PSA: Your privacy is not safe with Chinese owned Riot Games Inc. They don't follow policy or law.

[{quoted}](name=Lord Dusteon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=278KFM7l,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2020-02-09T00:27:32.700+0000)

I'm reasonably sure Riot (and any other forum or game) actually has an obligation to follow up on any threats or perceived threats of domestic terrorism, suicide, etc. Even just the tiny bits of chatlogs you show indicate that they are not at fault here:

[4:56] [All] Diana: cant wait until riot gets hit like the other techies [5:29] [All] Diana: will be fun to watch them squirm...free speech...lets see facebook youtube google...only a matter of time [5:39] [All] Diana: until riot is on the chopping block"

You have already said what is basically a manifesto of terrorism. It doesn't matter what you say to justify it after the fact in a forum; what matters is what is actually written, just here, is already perceived threat. Given that this all took place in less than a minute I am inclined to believe there's far more to the chatlogs that you did not show.

Additionally, most of what you said is bullshit.

• "Riot illegally gave personal data without the proper paperwork"

From the Terms of Service: "While using the Riot Services, you must comply with all laws, rules and regulations in the jurisdiction in which you reside. You must also comply with the acceptable use and behavioral policies that we publish from time to time on our websites, apps and games and the behavioral rules listed below (collectively the “User Rules”). The User Rules posted to our websites, apps and games or set out in this section are not meant to be exhaustive, and we reserve the right to modify them, as well as take appropriate disciplinary measures"

Most likely the jurisdiction you live in has laws about reporting criminal activity and intent. These laws include an obligation to report a suspected problem, which your little rant falls under. Riot is fully within their rights to report you, and in fact would likely be breaking several laws if they did not do so.

• "The FBI have violated my 1st and 4th under our Constitutions 1-10th amendments "The Bill of Rights" I hope everyone knows the 1st, the 4th should have protected me from illegal search and seizure."

No. They didn't. You obviously have never read either of them. The 1st, in full, reads the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You aren't an establishment of religion or exercising your religion. You aren't the press. You aren't peaceably assembling to petitioning the government. The 1st does not apply in this case, and has not been violated in any way, shape, or form.

The 4th, in full, reads the following:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." (bold added by me for emphasis)

Keyword: unreasonable. A potential domestic terrorist or planned killing spree makes said search reasonable. Whether you want to wax eloquent about your innocence or not, the fact remains even the tiny bit of text you show us indicates that the given response was not unreasonable.

All in all, your case is mostly you weasel wording about with a low understanding of how laws or companies work. I suspect your full chat logs were also far worse, but even the tiny bit you show is damning evidence that what happened is the correct, lawful outcome of a company giving information on a potential terrorist to the government and the government responding.

As I said below

3.Prior to minute mark [3:07] the player who initiated this entire incident, lets call him "the domestic terrorist" proceeds to threaten to report me and various others agree that they will report me for afk.

4.I make a statement..."[3:07] [All] Diana: afk 2 mins and getting threats and confirms in aram?? smh well goes 2 ways.//.//harassment worse than afk gl with your accounts" Just pointing out facts, that harassment is worse than being afk for 2 minutes.

5.The domestic terrorist makes a threat that he will "have you arrested by the FBI for threatening to "bomb riot games"". At this time I have only typed what is shown above, the [3:07] marker.

There is NO PLACE in that text where I state that I will do anything or threaten anyone. At this point I am already accused of "going to go bomb riot " and the crime against me has been committed.

You state to me that the first doesn't protect me from the government? Lol learn what is free speech and what is not. I am free to say anyhying I wish and are protected from the government as long as it is not a threat of violence or if it does not incite violence. " abridging the freedom of speech" nothing I said was illegal therefore the FBI should not have been able to obtain my data without a warrant. There was no "reasonable" search since I was not to player to type "bomb riot" or "bomb the whitehouse" I had not made a threat of violence to anyone, the other player however was the one to say these things.

