I have more alt accounts than I care to admit. When I check their profiles, it would be nice to know which one has which troops boosted to "super" mode.
Printable View
I have more alt accounts than I care to admit. When I check their profiles, it would be nice to know which one has which troops boosted to "super" mode.
Why not, good idea, in our clan we write this in a thread on Line
I suspect more people would dislike this than would like it.
And it could even pose data privacy legal implications.
Data privacy légal implications just for indicating super troop in profile like heroes and troops lvl ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
hose are standard and permanent. Super troops are one week at a time, and something very few people in a clan are likely to have, so many would prefer it not be known, to avoid getting inundated with requests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niglou
Whether it would actually class as "personal data" under GDPR and similar regulations I'm not quite certain, but I think it quite likely it would.
It would be fine if there were an option for the player to hide the fact he has them, I'm not sure it would otherwise.
This could be a good optionQuote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
Count me as a dislike Ajax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
I have sent a clanmail letting everyone know what I have available (all bar super goblin), but that's my choice.
Sometimes when I'm busy, I just want to login & cycle thro' my bases, empty collectors, clear obstacles & maybe start an upgrade if I have the loot. I do not want, ever, to login & spend an entire coffee break, for example, cooking & donating Supertoops.
That viewpoint is not a valid one to hang your hat on, Ajax. Since you mentioned GDPR, I pulled this from their website:
“Personal data are any information which are related to an identified or identifiable natural person.
The data subjects are identifiable if they can be directly or indirectly identified, especially by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or one of several special characteristics, which expresses the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, commercial, cultural or social identity of these natural persons. In practice, these also include all data which are or can be assigned to a person in any kind of way. For example, the telephone, credit card or personnel number of a person, account data, number plate, appearance, customer number or address are all personal data.”
(source: https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/personal-data/)
Displaying a temporary troop upgrade is none of these things unless you’re seeing matrix digital rain while playing Clash of Clans, and even then, those are just sushi recipes.
I fail to see how it’s an invasion of privacy to know this information, but I don’t think it should be displayed. Clanmates need to learn to communicate with one another. That was my directive when I shared which ones I chose with the group.
That list is a list of possible identifiers - and is not exhaustive. Your player tag is such an identifier. So you are an "identifiable individual" under those rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by toofinedog
The question of whether it is "personal data" is better covered by the paragraph following the one you quoted, which again is not exhaustive, but which says:
Quote:
Since the definition includes “any information,” one must assume that the term “personal data” should be as broadly interpreted as possible. This is also suggested in case law of the European Court of Justice, which also considers less explicit information, such as recordings of work times which include information about the time when an employee begins and ends his work day, as well as breaks or times which do not fall in work time, as personal data. Also, written answers from a candidate during a test and any remarks from the examiner regarding these answers are “personal data” if the candidate can be theoretically identified. The same also applies to IP addresses. If the controller has the legal option to oblige the provider to hand over additional information which enable him to identify the user behind the IP address, this is also personal data. In addition, one must note that personal data need not be objective. Subjective information such as opinions, judgements or estimates can be personal data. Thus, this includes an assessment of creditworthiness of a person or an estimate of work performance by an employer.
Ajax i think the point you made with privacy sounds really odd and pointless. We can see all other stuff and troops in profile and even skins are visible.
If supertroops would have been payed with real money i wcould understand that because sc already mentooned not to give an indicator for goldpass owner except the skins.
But since the supertroops are supered with dark there is no need to hide them. These troops are also made to be donated which makes your privacy point complete pointless.
good idea , i dont get the technical stuff but i would just like to flex those if i get one.
Thank you for telling the people on here who have already said they don't want this for privacy reasons that they are "pointless".Quote:
Originally Posted by wotanwaton
You may personally be perfectly happy for everybody to know which super troop you currently have. I would be too.
But many aren't.
And it wasn't just the fact you have spent money on the gold pass that was making many people want it kept private, it was also the fact that people would be demanding donations, knowing they have 1-gem donations available.
Then tell me why super troops are donateable?! Since you say it is something private they shouldnt be able to donate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
Why can we see all other troops and stuff in profil? Arent they private?
