Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Vitalant

2025-06-02T03:29:22Z

I Will Not Use Discord: edit

Vitalant is a blood bank company. In their privacy policy, they claim to not sell or share your data. However, their website has embedded trackers for Meta and Google, which can be verified by looking at Brave Shields within Brave Browser. This is especially an issue for Vitalant, since they deal with people's private medical information.{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = {{PAGENAME}}
| Type =
| Founded =
| Industry =
| Official Website =
| Logo =
}}{{Placeholder box|An introductory paragraph starting with "'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a ...<ref name":0">ref goes here</ref>". When writing the article, insert text in the space below this box, and then delete this tip box (and the other tip boxes below). In the visual editor, just click on a box and press backspace to delete it. In the source editor, simply delete the double curly brackets, and the text inside them.}}

==Consumer-impact summary==
{{Placeholder box|Overview of concerns that arise from the company's conduct regarding (if applicable):
* User freedom
* User privacy
* Business model
* Market control}}

==Incidents==
{{Placeholder box|Add one-paragraph summaries of incidents below in sub-sections, which link to each incident's main article while linking to the main article and including a short summary. It is acceptable to create an incident summary before the main page for an incident has been created. To link to the page use the "Hatnote" or "Main" templates.

If the company has numerous incidents then format them in a table (see [[Amazon]] for an example). }}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===Example incident one (''date'')===
{{Main|link to the main article}}
Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).
===Example incident two (''date'')===
...

==Products==
{{Placeholder box|This is a list of the company's product lines '''with articles on this wiki'''.
* [[Example product line one]] (release date): Short summary of the product's incidents.
* [[Example product line two]] (release date):}}

==See also==
{{Placeholder box|Link to relevant theme articles or companies with similar incidents.}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Vitalant

2025-06-02T03:19:46Z

I Will Not Use Discord: initial page

Vitalant is a blood bank company. In their privacy policy, they claim to not sell or share your data. However, their website has embedded trackers for Meta and Google, which can be verified by looking at Brave Shields within Brave Browser.{{InfoboxCompany
| Name = {{PAGENAME}}
| Type =
| Founded =
| Industry =
| Official Website =
| Logo =
}}{{Placeholder box|An introductory paragraph starting with "'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a ...<ref name":0">ref goes here</ref>". When writing the article, insert text in the space below this box, and then delete this tip box (and the other tip boxes below). In the visual editor, just click on a box and press backspace to delete it. In the source editor, simply delete the double curly brackets, and the text inside them.}}

==Consumer-impact summary==
{{Placeholder box|Overview of concerns that arise from the company's conduct regarding (if applicable):
* User freedom
* User privacy
* Business model
* Market control}}

==Incidents==
{{Placeholder box|Add one-paragraph summaries of incidents below in sub-sections, which link to each incident's main article while linking to the main article and including a short summary. It is acceptable to create an incident summary before the main page for an incident has been created. To link to the page use the "Hatnote" or "Main" templates.

If the company has numerous incidents then format them in a table (see [[Amazon]] for an example). }}

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===Example incident one (''date'')===
{{Main|link to the main article}}
Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).
===Example incident two (''date'')===
...

==Products==
{{Placeholder box|This is a list of the company's product lines '''with articles on this wiki'''.
* [[Example product line one]] (release date): Short summary of the product's incidents.
* [[Example product line two]] (release date):}}

==See also==
{{Placeholder box|Link to relevant theme articles or companies with similar incidents.}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Talk:Hidden EULA language

2025-01-20T19:35:11Z

I Will Not Use Discord:

= More accessible title?=
This looks like a slang term and it made no sense to me at first. What does "roofie" mean in the first place? Do they put people on the roof so they can kick them off and watch them suffer? Are they hiding the terms on the roof of the house such that you are normally not looking for them? What even is the etymology of the word?

I would recommend changing it to something that is more accessible especially to people who speak English as a second language. For example, "Hidden/Questionable EULA terms".

