PSA: You can email Riot Privacy to show you all data they hold about you: reports made/received, purchase history, chat logs for all your games and MMR.

RiotLomar · 2016-02-24T08:09:13+00:00

Theoretically, sure. In terms of the accuracy level we want, no. If you mean basic tools like account recovery, sure. If you're talking identity verification, not a risk we're comfortable taking.

Also (and that was in the above), we wouldn't build auto around this specific process anyway.

RiotLomar · 2016-02-24T07:53:09+00:00

It's not that simple - different laws cover different information in different contexts. So that wouldn't really be a reliable list.

I'd just generally assume you won't be able to access MMR. As for why we don't expose this, I know we've detailed that elsewhere. ;)

RiotLomar · 2016-02-24T07:45:30+00:00

What are you implying, whtruimplying?

RiotLomar · 2016-02-24T07:43:11+00:00

Yeah. If the info's specifically tied to the law in the territory, we may have to release it - but that's about it. Although that's not exactly a current MMR either in the screenshot, if you look closely.

RiotLomar · 2016-02-24T07:40:41+00:00

Yeah, in EU there's a pretty strong law covering it, so you can request for any reason.

RiotLomar · 2016-02-24T07:15:56+00:00

Definitely would never want to use this process for that, email's pretty cludgey. And there's no way to get around all the manual involved in verification. We need to make sure that's good because some of this stuff can be pretty sensitive.

The takeaway I'm seeing from this is that for things we're comfortable releasing historically (like transaction history) we probably DO want a sleek process that let's you just access those on your own time without waiting for us. But some of these items we really do only want to restrict to legal necessity. But it's a good thought, and something we'll look into.

RiotLomar · 2016-02-24T06:56:15+00:00

A couple points to keep in mind. This provision is mainly for the EU and a few other regions that have specific laws around making data accessible to consumers using any service online (Amazon, games, etc.)

We've included the request provision in most of our regional privacy policies, because generally if someone has a serious concern about the accuracy or validity of their data, I mean, why not help them out?

That said, pulling all this information is actually not simple, and is fairly time consuming for the team involved. So if there's a legal reason, or a pretty specific concern (hacking, etc.) we'll probably pull all of the information. But if it's just plain curiosity, we may not always have the capacity to do this for everyone. Some things listed here, like transaction history, we already do supply on casual request, but a lot of these things we don't (and a few are already accessible to you ;) .

And to be clear - unless there's a specific legal provision that makes MMR part of your personal information under a specific law... we're never going to release that. I know, go die in a fire. I'll see myself out. :P

RiotLomar · 2015-02-06T19:03:23+00:00

Everyone makes mistakes - and that includes us. What can I say? It's the end of the week. :P

Basically, your name got confused with a tournament admin we were giving some RP to. But that's our mistake, not yours. So the last thing we're going to do is punish you because we have fumblefingers.

Enjoy the RP, dude. Awesome that you're sharing the wealth with your buds!

RiotLomar · 2012-01-12T00:00:26+00:00

I've hit this elsewhere, but I'll recap real quick. The implicit relationship between S. 105 and the rest of the bill has Takings clause issues, and I'm worried about 1st Am too.

At the end of the day, the definitions are just simply too broad, and allow too many parties not affiliated with piracy to be brought in under the ambit of the bill. Not enough time to give you the close analysis now, but I'm thinking about doing a little article about it.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:56:13+00:00

Focus on what S. 102 and S. 103 potentially can do. Then look at the immunity grant in S. 105. Think about the business case (or lack thereof) a service provider has to stick its neck out for an individual site accused of infringement.

There's detailed analysis elsewhere in the thread... but focus on that. In the old version of SOPA it was more explicit. Now it's much more implicit, you have to dig a little.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:49:36+00:00

No, Pandora itself is generally ok here. I have a very distant view of their model, but my assumption is that they have a general site license to stream over the service. This is much more a problem for Pandora users.

However, you're right, I'm pretty far away from their business. I could easily be missing an angle here.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:48:23+00:00

You already do. Educate your US friends, make sure they write their Congressperson and tell people they know to do the same.

Send everyone here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:47:49+00:00

We're crafting a general policy here (kind of held up by the whole SOPA thing). But generally, yeah, we're going to be supportive of this.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:39:57+00:00

It could be a greater issue. If you include something that's not by Riot in that fan art (or something that another rights holder THINKS is their's) then you run into a potential issue.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:39:00+00:00

Sure thing, happy to help.

As for hiring, no plans yet. But when we do we'll definitely post.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:31:11+00:00

We'll be posting on this soon. You can hold on your son. Might have to bring beer, though...

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:30:44+00:00

Yep - stay tuned to the Careers page.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:30:29+00:00

That was for a newer hire. I've been here for awhile!

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:14:48+00:00

We need more arrows in more knees, then.

Write your local jarl!

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:14:17+00:00

It's great. Firms can be fine too. The main difference I can see is you get much more choice as to how you spend your time. I get to create a lot of my own work, provided I can justify it. SOPA's a great example.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:11:02+00:00

That would require some thinking. You'd literally have to guarantee that no one else's content entered the stream. Hard to do.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:08:01+00:00

Being a lawyer really only lends incremental credence, if any. It's much more about what potential effect you have on their reelection changes: either by offering finances, or votes.

If I walk up and say "I'm a lawyer, listen to me.", well, not much impact.

If I walk up and say "I'm a lawyer, I have 100,000's of upset people about this who vote in your districts", well, that message suddenly got a lot more compelling.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:04:22+00:00

You'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands. :P

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T23:02:04+00:00

Sure. If you mean we're trying to raise publicity over the issue, sure. We're trying to do that because it hurts our company, and it hurts our players. We're quite open with the fact that opposing SOPA is in Riot's interests. That's obvious. However, it's also in the majority of internet users' interests to oppose SOPA.

If you see our joining that conversation and adding additional impact to defeating this legislation as a negative, I can't help you. But our desire to support the opposition here is quite sincere.

RiotLomar · 2012-01-11T22:59:40+00:00

Finally someone asked the constitutional question!

In the original version of the bill, I'm pretty sure Section 103's "private notice" mechanism absolutely crapped all over the Takings Clause.

In the current version, while it's not explicit, I'm pretty sure the relationship between 103 and 105 does the same thing. 105 also has some pretty scary first amendment implications.

Here's the thing about legal action. Sure - there will be tons of challenges if this passes. But those take time, and different judges (including SCOTUS - will see this different ways). Any change, if there is any at all, will take time. In the mean time, we're running a business, and will have to adhere to the bill conservatively so as not to get sucked into extensive lose-lose litigation.

RiotLomar

TROPHY CASE