Btw found the real reason:
Looks like a strategic point for wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darian[Supercell]
I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why you believe privacy has the slightest relationship to donateability.Quote:
Originally Posted by wotanwaton
Obviously, if you choose to donate something, then people will know you have it, but that is your choice. You can always choose to let people know about private facts about yourself.
If you choose not to donate them, then many players think people should not know that you could have done.
It could probably be argued that they are, although less so, since those are "standard", rather than something you can only have one out of a selection at any time.Quote:
Why can we see all other troops and stuff in profil? Arent they private?
A reason, not "the" reason. And that is also linked to privacy.Quote:
Btw found the real reason:
Looks like a strategic point for wars.
Ajax, you are wrong in this instance. Displaying super troop types available has no more impact on a player's privacy to displaying any troop type or level. None, zero, nada, zip.
Super troops are simply a temporary troop upgrade that cost in-game resources and no one knows whether those resources were obtained through game play or real world currency.
The permanent upgrades made to a village are readily available for all to view and some of those upgrades cost the same in-game resource.
I don't care either way but for a temporary troop it seems hardly worth the effort. Just like I announced the availability of seige machines to my clan, I'll advise them if have any super troops to donate
That is really odd what you post regarding supertroops and privacy. If you think that it would be a breache of privacy then all troops should not be visible. Your arguments could be used as reason for that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
Glad you agree with me, since I have already said that "it could probably be argued that they are".Quote:
Originally Posted by wotanwaton
In what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by OzAudi
Are you saying the quotes about the law were wrong?
Well that simply isn't true.Quote:
Displaying super troop types available has no more impact on a player's privacy to displaying any troop type or level. None, zero, nada, zip.
There IS a difference between something which is only available on a temporary basis, with only one from a selection (4 now, will be more later), and something which almost everybody has, just at different levels, and which are permanently available.
But even if it were fully true, I have already said it is arguable those shouldn't be shown either.
True, but not sure what you feel the relevance may be.Quote:
Super troops are simply a temporary troop upgrade that cost in-game resources and no one knows whether those resources were obtained through game play or real world currency.
Also true, but also irrelevant. And again, I have already said it is arguable those would be subject to the privacy laws. But of course that is if anybody were to complain to the Information Commissioners Office (or equivalent in whichever country you reside).Quote:
The permanent upgrades made to a village are readily available for all to view and some of those upgrades cost the same in-game resource.
Yes, and so would I, but the point about privacy is that it should be your choice. Your information should not be given to others without you choosing to allow it.Quote:
I don't care either way but for a temporary troop it seems hardly worth the effort. Just like I announced the availability of seige machines to my clan, I'll advise them if have any super troops to donate
Personally, I don't care in the least if this is shown. Our clan is not composed of people who will beg for these as soon as they somebody has them, nor people who will resent donating them.
But I can fully understand why many people don't want it, and my reading of the relevant laws suggests that in Europe at least, it may well be with breach of the GDPR regulations to display this information without permission.
There are, of course, exceptions where it is necessary, so obviously you can always see them when they get used, because the replay would not make sense without them (though even there I have seen people saying you shouldn't be able to see replays without the choice of the player).
I guess you missread my post. I do not agree with you. The reasons you have given for privacy and suprtroops are strange and not plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
If privacy would be the reason why supertroops arent visible in profile than no one should be able to see anything in profil except league and name (not playertag) player badge for recruiting tool.
You are missing the fundamental issue with privacy. Personal privacy. Person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
As players we are anonymous within the game, unless we reveal personal information.
There is nothing personal about access or otherwise to a game feature.
Everything else hinging off the privacy debate is just waffle for the sake of defending an incorrect interpretation of the meaning of personal privacy.
If I'm wrong and you're correct and privacy extends to our in-game personas, then SC is in breach of privacy laws in just about every jurisdiction in the world because they have revealed the troop types and levels attached to every base (the point you think is irrelevant).
It is not a personal privacy issue.
No I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OzAudi
As quoted previously in this thread (not initially by me)Quote:
As players we are anonymous within the game, unless we reveal personal information.
I don't honestly think there is much doubt that we are identifiable under that definition.Quote:
“Personal data are any information which are related to an identified or identifiable natural person.