:Its use is meant to invoke a visceral response to the violation an actual roofie (the slipping of a drug to an unknown party) usually precedes, to put them on an equal level of reprehensible. I agree that the turn of phrase LR uses both can confuse those not knowing the origin of the slang, or risks being handled very indelicately at some point. <u>I was thinking that perhaps we could maybe convince LR to use a Darth Vader v Lando Calrissian themed example.</u> 1, its understanding is probably would be more widespread being Star Wars and all, and 2, it survives polite conversation tones much more readily. [[User:MadMallard|MadMallard]] ([[User talk:MadMallard|talk]]) 00:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

=Is the term consistent with the "Granny Rule" in the mission statement?=
It is a good term, but it is not clear to me that it is consistent with the Granny Rule in the mission statement. The term may be seen as overly inflammatory for Granny. It might also offend movements that defend sexual assault survivors. Do we consider this an exception to the Granny Rule? What are your thoughts?

Agree. I propose that article should be reworded. EULA Roofie can be referred to as a colloquialism, and its meaning explained, but it should not be the main title or reference term for this Theme. Discussion here about an appropriate alternative is welcomed! -Keith

I second that. I've heard EULA Rugpull floating around, but I'd suggest Term Spiking Heres my terms list I've been working on:

Agreement Abuse
├── License Laundering (ownership undermining)
│ └── Converting purchases to licenses
│ └── Revoking perpetual rights
│ └── Redefining ownership terms
│
├── Feature Ransom (functionality hostaging)
│ └── Blocking core functionality
│ └── Converting features to services
│ └── Requiring new agreements for use
│
├── Term Spiking (stealth changes)
│ ├── Silent Updates
│ ├── Buried Changes
│ └── Version Obfuscation
│
├── Legal Lockout (rights obstruction)
│ └── Arbitration requirements
│ └── Class action restrictions
│ └── Jurisdiction control
│
├── Rights Stripping (systematic removal)
│ └── Warranty elimination
│ └── Usage restriction
│ └── Remedy blocking
│
└── Service Siphoning (forced conversion)
└── Subscription forcing
└── Feature reclassification
└── Access degradation

-Travis

=Should this be replaced with something more internationally applicable?=
"Using lengthy documents (often 50+ pages) to hide terms that rob you of your privacy and rights as an American citizen (your day in court)."
I'm not sure since I don't know if this wiki is intended for consumer protection outside of America?

This Wiki is intended to be international, and I have edited the mentioned statement to reflect this. -Keith

= Spelling =

Is it spelled EULA roofieing or is there a different way to actually spell it?
[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 22:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Reply to JamesTDG. It is spelled "EULA roofying." Perhaps the title of the article should be changed from "EULA roofie" to "EULA Roofying-" [[User:I_Will_Not_Use_Discord|I_Will_Not_Use_Discord]]

= Merge suggestion =
This seems to be roughly a duplicate of [[Post-purchase EULA modification]]. Indeed, that article says <q>Post-purchase End User Licence Agreement (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘EULA Roofie’</q>, which suggests that the two articles refer to the same thing. I think the two articles ought to be merged. "EULA roofie" is probably a lot less professional and should not be the chosen title retained for the merge.[[User:Mingyee|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee|talk]]) 15:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Hidden EULA language

2025-01-20T19:32:33Z

I Will Not Use Discord:

= More accessible title?=
This looks like a slang term and it made no sense to me at first. What does "roofie" mean in the first place? Do they put people on the roof so they can kick them off and watch them suffer? Are they hiding the terms on the roof of the house such that you are normally not looking for them? What even is the etymology of the word?

I would recommend changing it to something that is more accessible especially to people who speak English as a second language. For example, "Hidden/Questionable EULA terms".

:Its use is meant to invoke a visceral response to the violation an actual roofie (the slipping of a drug to an unknown party) usually precedes, to put them on an equal level of reprehensible. I agree that the turn of phrase LR uses both can confuse those not knowing the origin of the slang, or risks being handled very indelicately at some point. <u>I was thinking that perhaps we could maybe convince LR to use a Darth Vader v Lando Calrissian themed example.</u> 1, its understanding is probably would be more widespread being Star Wars and all, and 2, it survives polite conversation tones much more readily. [[User:MadMallard|MadMallard]] ([[User talk:MadMallard|talk]]) 00:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

=Is the term consistent with the "Granny Rule" in the mission statement?=
It is a good term, but it is not clear to me that it is consistent with the Granny Rule in the mission statement. The term may be seen as overly inflammatory for Granny. It might also offend movements that defend sexual assault survivors. Do we consider this an exception to the Granny Rule? What are your thoughts?