The 4th, in full, reads the following:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." (bold added by me for emphasis)

Stored Communications Act From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Stored Communications ActGreat Seal of the United States Acronyms (colloquial) SCA Enacted by the 99th United States Congress Effective October 21, 1986 Citations Public law Pub.L. 99–508 Statutes at Large 100 Stat. 1848, 1860 Codification Titles amended 18 U.S.C. sections created §§ 2701–2712 Legislative history

Introduced in the House as H.R. 4952 by Robert Kastenmeier (D–WI) on June 5, 1986
Committee consideration by Judiciary
Passed the House on June 23, 1986 (Voice Vote)
Passed the Senate on October 1, 1986 (Voice Vote) with amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on October 2, 1986 (Unanimous Consent)
Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 21, 1986

Major amendments

USA PATRIOT Act
CLOUD Act

The Stored Communications Act (SCA, codified at 18 U.S.C. Chapter 121 §§ 2701–2712) is a law that addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party internet service providers (ISPs). It was enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA).

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". However, when applied to information stored online, the Fourth Amendment's protections are potentially far weaker. In part, this is because the Fourth Amendment defines the "right to be secure" in spatial terms that do not directly apply to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" in an online context. The Fourth Amendment has been stressed as a right that protects people and not places, which leaves the interpretation of the amendment's language broad in scope. In addition, society has not reached clear consensus over expectations of privacy in terms of more modern (and developing, future) forms of recorded and/or transmitted information.

Furthermore, users generally entrust the security of online information to a third party, an ISP. In many cases, Fourth Amendment doctrine has held that, in so doing, users relinquish any expectation of privacy. The Third-Party Doctrine holds "that knowingly revealing information to a third party relinquishes Fourth Amendment protection in that information."[1] While a search warrant and probable cause are required to search one's home, under the third party doctrine only a subpoena and prior notice (a much lower hurdle than probable cause) are needed to subject an ISP to disclose the contents of an email or of files stored on a server.[2]

As per request by the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice, as well as the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs asking the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to create a report about protections surrounding electronic communications, it was found that individuals were at risk. This risk identified current protections for electronic mail as being "weak, ambiguous, or nonexistent."[3] The report concluded that "[t]he existing statutory framework and judicial interpretations thereof do not adequately cover new and emerging electronic surveillance technologies."[4] Congress acknowledged the fact that traditional Fourth Amendment protections were lacking. As a result, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was enacted in 1986 as an update on the Federal Wiretap Act of 1968, which addressed protections on telephone (land) line privacies. The provisions are distributed into 3 titles, with Title II being the Stored Communications Act. The SCA creates Fourth Amendment-like privacy protection for email and other digital communications stored on the internet. It limits the ability of the government to compel an ISP to turn over content information and noncontent information (such as logs and "envelope" information from email). In addition, it limits the ability of commercial ISPs to reveal content information to nongovernment entities.

It is this act that protects me from their illegal search. While they didn't need a "warrant" as you can clearly read they need a subpoena.

[{quoted}](name=Lord Dusteon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=278KFM7l,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2020-02-09T00:27:32.700+0000)

I'm reasonably sure Riot (and any other forum or game) actually has an obligation to follow up on any threats or perceived threats of domestic terrorism, suicide, etc. Even just the tiny bits of chatlogs you show indicate that they are not at fault here:

[4:56] [All] Diana: cant wait until riot gets hit like the other techies [5:29] [All] Diana: will be fun to watch them squirm...free speech...lets see facebook youtube google...only a matter of time [5:39] [All] Diana: until riot is on the chopping block"

You have already said what is basically a manifesto of terrorism. It doesn't matter what you say to justify it after the fact in a forum; what matters is what is actually written, just here, is already perceived threat. Given that this all took place in less than a minute I am inclined to believe there's far more to the chatlogs that you did not show.

Additionally, most of what you said is bullshit.

• "Riot illegally gave personal data without the proper paperwork"

From the Terms of Service: "While using the Riot Services, you must comply with all laws, rules and regulations in the jurisdiction in which you reside. You must also comply with the acceptable use and behavioral policies that we publish from time to time on our websites, apps and games and the behavioral rules listed below (collectively the “User Rules”). The User Rules posted to our websites, apps and games or set out in this section are not meant to be exhaustive, and we reserve the right to modify them, as well as take appropriate disciplinary measures"

Most likely the jurisdiction you live in has laws about reporting criminal activity and intent. These laws include an obligation to report a suspected problem, which your little rant falls under. Riot is fully within their rights to report you, and in fact would likely be breaking several laws if they did not do so.

• "The FBI have violated my 1st and 4th under our Constitutions 1-10th amendments "The Bill of Rights" I hope everyone knows the 1st, the 4th should have protected me from illegal search and seizure."

