nod32

If you want to post it there, go ahead

Give them these links to the Office of the Data Protection Commissioners Office while your at it, better still, read them yourself.
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/
You will discover that they have the power to regulate, monitor, investigate, and charge and prosecute anyone who infringes the DPA. They are the god of computers who have no boss but Parliament.

Read this while your at it.
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=35

Having read those i insist you read this one
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=34

And then there is this
http://www.ico.gov.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/Data_Protection_Myths_and_Realities_16_1_06_2.pdf

When you've read all those, read this. It explains the register of Data controllers
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=319

The next few explains why the EULA in NOD32 is nothing but a pile of junk
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=83
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=302
http://www.ico.gov.uk/documentUploads/Subject Access & Third Party Information.pdf

There are a load more, but i think there is enough to get going. Like i said, i know the subject inside out, and the qualifications to prove it
 
Last edited:
Sorry, i've just notice they've had a face lift and changed their name to Information Commissioner's Office, sorry if i confused anyone. I also forgot to mention that they have the power to issue enforcement notices that could cripple a data handler to the point of bankrupcy.
 
Richdog said:
Why don't you seeing as you're the one decrying it?
Click to expand...


Because they put this in the agreement

The Licensed Program contains a reporting feature which has been designed to collect samples of newly detected viruses or other threats and send them to Licensor with information about the computer and/or platforms on which the Licensed Program is installed. Such information may include personal information about You and/or the user of the computer and/or platform on which the Licensed Program is installed, information about such computer and/or platform, and the files or other information that were affected by the threat. Licensor will only use this information and data to study the threat and will take reasonable steps to preserve the confidentiality of such information. In accepting this agreement, You are acknowledging that by enabling this reporting feature, You are agreeing to allow the computer and/or platform on which the Licensed Program is installed to send this information to Licensor, to allow Licensor to collect such information and to share this information with trusted third parties.
Click to expand...
Because in the agreement they drove a bus through the Data Protection Act. Because it breaches DPA laws in every country in europe. Because the USA will have DPA laws of their own, and it drove a bus through theirs as well. Because the company who made it said up yours to everyone. Because the DATA Protection Act will not allow it on a computer used to collect personal data with an agreement like that, and some will do it anyway. Because someone threatened to do it if i didn't.

Because no one else has said it.
 
Last edited:
Dennisthemenace said:
It was made by another guy in the thread, the one with lobotomy problems
Click to expand...

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Man you're funny, "holy **** I'm deeply offended by a comment about being paranoid but can find it within me to attempt a joke about lobotomy problems".

What the hell is a lobotomy problem anyway, when only half the bit of brain is cut off or something, or a bit left dangling out someones forhead? Or both at the same time maybe, seeing as you used the plural.

Simply put, if this was such a huge problem as you make out, there would be more people than you talking about it. The fact that only you are saying it, and seem so god damned wrapped up in the whole thing to the extent that it gives you sleepless nights is icing on the cake, and a good reason to totally ignore any perceived threat from NOD32. When I get into trouble from using it I'll come round and give you a big kiss.
 
Last edited:
I call conspiracy to contravene The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 is a major reason for anyone running a computer-based business to stay away from it.

I call conspiracy to breach the Protection Act 1998 a good reason for anyone running a computer based business to stay away from it.

I call the threat of being fired for agreeing to upload data from their company network a good reason to stay away from it.

I call running the risk of shafting the one guy who can destroy your business computer capabilities with his awesome powers a good reason to stay away from it

For some reason though, you just won't take it onboard
 
Last edited:
Dennis please post this on wilder forums with all your suspicions and evidencde and get a more official response... surely that would be the best idea now.
 
It's not that any of us won't take it onboard, it's that as far as we are concerned it's just your theory at the moment. I don't see any links to anything suggesting people have lost jobs over it, or even company whitepapers looking into AV scanner use and then deciding against NOD32 for this reason.

This is either because nobody has worked it out yet (unlikely seeing as it's in the EULA, and I doubt business cutomers just skim over those), or because it's not really an issue. Until the legality of using this program is tested in the real world rather than hypothetically (eg, someone gets into **** for using it), it will remain as hype.
 
Firstly this is the software section of the forum, and in case you hadn't noticed, NOD32 is a bit of software. It's only a small point, an undeniable one.

Secondly, no one reads the EULA because they are full of lawyers gobbldegook, and most of us just can't be bothered. The Sony fiasco should tell you that. And unless you are big company you won't have a lawyer in your pocket

Thirdly, section 29 of the Data Protection Act is the part that gets broken if you want to compare it against the EULA.

And if that's a problem, there's the seven links in a post to the Information Commissioner's Office website, who explains it in easier terms.

I have supplied more than enough evidence to a convince a dead donkey. I have shown beyond any doubt that it's true.

I challenge you both to find a flaw in it. Every time i show conclusive proof you can only answer "i don't believe it". Put your money where your mouth is and prove that the software doesn't break the Data Protection Act.

I've provided enough evidence to show that it's real. I openly challenge you to prove it's fiction, unless of course, you made it all up.
 
Dennisthemenace said:
Firstly this is the software section of the forum, and in case you hadn't noticed, NOD32 is a bit of software. It's only a small point, an undeniable one.

Secondly, no one reads the EULA because they are full of lawyers gobbldegook, and most of us just can't be bothered. The Sony fiasco should tell you that. And unless you are big company you won't have a lawyer in your pocket

Thirdly, section 29 of the Data Protection Act is the part that gets broken if you want to compare it against the EULA.

And if that's a problem, there's the seven links in a post to the Information Commissioner's Office website, who explains it in easier terms.

I have supplied more than enough evidence to a convince a dead donkey. I have shown beyond any doubt that it's true.

