Depending on what the watermark is, it may or may not be a limitation. VIN isn't seen as one, and it is a watermark for a physical item. Sorry, it is seen as a limitation by car thieves and other people who try to move car's they shouldn't have access to.

Resource Monitor, Network tab. All running processes with network activity, including what address they connect to, what ports they are listening to, and how much data they send and receive, along with current firewall status for said process.

Interesting read. I do love though that MalwareBytes' classification of PUP should also include google as one, since it does alter the search results a user receives.

And PUP by definition may be wanted, since it's possible one wants said program.


P.S. If I may, what AV and anti-malware are you using?

sure i have send you a PM :D

ah GOOGLE :D

yes google is.... strange, differnt.... i they should block that, wel then you dont need internet...
these dudes are in such a position that almost the entire internet population 'depends' on it.

well google has gazillions so why would they be interested in a poors guys pc?
its the bad dudes that pretend to be google/youtube
these guys send many crap mails pretending they came from youtube or google, if someone clicks them, there f-ed :D
google will never ask any user for pw of google services or youtube, cause they can access all info, so why should they bother they already know everything.

I dont have a google thing so i never click so called youtube or google mails i just empty my spam folders :D

Heh Google, if you care about privacy you'd use duckduckgo/startpage etc instead of google directly. Or tor browser.

But when your OS has backdoors the solution is way harder - considering that win8 is banned from German and Chinese government institutions, and that 10 is likely gonna have worse spyware on it, I'm not sure if classic protection methods would do much. I'd use *nix for anything that is actually important/sensitive, but I just don't have enough time and patience to fight with gaming on linux these days.

Then again, some people call me paranoid.

Back at the topic at hand, I hope I'll be able to turn off the public profile, I'd rather use GOG as shopping place not a(nother) social network. Not too happy about vpn clause but it was expected consequence of regional pricing.

Ahhh capitalism... It's ok as long as it only benefits us... Bring in a clause about VPNs when they chose to implement regional pricing. And what benefits has it brought the site thusfar? There have been publishers pull titles... There has not been an influx of A grade developers come on board... Every small indie on here is going the way of pricing their titles regionally... Am I missing something? Has the change thus far brought one good thing to the consumer on this site? The only people that I have seen have any benefit are Russians

Not cool about the privacy policies:

"We might share some aggregated and general non-personal data
on user behavior ..."

Non-personal data? Why are you sharing any data at all? It appears GOG is going the path of the "status quo" of all firms. :( That's to bad. Long time GOG fan and purchaser of great digital gaming gems ... It appears its time to move on.

That means... GOG reserves the right to tell industry how much is being bought from them, and things like "people who bought game X also generally bought game Y".

For profit, right, I get it. Still not cool. I signed up to buy DRM-free games, not to have my info shared with 3rd parties(for what ever the reason) All I'm saying, is there should be an opt out feature. Ya know, the choice to choose if you want your info blasted and tracked or not. Please consider this reasonable request, GOG.

Think of it this way. They're NOT sharing ANY of your info. None of it's your info. They're not giving away your credit card number, authorization address, email address or directly tying your profile to your username.

Anything else is THEIR info.

From what I remember reading, they aren't sharing your personal data. Its not "Your" data at all as it has nothing to do with you. For example, I think they need to be able to tell Microsoft that 11,908 people want to buy Age of Empires based on unique users saying so on the wish list. That is them sharing data to 3rd parties. It does NOT name you. Your vote is simply a check mark along 11.907 others.

Or if you bought a game. They need to report that x number of people bought the game on Windows, Y bought it for Mac, etc. There isn't a retailer (digital or otherwise) in the world that doesn't report that type of non-personal data.

Transactions belong to GOG (or whoever you decided to buy from). And all of them will do this.

I would highly encourage GOG to use any and all non-personal data they can to leverage more license and discount power for themselves. It affects us only in positive ways and costs us nothing. I would equally highly discourage the use of our personal data, which they appear to be honoring.