No. They didn't. You obviously have never read either of them. The 1st, in full, reads the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You aren't an establishment of religion or exercising your religion. You aren't the press. You aren't peaceably assembling to petitioning the government. The 1st does not apply in this case, and has not been violated in any way, shape, or form.

The 4th, in full, reads the following:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." (bold added by me for emphasis)

Keyword: unreasonable. A potential domestic terrorist or planned killing spree makes said search reasonable. Whether you want to wax eloquent about your innocence or not, the fact remains even the tiny bit of text you show us indicates that the given response was not unreasonable.

All in all, your case is mostly you weasel wording about with a low understanding of how laws or companies work. I suspect your full chat logs were also far worse, but even the tiny bit you show is damning evidence that what happened is the correct, lawful outcome of a company giving information on a potential terrorist to the government and the government responding.

Btw I am just trying to raise awareness and help you...as hard as you are trying to make me look as if I said ANYTHING bad I would think you work for Riot or Tencent. Just look at the censorship in China right now about the virus. See how people are being locked up for "speaking rumors" when they are trying to help others and spread the truth. Sorry but you may like the CCP and how they handle things but I surely don't and live in a country that is NOT communist. Look up Dr Li Wenliang ...the chinese government arrested him for "speading rumors" that there was a new sars like virus, and forced to sign a document with his fingerprint in blood stating he would not "spread rumors". He was contacting other Doctors informing them and to be aware of a possible new virus.

[{quoted}](name=Lord Dusteon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=278KFM7l,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2020-02-09T00:27:32.700+0000)

abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,

Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press are two different things

[{quoted}](name=Lord Dusteon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=278KFM7l,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2020-02-09T00:27:32.700+0000)

I'm reasonably sure Riot (and any other forum or game) actually has an obligation to follow up on any threats or perceived threats of domestic terrorism, suicide, etc. Even just the tiny bits of chatlogs you show indicate that they are not at fault here:

[4:56] [All] Diana: cant wait until riot gets hit like the other techies [5:29] [All] Diana: will be fun to watch them squirm...free speech...lets see facebook youtube google...only a matter of time [5:39] [All] Diana: until riot is on the chopping block"

You have already said what is basically a manifesto of terrorism. It doesn't matter what you say to justify it after the fact in a forum; what matters is what is actually written, just here, is already perceived threat. Given that this all took place in less than a minute I am inclined to believe there's far more to the chatlogs that you did not show.

Additionally, most of what you said is bullshit.

• "Riot illegally gave personal data without the proper paperwork"

From the Terms of Service: "While using the Riot Services, you must comply with all laws, rules and regulations in the jurisdiction in which you reside. You must also comply with the acceptable use and behavioral policies that we publish from time to time on our websites, apps and games and the behavioral rules listed below (collectively the “User Rules”). The User Rules posted to our websites, apps and games or set out in this section are not meant to be exhaustive, and we reserve the right to modify them, as well as take appropriate disciplinary measures"

Most likely the jurisdiction you live in has laws about reporting criminal activity and intent. These laws include an obligation to report a suspected problem, which your little rant falls under. Riot is fully within their rights to report you, and in fact would likely be breaking several laws if they did not do so.

• "The FBI have violated my 1st and 4th under our Constitutions 1-10th amendments "The Bill of Rights" I hope everyone knows the 1st, the 4th should have protected me from illegal search and seizure."

No. They didn't. You obviously have never read either of them. The 1st, in full, reads the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You aren't an establishment of religion or exercising your religion. You aren't the press. You aren't peaceably assembling to petitioning the government. The 1st does not apply in this case, and has not been violated in any way, shape, or form.

The 4th, in full, reads the following:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." (bold added by me for emphasis)

Keyword: unreasonable. A potential domestic terrorist or planned killing spree makes said search reasonable. Whether you want to wax eloquent about your innocence or not, the fact remains even the tiny bit of text you show us indicates that the given response was not unreasonable.

All in all, your case is mostly you weasel wording about with a low understanding of how laws or companies work. I suspect your full chat logs were also far worse, but even the tiny bit you show is damning evidence that what happened is the correct, lawful outcome of a company giving information on a potential terrorist to the government and the government responding.

Just a little fyi.

https://www.business2community.com/social-media/7-things-the-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-0129234

This is what I am NOT protected by the 1st to say. Nothing I said falls into any of those categories. For your own sake I would brush up on some laws and what the constitution is and is not. The FBI for example took an oath to protect and uphold our constitution. FBI oath of office.