Agree. I propose that article should be reworded. EULA Roofie can be referred to as a colloquialism, and its meaning explained, but it should not be the main title or reference term for this Theme. Discussion here about an appropriate alternative is welcomed! -Keith

I second that. I've heard EULA Rugpull floating around, but I'd suggest Term Spiking Heres my terms list I've been working on:

Agreement Abuse
├── License Laundering (ownership undermining)
│ └── Converting purchases to licenses
│ └── Revoking perpetual rights
│ └── Redefining ownership terms
│
├── Feature Ransom (functionality hostaging)
│ └── Blocking core functionality
│ └── Converting features to services
│ └── Requiring new agreements for use
│
├── Term Spiking (stealth changes)
│ ├── Silent Updates
│ ├── Buried Changes
│ └── Version Obfuscation
│
├── Legal Lockout (rights obstruction)
│ └── Arbitration requirements
│ └── Class action restrictions
│ └── Jurisdiction control
│
├── Rights Stripping (systematic removal)
│ └── Warranty elimination
│ └── Usage restriction
│ └── Remedy blocking
│
└── Service Siphoning (forced conversion)
└── Subscription forcing
└── Feature reclassification
└── Access degradation

-Travis

=Should this be replaced with something more internationally applicable?=
"Using lengthy documents (often 50+ pages) to hide terms that rob you of your privacy and rights as an American citizen (your day in court)."
I'm not sure since I don't know if this wiki is intended for consumer protection outside of America?

This Wiki is intended to be international, and I have edited the mentioned statement to reflect this. -Keith

= Spelling =

Is it spelled EULA roofieing or is there a different way to actually spell it?
[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 22:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Reply to JamesTDG. It is spelled "EULA roofying." - [[User:I_Will_Not_Use_Discord|I_Will_Not_Use_Discord]]

= Merge suggestion =
This seems to be roughly a duplicate of [[Post-purchase EULA modification]]. Indeed, that article says <q>Post-purchase End User Licence Agreement (EULA) modification, colloquially referred to as the ‘EULA Roofie’</q>, which suggests that the two articles refer to the same thing. I think the two articles ought to be merged. "EULA roofie" is probably a lot less professional and should not be the chosen title retained for the merge.[[User:Mingyee|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee|talk]]) 15:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Reverse engineering Bambu Connect

2025-01-20T19:21:12Z

I Will Not Use Discord:

As seen on Louis Rossmann! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYhYkpYpt58 [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 10:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

= Confusion from tech-illiterate regarding this article =

I am relatively tech-illiterate, so I have a couple of questions that this article does not cover.

First, this is probably a basic question, but why is there a private-key hard-coded into the device? I know almost nothing about encryption, but I assumed that the private keys were supposed to stay on the server in order to magically sign updates. I thought that authentication of the signature was supposed to be done through public keys or something. Am I mistaken about this? Or do private keys need to be hard-coded into the firmware of the device?

Second, now that this has happened, what does Bambu need to do in order to change the private keys?

Third, how exactly does the consumer take advantage of this? Are they able to connect their own server to push their own updates to the device? If so, how would they go about doing that? The guide does not tell tech-illiterates like me how to do it.

Fourth, with this ability to get the private keys, are there ways that bad-actors can use this to push malicious updates to any of these printers that are connected to the internet? If so, does everyone need to disconnect their 3D printer from the internet immediately in order to not get infected? Or is this not the case? And if malicious actors can now hack into these printers thanks to the instructions presented in this article, is this a net-negative for the consumer, rather than a net-positive, even for a consumer who wants to truly own what they bought and paid for?

These are probably all basic questions, so please forgive my confusion and ignorance.

- [[User:I_Will_Not_Use_Discord|I_Will_Not_Use_Discord]]

User:I Will Not Use Discord

2025-01-18T23:23:02Z

I Will Not Use Discord:

I will not use discord. Please write on the discussion page for this page if you want to talk to me. Or, if you see a button to email me, press that button.

Notable achievements-

being referred to as a "based user" by Tob.

User:I Will Not Use Discord

2025-01-15T19:24:14Z

I Will Not Use Discord: no, i will not fucking describe what i changed

I will not use discord. Please write on the discussion page for this page if you want to talk to me.

User:I Will Not Use Discord

2025-01-15T18:32:11Z

I Will Not Use Discord: Created page with "I will not use discord."

I will not use discord.