2.1 We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'licence') to use GOG.com to download and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content and other GOG services.
This sounds like you provide a licence to let people act as broadcaster which streams purchased videos or games to other people (the latter one could also imply to stream the game and let people play it by sending the control flow, and not just simply a Let's Play).

9. (e) Don't interfere with the GOG or third party network software or other software including via tunnelling, code injection, modifying or changing GOG software, using any other similar software together with GOG services or GOG content , through protocol emulation, or through creation or use of private servers regarding GOG services or GOG content.
But I wanted to find security holes and add Jack Keane to all accounts belonging to GOG employees :-(

GOG is the most pro-consumer service I know of in their industry and I really hope:

1) they aren't starting to view customer data as a potential revenue stream or way of offsetting costs

2) they have not already been operating outside of the existing privacy policy and are just now getting around to updating it with what's been happening.

GOG is a great service and one that I love supporting. I actually feel good about making purchases here! Please don't do something that jeopardizes that.

I dont see any problem with that as long as its aggregate data and not personally identifiable :P

They said in the initial post that they will collect all questions, comments, etc. and answer them in bulk.

Well, i would be happy if GoG uses my personal and profile info, in whichever way it sees fit. Of course, now that i know about this, i am going to stop mentioning sensitive matters, like piracy.

But i would hate it if somehow, DRM started sneaking in, with tricky, individual game, EULAs. Or if removed content from already purchased products started becoming a regular phenomenon and a norm to be expected and justified, like in steam.

Hi GOG,

Thanks for giving us advance notice of the update. I have to say, as a human being I appreciate these simpler "natural language" contracts, but as a lawyer they give me the screaming heebie-jeebies.

I have several questions/concerns about the agreement. I realize that some of them are extremely nitpicky and involve scenarios that are unlikely to ever come up or become an issue - bear with me, I'm a lawyer, which means that I'm a bit crazy in the brain when it comes to hypothetical problems. :p

(I am going to split this up over several posts, as I seem to be running up against the character limit.)

The User Agreement As written, this paragraph merely states that the password is encrypted but doesn't actually impose an obligation on GOG to do so. I would prefer some stronger wording here (and in the equivalent paragraph in the Privacy Policy) that makes it clear that you are promising that you will encrypt the password in this way. "Defer"? What the bloogity blargh? Do you mean "differ"? Even if you do, I'm still not 100% clear on what the bolded portion is trying to say. To clarify, does that mean that when I use store credit, I must purchase the item in the currency that the store credit was given to me? E.g. let's say I have 5 EUR of credit, and I want to purchase a game that costs 10 EUR but for some reason I want to pay for it in USD. Can I still apply the store credit, paying for the remaining balance in USD, or must I purchase the game in EUR in order to use the EUR store credits? To clarify, does this mean that items can be exchanged on a one-for-one basis only? For example, if I want to exchange a game worth $12, could I exchange it for two $6 games, or only one? I would like to see more clarity in this paragraph as to what sorts of technical issues do or do not count as "significant". Does it have to be an issue that prevents me from finishing the game, or will problems that substantially impair my enjoyment of the title also qualify? For example, let's say that I have some weird bug where for some reason the game will only run in black-and-white - I can still play and finish the game just fine, but it's clearly not working as intended. Do I qualify for a refund? What about lesser issues such as sound stutter or choppy videos that might be unimportant to some people but a deal-breaker for others? What does "withdraw from a purchase" mean - do I get a full refund? How does this relate to my right of exchange under subparagraph (b)? Does this essentially mean that I have an either/or option of requesting a refund under (d) or exchanging the item under (b)? As written, this paragraph seems to override my rights under paragraph 6.7(a) regarding preorders. Specifically, if I pre-order a game that is not released until more than 30 days later, then the intent under 6.7(a) seems to be that I could ask for a refund at any point until the launch, but it looks like under 6.8 as soon as 30 days elapse the preorder becomes "final" and I "no longer will have any return, exchange or refund options..." unless I experience technical issues. I suspect this was an unintentional oversight, but I would appreciate seeing paragraph 6.8 amended to clarify how it interacts with 6.7(a).