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

They take this oath TWICE at the start of their service. Yet they broke their oath.

Again nothing I said was illegal therefore a subpoena is required. FBI broke their oath and law by not obtaining this paperwork. The player who stated he would have me arrested is the one who broke laws, but I expect he is a minor and only had a "talking to" which is what makes Riot and FBI both accessory after the fact to his crime of imparting false information bomb hoax. They know he committed a felony but aide him in avoiding prosecution. They know I committed no crime so obtaining my ip was illegal. This is an illegal act by Riot and by the FBI. If ANY word I typed was illegal I would have been arrested and sent to court. I was not even given a "warning" by the FBI since they knew they were in the wrong.

The constitution is the "supreme law of the land" ie. no other laws top the constitutional laws and rights afforded to US citizens.

[{quoted}](name=Lord Dusteon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=278KFM7l,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2020-02-09T00:27:32.700+0000)

I'm reasonably sure Riot (and any other forum or game) actually has an obligation to follow up on any threats or perceived threats of domestic terrorism, suicide, etc. Even just the tiny bits of chatlogs you show indicate that they are not at fault here:

[4:56] [All] Diana: cant wait until riot gets hit like the other techies [5:29] [All] Diana: will be fun to watch them squirm...free speech...lets see facebook youtube google...only a matter of time [5:39] [All] Diana: until riot is on the chopping block"

You have already said what is basically a manifesto of terrorism. It doesn't matter what you say to justify it after the fact in a forum; what matters is what is actually written, just here, is already perceived threat. Given that this all took place in less than a minute I am inclined to believe there's far more to the chatlogs that you did not show.

Additionally, most of what you said is bullshit.

• "Riot illegally gave personal data without the proper paperwork"

From the Terms of Service: "While using the Riot Services, you must comply with all laws, rules and regulations in the jurisdiction in which you reside. You must also comply with the acceptable use and behavioral policies that we publish from time to time on our websites, apps and games and the behavioral rules listed below (collectively the “User Rules”). The User Rules posted to our websites, apps and games or set out in this section are not meant to be exhaustive, and we reserve the right to modify them, as well as take appropriate disciplinary measures"

Most likely the jurisdiction you live in has laws about reporting criminal activity and intent. These laws include an obligation to report a suspected problem, which your little rant falls under. Riot is fully within their rights to report you, and in fact would likely be breaking several laws if they did not do so.

• "The FBI have violated my 1st and 4th under our Constitutions 1-10th amendments "The Bill of Rights" I hope everyone knows the 1st, the 4th should have protected me from illegal search and seizure."

No. They didn't. You obviously have never read either of them. The 1st, in full, reads the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You aren't an establishment of religion or exercising your religion. You aren't the press. You aren't peaceably assembling to petitioning the government. The 1st does not apply in this case, and has not been violated in any way, shape, or form.

The 4th, in full, reads the following:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." (bold added by me for emphasis)

Keyword: unreasonable. A potential domestic terrorist or planned killing spree makes said search reasonable. Whether you want to wax eloquent about your innocence or not, the fact remains even the tiny bit of text you show us indicates that the given response was not unreasonable.

All in all, your case is mostly you weasel wording about with a low understanding of how laws or companies work. I suspect your full chat logs were also far worse, but even the tiny bit you show is damning evidence that what happened is the correct, lawful outcome of a company giving information on a potential terrorist to the government and the government responding.