The data subjects are identifiable if they can be directly or indirectly identified, especially by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or one of several special characteristics, which expresses the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, commercial, cultural or social identity of these natural persons. In practice, these also include all data which are or can be assigned to a person in any kind of way. For example, the telephone, credit card or personnel number of a person, account data, number plate, appearance, customer number or address are all personal data.”
(source: https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/personal-data/)
And if not, then presumably you think that our "name & shame" rule here on the forum should also not apply to showing details of any in-game account? There is good reason why it does.
There is also the simple fact that in many clans (including mine), many of the people do know the real names of others. I am friends on facebook with about half my clan, and know most of them through another website.
I believe yours to be the incorrect interpretation. I find it very hard to find a way of reading the above which makes this a non-issue.Quote:
There is nothing personal about access or otherwise to a game feature.
Everything else hinging off the privacy debate is just waffle for the sake of defending an incorrect interpretation of the meaning of personal privacy.
I have no idea why you think I think that to be irrelevant?Quote:
If I'm wrong and you're correct and privacy extends to our in-game personas, then SC is in breach of privacy laws in just about every jurisdiction in the world because they have revealed the troop types and levels attached to every base (the point you think is irrelevant).
I have already said several time in this thread that it is arguable those should also not be shown.
It almost certainly is.Quote:
It is not a personal privacy issue.
One thing I should say on all of this though is that a combination of term 3.2.3 of the ToS, and their Privacy policy may mean you have given permission for these details to be published.
If a player chooses to reveal their personal information to another player, SC is not in breach of any privacy law I've encountered professionally. Red herring at best
The issue at hand is whether SC is restricted by law from adding a troop type to our player profile because they will be in breach if privacy laws. If the added information means we are no longer anonymous, then they will be in breach of privacy laws. If it doesn't and we still have control over our own anonymity then it's not a breach of privacy laws. Pretty simple really.
So if we are currently anonymous in-game unless we choose otherwise, how does adding a troop type, temporary or otherwise, suddenly mean we are no longer anonymous and the player base suddenly able to identify someone as an individual, natural person.
But I give up, you no longer recall what you have written in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
Correct. Not sure what your point is though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OzAudi
Incorrect.Quote:
The issue at hand is whether SC is restricted by law from adding a troop type to our player profile because they will be in breach if privacy laws. If the added information means we are no longer anonymous, then they will be in breach of privacy laws. If it doesn't and we still have control over our own anonymity then it's not a breach of privacy laws. Pretty simple really.
It isn't about whether the new information removes anonymity (it doesn't). I don't think there is any real doubt on that part of the argument, we are identifiable individuals in game within the meaning of the law.
If we are not anonymous (regardless of whether that is down to the new information or not), then if the new information can be regarded as personal data, publishing it without your explicit permission could be in breach of privacy laws.
The only real question here is whether that information can be regarded as personal data. I believe it could. I believe any information about you that you may not want everybody else to know is personal data (regardless of whether you or I as individuals don't mind it being known).
It doesn't, of course.Quote:
So if we are currently anonymous in-game unless we choose otherwise, how does adding a troop type, temporary or otherwise, suddenly mean we are no longer anonymous and the player base suddenly able to identify someone as an individual, natural person.
My argument has never been that this information makes you not anonymous. I do not believe we have ever been anonymous in game within the meaning of the law.
Incidentally, one of the main reasons argued as to why the ruled out online indicator should not be implemented is privacy. So other people obviously feel identifiable enough to want their privacy within the game.
I recall it perfectly well, but I wasn't saying what you are interpreting it as.Quote:
But I give up, you no longer recall what you have written in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
I was saying it was irrelevant there mainly in reference to your comment about them "using the same in-game currency", but also because I had already said several times that I do believe it arguable that showing the normal troops is indeed also a breach of privacy. So it was irrelevant as an argument as to why this might not be.
Are we anonymous in-game to the player base now ?
How will adding troop information change this ?
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by OzAudi
It won't.Quote:
How will adding troop information change this ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
If we are not anonymous to the rest of the player base then is SC in breach of privacy laws and can you ask a SC employee to advise players how they can really protect their real life identities ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
If adding super troops won't change whether we are anonymous or not, why did you suggest, in your very first post in this thread, that "it could even pose data privacy legal implications" when those implications already existed ?
