. European courts don't enforce EULA's for certain things, but something universally applied in the world is: You purchased an electronic product as is. With all of its restrictions. You can't purchase a DRM'ed game that requires an internet connection, and complain to a Judge that they won't allow you to play it. Because they do: under certain conditions. I am guessing that is the same rationale Microsoft is using, and not because they wanted to, but because the MPAA and other org's probably persuaded them to.

Watch them get away with it (mostly). In the worst case, they'll just assure the consumer they cant touch your info, and restrict the "full capabilities" of the technology so they cant be legally held responsible. Best case scenario for them: They do it anyways, and the consumer still buys it.

The law doesn't lean towards the consumer, people. It leans both ways, and unless Microsoft royally screws up by actually spying on people and getting caught in the biggest class action suit the videogame industry has ever seen... we are going to have to deal with it.

Courts here in Europe tells anyone bringing up EULAs to go fuck themselves. If the same consumer rights are present in the US, the same should go over there as well.

Except that the United States has a legal system based around the legally binding opinion of judges known as 'precedents' which means the Constitutionally enshrined 'right to privacy' somehow means women have the right to second trimester Abortions on demand, yet warrantless obtainment of private information by the FBI and eavesdropping on public pay phones are perfectly legal.

So whether or not Kinect operates in an illegal fashion entirely depends on the ruling of the judge on the day of trial.

They do not legally gray areas. They use perfectly black and white areas: They are surfing your information, but they are doing so anonymously. Apple, by default grabs general information about how you use your phone, and encrypts it before it reaches them. They use it for surveys and product improvement, yaddah yaddah. Unless someone proves they are leeching information with full details and interfering with your privacy, its perfectly legal.

About the Norwegian Consumer Association: That's one conutry. One market. Logically, there will be markets where this technology will not be legal. However, what I am referring to here, is mostly based on U.S. interpretation of privacy laws. The U.S. is, arguably, still the strongest videogame market in the world. Hell, a ton of their god damned stupid tv show and sports features won't work in many countries due to copyright issues.

I suppose I should clarify: when I say "gray area", I mean that the only reason why it's legal over here is because there's no good legislation on this yet. If it had been any other kind of technology, it would have been blatantly illegal due to consumer rights.

Also another clarification: this patent is the basis for what I'm talking about. This would be blatantly illegal in most of Europe, and, from what I understand, only arguably legal in the US. How exactly that goes in the US might be one thing, but over here I can't see them being able to pack it into the Kinect and still be allowed to sell it.

That being said, considering half of the Xbone-features mentioned already won't be available in Europe, you could argue that they're not really all that interested in Europe in the first place.

The Kinect 2 is NOT a surveillance system, or at leats it doesn't sound like one. Could it be used for it? Yes, but it is not the primary or intended function. That would be akin to saying bleach and ammonia have to be classified as weapons, simply because you can make explosives with them. You can, but it is not their intended use.

Referring to the above comment. The patent couldn't possibly included, even though the Kinect 2 by itself would probably be fine.

Microsoft CAN restrict you on how you use their console, there is a license to it. European courts don't enforce EULA's for certain things, but something universally applied in the world is: You purchased an electronic product as is. With all of its restrictions. You can't purchase a DRM'ed game that requires an internet connection, and complain to a Judge that they won't allow you to play it. Because they do: under certain conditions. I am guessing that is the same rationale Microsoft is using, and not because they wanted to, but because the MPAA and other org's probably persuaded them to.

Well, yes and no. They have the right to attempt to restrict access to certain parts of the console(OS and such). However, if I bought a console, a product*, it's mine, and I have the right to do exactly what I want with it as long as it's not actually illegal. By this point they have no say in how I use the product. They want to, but it's been rules several times that it's none of their business. I can jailbreak the thing and install a Linux boot on the console, use its parts to make robots, or light it on fire while I cackle maniacally, and they can't do shit. I can also show a film to 50 of my friends at once if we're having a movie party, and they're not allowed to interfere.

*the separation between "product" and "service" is important here. I know a lot of companies want games to go under the latter term because it gives the company more control, but they're legally considered products in Europe. A "service" would be something like the XB Live, which they have every right to terminate if I break the terms of service.

All in all, ugh. If what you and Hypnotoad say is true, I'm glad I live in Europe. D:

By the way, Australian and German public figures (as in government) have both condemned the technology. Keyword being condemned, as they can't really ban it yet, until the product's capabilities are released.

*the separation between "product" and "service" is important here. I know a lot of companies want games to go under the latter term because it gives the company more control, but they're legally considered products in Europe. A "service" would be something like the XB Live, which they have every right to terminate if I break the terms of service.

This is exactly my point, and where we all agree. If they can make a case for themselves justifying it as a service (as in, "renting" the technology), then sure, but I'd assume you would have to sign a physical contract and keep a copy of it. Just like you do when you pay for internet, electricity, etc.

If they keep it as a product, then yes, you are right. There's little they can do, because you own it and can abuse it in any way you can.

TBH, the only REAL way we can have an impact here, is to vote with our wallets. Sony is probably itching to capitalize on this HUGE M$ mistake, and if they play their cards right, Microsoft may just pull a Virtual Boy here.

Its time the consumers kicked some corporate ass.

I hope that someone finds a way to hack the Kinect-camera - even when the Xbone is in standby.

Then we can watch MS tear their hair out.

By the way, Australian and German public figures (as in government) have both condemned the technology. Keyword being condemned, as they can't really ban it yet, until the product's capabilities are released.



This is exactly my point, and where we all agree. If they can make a case for themselves justifying it as a service (as in, "renting" the technology), then sure, but I'd assume you would have to sign a physical contract and keep a copy of it. Just like you do when you pay for internet, electricity, etc.

If they keep it as a product, then yes, you are right. There's little they can do, because you own it and can abuse it in any way you can.

TBH, the only REAL way we can have an impact here, is to vote with our wallets. Sony is probably itching to capitalize on this HUGE M$ mistake, and if they play their cards right, Microsoft may just pull a Virtual Boy here.

Its time the consumers kicked some corporate ass.

I have to say I'm surprised that it got banned right away, but I guess you're right in that they have to see what this thing actually can do before they decide what to do.

Other than that I completely agree with you. And considering how Microsoft seem to have shot themselves in the foot with their marketing, the chance of this bombing as hard as I hope it will is quite likely.

I hope that someone finds a way to hack the Kinect-camera - even when the Xbone is in standby.

Then we can watch MS tear their hair out.

Let's give one to some of the guys on IFI and ask them to work their magic.
I mean, they have M.Sc.- and Ph.D.-degrees there done on juggling and popping popcorn with lasers, getting a degree in screwing up glorified webcams should be possible.

Let's give one to some of the guys on IFI and ask them to work their magic.
I mean, they have M.Sc.- and Ph.D.-degrees there done on juggling and popping popcorn with lasers, getting a degree in screwing up glorified webcams should be possible.

(for anyone who isn't studying at the University of Oslo, IFI is the Institute of Computer Science - "Institutt For Informatikk")

Sounds like a plan, I should go to the hacker-space student organization (PING) I'm in and arrange a hack-a-thon.

Microsoft has been going about stating that they won't place the harsh restrictions on used games everyone has been saying, but who knows if this was the original intention or just damage control lvl 9000.

A Reddit post was also circulating, with information on a patent filed by M$, consisting of a technology to give "achievements" based on how many ads you see. While it doesn't mean they'll implement it, it speaks volumes of what the big players in the industry are assuming the next big thing will be.

I patent X, so that if my competitions comes up with something similar, I am not left behind in the game. Clever clever.