All you said is straight mumbo jumbo that honestly is a joke and I don't know why you replied in the first place. First off the bill of rights and the amendments that make up the bill of rights go much deeper than what is written. Anyone who has taken a single year of civics would know that. Secondly about your idea that he "threatened" riot games, that's just wrong. For a threat to actually be taken serious in a legal respect the threat must be a true threat. According to the supreme court of the U.S most "threats" don't even come close to a true threat. A simple definition of the a true threat is the following: A type of speech that uses on of the following, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and the advocacy of imminent lawless action, however if you read further it says that the supreme court has ruled that the person who is receiving the threat is through being "threatened" placed in serious harm by the speaker. Now lets give you the benefit of the doubt, lets say Riot.inc felt fully threatened by something, that when you read the context of the speech isn't even threatening. What this would mean is Riot.inc would have an obligation to protect those who are also threatened, for instance saying something along the lines of: "You piece of **** I'm going to kill you" in game to the inting Garen. If we were to say Riot.inc was threatened by the OP's words then so was the kid linting mid lane. Now lets get to the reality of the situation. Nothing the OP said was threatening in any way. He never once said he was going to put Riot on the chopping block, he never once said that he was going to bomb Riot. The fact of the matter is, Riot has no grounds to report him to any proper authority. In fact this is literally a prime example of a false report. No crime has been committed. No lets move on to the issue of data security. First to the OP, you're wrong. Those fines aren't about companies leaking data. In fact if a company is found leaking data they wont just be finned get that straight. In your case Riot.inc linked your data to the FBI. The companies you were talking about were finned for data breaches, very big difference. For instance Facebook was finned that sum of money, which by the way was not what they actually paid, because of a large data breach in which peoples personal information as taken due to a lack of data security. This is a very real issue, and the fact of the matter is it will probably happen again because their is no legal standard for proper data security. This can be seen in the breach Equifax who had a data breach that lasted for 74 days. What this means is the hacker(s) were inside of the Equifax system for 74 days before being caught, completely insane. Now Riot didn't surfer a data breach, and even if they did all that would happen is they would be finned, however they did in fact send your data to the FBI illegally, that information would be your IP. Now those of you that thing Riots term of service and privacy policy allowed them to do this, no that's just wrong. Article Vi of the constitution states has the Supreme law of the land clause, what this means is that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, however it also states that Federal law triumphs state law and for sure business "policy". Now you may argue that Riot is a private business there fore they can do what ever they want since it is their policy and you signed it, that's wrong. In Article I of the U.S constitution the Commerce Clause is written. TLDR is the commerce clause basically says that all businesses that deal with interstate commerce are subject to government regulation. And it can not be argued that Riot does not engage in interstate commerce. Thus Riot has to follow federal regulation. Now the fact is riot sent his IP along with the chat logs to the FBI, the FBI did not request them. If the FBI has requested them this would be a whole new story since the FBI has legal right, which is fucked up, to request and obtain pretty much any information if they deem it a "threat" does not even have the a true threat. For the FBI to have requested the information that would mean the FBI has access to all chat logs which is just wrong, they don;t. Nor would they spend the time going through them to find "threats". Now that it has been established that Riot sent his information, the question is did Riot have the right to do so. No, they didn't.

If I were you, OP, I would go to the media about this. Any new agency would love to have this as a story, now if you're uncomfortable with that I understand, but hell this is fucked up in all ways.

[{quoted}](name=Posui Gart,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=278KFM7l,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2020-02-09T00:21:11.587+0000)

Wait, the only thing Riot gave away is IP of your username. Is it really a "personal data"? Your personal data is your physical address/name/other things. Whoever gave them away to the FBI is the one who commited a crime, and anyway you can't really answer "wtf no its a crime, i won't give you any data" to FBI. Well, thats just the world we live in. FBI are free to break in and kill everyone they find if they somewhy want it, and there will be no punishment at all, just because you were 'suspected' to plan to do something(which are easy to create after the fact) and you 'tried to resist'(as if there would be any survivors to claim otherwise). That being said, I believe some of that accusations were based on the chat logs, so everyone should be careful not to use any words that would imply anything about planning some crimes, even if its just responding to someone.

In game name is public, however your username and IP addresses are private and yes it is "personal information" as they are able to track you through your IP unless you run a VPN. Even then its the US government, I am sure they can still trace you through your VPN. People really NEED to start to read privacy policies and terms of services as these are contracts between you and the company that is providing you the service. Riot members are not allowed to ask you for your username or password...ie. these are private. The rules/laws may be different for you as you play in the UEW region. I would read your regions pages and laws to understand your own privacy better.

https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/39cn3w/please_remember_that_riot_employees_will_never/

{quoted}

what makes you think you have any privacy at all anyway?

Nothing makes me "think" I have privacy. The law, the constituiton and bill of rights, the stored communications act and oh riots own privacy policy. And since I have not broken a law nor violated Riots ToS they had no legal grounds to give my data. Then again as I have stated to another UEW user...your laws may not protect you. The constitution protects me as a US citizen.

https://nccs.net/blogs/americas-founding-documents/bill-of-rights-amendments-1-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act https://www.riotgames.com/en/privacy-notice