Possibly. I have never said it is definitely in breach of privacy laws, and am certainly not going to make a definite statement on it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by OzAudi
And as I said in an earlier post, it is also possible that the ToS and privacy statement together mean we have given implicit permission for those things to be displayed.
Define "real life identity". And why you think that is at risk.Quote:
and can you ask a SC employee to advise players how they can really protect their real life identities ?
The definition in the EU regulations (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...6R0679&from=EN regulation 4, page 33) says:
I believe the bits I have bolded mean that it applies here even if you can't actually identify the physical person directly from the data.Quote:
‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an
identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an
identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors
specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;
You get to know people in your clan through the clan chat and their behaviours in clan activities, and knowing their name/tag gets you to the person as you know them.
I don't think the question is really about whether we are identifiable within the meaning of the law.
The question is whether the information about troops is then personal information which should be protected.
I was saying that adding the details of what supertroops you currently have could pose legal privacy implications.Quote:
If adding super troops won't change whether we are anonymous or not, why did you suggest, in your very first post in this thread, that "it could even pose data privacy legal implications" when those implications already existed ?
I'll admit, I hadn't thought through at the time whether that meant the current profile display does so already. I just thought that it was something we had already seen several people say they would not want to be shown, because they value their privacy on this matter.
Since no one owns their account, they are all owned by Super Cell, would it really be a breach of privacy if SC decided to show Super troop information about the accounts they own?
I could understand this argument if each account was privately owned by the user, but since this is not the case, the owner (SC) has the option to disclose as much or as little as they what to, if the person who is operating the account finds this invasive, they could just not play it if they so choose.
As I have said, it is possible that the ToS and Privacy policy in combination do mean you have given implied consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warios
The fact that Supercell own the data makes no difference.
Ajax, I am not identifiable as a person, in real life, a living breathing person, by anything in my CoC profile. Nothing. If you think this is an incorrect statement, please present an example.
Nothing in an account profile is useful to the general player base outside the game.
The presence of a unique identification tag in a player's profile does not mean that person is identifiable.
The player is identifiable but not the person behind the account. The real life person, natural person or whatever legal expression is used in whichever legislation you want to investigate.
Privacy laws are all about "real life identities".
As a test, can the information in two player account profile a determine whether they are the same person ?
I see no point taking this further. I'm clearly not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change mine either.Quote:
Originally Posted by OzAudi
Te fact we don't know what their face looks like, or where they live is irrelevant. The legislation draws identification VERY broadly, but you are not willing to accept that.
As far as I am concerned, my reading of the relevant law says it may be a breach to publish that information.
The fact you are so definite it cannot tends to indicate you probably aren't that familiar with the law and the way it operates because in this sort of matter it is rarely that clear cut.
You claim we are not anonymous, yet you will not provide an example of how profiles can used to identify us even though I have requested you provide one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
I asked you to clarify if two player profiles can be used to determine if the same person is behind those two profiles yet you haven't.
I asked you to source an official SC response to your claims yet you haven't made mention of any attempt to provide this information.
There is one obvious reason for your unwillingness to provide anything but your interpretation of a law and that is you cant prove your claims.
You have raised an incredibly concerning issue. I want to hear an official response from an AC employee.
I keenly await a reply from someone who actually knows whether our identities are comprised through our player profiles.
This would be cool.
What's the point of not displaying it for privacy when you can see that player do have them on their army camp or using them at war attacks?
Just like having the hero skin of the season means you have a gold pass. 🤷🏻♥♂️
Ajax, please acknowledge I have requested official verification of your claim we are not anonymous. Publically not via PM.
What an odd thing to ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by OzAudi
You won't be getting it.
This is a player discussion forum, not an SC support forum.
Nevermind, I'll deal with it myself if you're not willing even though it is not a support issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax
I fully understand this is a player forum. I fully understand your are only giving your opinion to best of your ability as a player.
Might I suggest this is the furthest down a rabbit hole a forum thread has gone ever? I can see both sides of wanting not wanting it to show from a player perspective. The rest is arguing for the sake of arguing.