I challenge you both to find a flaw in it. Every time i show conclusive proof you can only answer "i don't believe it". Put your money where your mouth is and prove that the software doesn't break the Data Protection Act.

I've provided enough evidence to show that it's real. I openly challenge you to prove it's fiction, unless of course, you made it all up.
Click to expand...
WOP.jpg

Is there a clue in your name m8 ;) personally I am intrigued to know the truth here.
 
My point is not that you've made it up, it's that it's not breaking any laws until it's been tested. There haven't been any lawsuits yet, no precedent has been set. Until that happens, everything you say is theory.
 
Dennisthemenace: Something you fail to note despite my relentlessly quoting the NOD documentation is that by default the program doesn't just randomly fire off personal info to all and sundry, it simply sends back info on any newly detected virii. And this is probably the clincher: NOD asks the user whether they wish to allow it to "phone home".

And for the hard of thinking I quote (yet again!) the most relevant portion of the docs:

The ThreatSense.Net Early Warning System will collect information about your computer related to newly detected threats, which may include a sample or copy of the file in which the threat appeared, the path to that file, its filename, information about the date and time, the process by which the threat appeared on your computer and information about your computer's operating system. Some of this information may include personal information about the user of the computer, for instance usernames in the path etc.
Click to expand...

If this is the limit of NODS intentions then I don't give a damn whether it contravenes the DPA or the bloody Geneva convention. Simple cookies that exist on almost all PC's can give up almost as much info, and often with more dubious intent....
 
The reasons don't come into the equasion, the EULA on the other hand is a little different. The agreement is the problem. On the home computer it can do what it wants. On a business computer different rules apply, ones that can squash a company. If this was loaded onto a computer used as a computer based business, or collecting data on others, and they agreed to let them take what they want, wether they do it or not, it can get them into trouble.

I don't make the rules, i don't enforce them. I do though, know what they are, and i do know the world of hurt it can do to a business. NOD32 can never be considered a viable options for any machine used on a company network, or one that contains personal data on other people. There are risks involved that most of them would walk away from, and those risks come with awsome penalties.
 
Last edited:
Dennisthemenace said:
The reasons don't come into the equasion, the EULA on the other hand is a little different. The agreement is the problem. On the home computer it can do what it wants. On a business computer different rules apply, ones that can squash a company. If this was loaded onto a computer used as a computer based business, or collecting data on others, and they agreed to let them take what they want, wether they do it or not, it can get them into trouble.

I don't make the rules, i don't enforce them. I do though, know what they are, and i do know the world of hurt it can do to a business. NOD32 can never be considered a viable options for any machine used on a company network, or one that contains personal data on other people. There are risks involved that most of them would walk away from, and those risks come with awsome penalties.
Click to expand...

Wow you make it sound like the world will end should NOD32 be used on business PC's and those with sensitive data, I appreciate (a tiny bit at least) your posts but you come across as someone with a HUGE chip on their shoulder, you would have been wiser posting your information and counter-claims etc. in a more friendly manner, to which you would have received a better debate :)

As it is I have used NOd32 on my PC with sensitive information, such as credit card details/online banking etc. I have been fine for over 2 years, please please, post some direct evidence that NOD 32 sends back data that could possibly contravene security of sensitive data.

This isn't a go at you, but after following this thread I see no evidence that NOD32/Eset have done anything wrong. I always disable the NetSense/threat thingy that reports back anyhow
 
When I raised the legality of NOD32’s EULA, the discussion was just that, a discussion. Everyone threw in there views, mainly disagreeing with my viewpoint. For some reason that still can’t figure out, someone had to conclude their opinion with “You can remove the tin foil hat now”. There was no reason for it, it was uncalled for, directed at me, so why put it in? The next post I asked about the third party mentioned in the EULA, and put “You may use your brain now”. It was the only thing I could think of at the time. Then along comes someone else who re posts the insult adding “I was thinking it... but didn't say it”, why I have no idea. My answer was to throw one back. Then someone else jumps in with “If NOD32 were secretly uploading your homegrown goat pornography without your knowledge”. With this one I backed off, it was getting silly, and destroying the thread. It made no difference, along comes someone else and reposts it. There was no way I couldn’t reply to it.


Posting a disagreeing viewpoint is one thing, throwing insults in just because the person disagrees is something else. If I said Norton was a pile of junk, those few would have kept it civil, maybe even passed on to another thread. Replace Norton with NOD32 and those few became a lynch mob throwing insult after insult, just because they don’t like the view, and kept on throwing them until the person stopped voicing their viewpoint. I agree, those last few post were made with a chip on my shoulder, but it wasn’t at the start, not until the lynch mob started. Go back to the start of the thread and you’ll find that’s what happened. Your post added something to the thread, you voiced your opinion. Never saw any insulting remarks though, not one directed at anyone in any direction, and none directed at you. Mind you, your viewpoint isn't NOD32 is a pile of junk to anyone covered by the Data Protection Act.
 
Talking about goat porn and tin foil hats on the internet isn't really insulting though. This is the internet we are talking about, home to such delights as Ogrish and Goatse.

Also, none of those are insults, it's not like I came along and posted "LOL DENNISTHEMENACE HAS GOAT PORN AND ALSO PORN OF GOATS WEARING TIN FOIL HATS, HURR ONE BETTER THAN THAT, HE MAKES THAT PORN LAWL HAY GUYS WASN'T THAT FUNNY?".
 
Good reply. You said you were somehow insulted by things which weren't insults. I said you need to get used to the internet, it is, after all, serious business.
 
Jesus christ, are you trying to tell me that you read that and thought I was seriously accusing you of making your own goat porn?

Is your humour detector broken or something, or did you uninstall it because it was uploading all your jokes to a central server and infringing on your privacy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom