Let's say you have read a book. I'm telling you that I would like to add this book to my library. Do you have any private information about this book that you can't get by yourself? No. Do you have any information about me from the mentioned statement? Yes. Same here, from the fact that GOG invited a list of people you can get new information about GOG but not about people.

Then I question GoG and what information about their users they deem worthy to be sharing with their partners. I don't think I'm off base to note how both of you just received a free trip and now both you and Marko are now going out of your way to defend GoG over an obvious breach of business etiquette.

It's pretty simple...

For those invited, that is between them and GoG. It's really none of your business and the fact GoG chose to share that with you (without the permission of the invitee) is unprofessional.

Make all the excuses you want (it's only a user name) (what's really so bad about it) (it's not crucial information) (but we are partners now). GoG breached those user's privacy. And while some don't mind, that doesn't make their actions appropriate.

They didn't. The users have consented that GOG can share date with their partners.
It's like complaining that GOG cannot use the image you posted in their forum because you haven't given them permission, when you have already granted them permission to use any of your works that you post in the forums (yes, you have. See the privacy policy again).
Edit: User Agreement, not privacy policy. My bad.


Had they shared the other invited names with adaliabooks (who was invited, but couldn't make it, and doesn't have an NDA) then yes, it would be a breach of privacy. Had they shared said info with us before we had an NDA with them, it might also be a breach of privacy.

P.S. Do check my posts from last year or so. Hell, check my posts in the galaxy installers thread. Trip doesn't have anything to do with how I post, I posted the same before the trip as well.

Clearly you are missing the point...

There is a difference between legal clauses (which may or may not be enforceable) and proper business etiquette. You can make all the excuses you want, but if you can't see why someone might have an issue with GoG revealing their declined invitation to other users (despite now supposedly being a "partner"), I can't help you.

I stick to my point, that both of you seem to be going quite out of your way in defending GoG over this after your free trip even when some of your fellow users have a bit of a problem with it.

We are talking about a nickname, not real name or any real personal information, only nicknames.

Also you talk about "business etiquette" but, as somebody who signed lots of NDA during my career, I can tell you that what you call "unprofessional" or "against business etiquette" is kind of the purpose of NDAs and is pretty common.

Let's say for example that Gog has a NDA with company Y for the maintenance of their servers / database (could be external consultants, Microsoft, etc...), then it could mean that this company could potentially (depending of the term of the NDA) have access to all the data in Gog servers, including very sensitive and very private users information like real name, billing information, etc... (Again it's an example I have no idea how Gog manage their IT)

It's something pretty common, at lot of big companies no longer handle their data, support, or computer parks themselves but rely on external partners to do so and we are talking about companies that have very sensitives information about their customers.

So in comparison sharing a couple of nicknames with peoples whit witch they have signed a NDA is incredibly benign.

If you were an actor or director and publicly announced she declined. Yup.

If you invited a female co-worker over and she declines and you go telling your co-workers about it, you might be guilty of harassment.

As to other users now being partners, I guess that means you now are authorized to read all my e-mails here too. Look at what games I own, etc. [read the user agreement]

There is a big difference between offering data to partners which is non-personalized (such as the number of users playing a game at a given time) and offering information about a specific user. The GoG privacy policy, used as any other business, is meant to allow them to discuss game play metrics with their partners as well as service out support to a 3rd party if necessary. It is not meant to reveal specific personal details to anyone randomly made into a partner.

I'm not. Some people think GOG shouldn't divulge the info of who they invited without prior consent. Understandable, and agreed. By making a GOG account though, they did give said consent.

Hypothetical:
If GOG said "We invited X, Y and Z to this meeting", is that something that you disagree with? Nothing else, just that they invited those nicknames. It is an action by GOG, and no comments on the reply.
Second piece of info, "Some users couldn't get a passport in time", is that personalized? Or is that impersonal?

And no, your e-mails are not part of GOG, so we don't have access to those. Some partners may have access to GOG's e-mails though. Depending on who you send e-mails to, access to said e-mails may be given to other parties.

Yes, NDAs are designed to be used in a way which is consistent with the necessary running of a business. The fact that GoG is revealing gossipy information about specific users who weren't invited to other users is what concerns me. Declaring them a partner, doesn't change that. And more lame excuses defending GoG. "It's only a nickname." I'll have to add that to GoG excuse bingo.

The one thing that is clear is that the bribe is working. GoG could have tried to discuss some of these issues on the forum or private e-mails, but they offer free trips and now everyone who went seems hellbent on defending GoG.

Not "users", users who have signed a NDA, that's the thing you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding here, a NDA is not some cute piece of paper made for fun, it's some legally binding contract, if any of us does anything unauthorized with the information we got under this NDA we will be sued to hell and back.

Well it's not an excuse it's a fact; it's not a real name, it's not an e-mail address, it's not a personal information, just a nickname.

Did they? Where specifically? And is it a legally enforceable clause?

As to the hypotheticals: I do disagree. They should not name specific names of those not in attendance. It should have been limited to "others were invited but could not make it." I'm less worried about the mention of passports as they is sufficiently vague.

As to E-mails, read broadly, since you are claiming yourself as a "partner" now, they have the right to share those with you too.
You are full of shit. It's no fact. Of course it is personal information. You are the one having trouble "understanding".

And for the record, Google considers usernames as Privately-Identifiable Information (PII), but I guess you'll say they are wrong too.

Privacy policy, section 8. Section 10 may also be of interest.
No idea about legally enforceable, but my guess would be that it is. Do tell if there's any conflicting ruling, not sure I wish to go looking.

Not sure if I (specifically I) can get access to them, but the emails GOG employees have in their GOG mailbox are considered property of GOG (or should be, if they are similar to my previous workplaces), thus GOG could divulge them.

Seriously now, one of the main purpose of using a nickname instead of using your real name is to avoid disclosing personal information (except for peoples who uses their real names as nickname but that's their choice) why do you think there was such an uproar when Blizzard wanted to force peoples to use their real names instead of nicknames ?

O.K. - I give up. GOG bribed me and I will defend them until I die. OMG!

You are talking just like the people I work for. It is wrong, because it is wrong. No need to give any explanation (btw: I am working for our stupid government - so that is not a compliment). So if you don't want to give me an explanation except "it is wrong" than tbh I don't care about what you are saying. But to proof to you that I won't defend GOGs action on any price (a thing you just accused me of just because it sounds nice to you) I am out of here. Hope you feel better now. I just don't like to discuss with people who obviously only rant without having actual arguments so maybe it is better that way. Bye.

I don't see how it is 'gossipy information'.
It's a meeting of the most involved and vocal GOG community members, think of it like a conference. If you were to go a conference with supposedly all the greatest games developers you would expect people like Shigeru Miyamoto, John Romero, Peter Molyneux etc. to be there. And if they weren't and all the hosts told you was that they couldn't share information about who was invited and who wasn't you'd probably be a little suspicious.

If I send you an email, whether as an individual or a business, I don't see that is specifically a private matter. I could see the argument for the reverse being true, that being the recipient of an email doesn't give you the right to share the fact you received it, but as the sender I think it's well within your rights to divulge that information.
I can also see how emails about business transactions (purchase confirmations or support emails) should be a private matter between the business and individuals, but I don't see anyone complaining when Firek posts about how many requests a user has made to support when they complain on the forum.
And the contact I received from GOG was not a generic business transaction from GOG, it was out with their usual business communications and as such I don't consider it covered by those rules.