No. Because the question is irrelevant and not at all what is happening. I’m not going to answer questions that are utterly wrong analogies. Because you did not find the scanner looking under your hood. or rummaging your boot.
If I check whats under the hood and in the boot of your car, by any means, without you knowing it, would you consider that act non-intrusive, consensual and not suspect?
That is not an analogy for scanning. Now get back on topic.
It is a valid analogy.
Lets say I have two device with which I can scan whats under the hood and in the boot of your car.
If I use either on your car, would you consider that a non-intrusive, consensual and non-suspect act on my part?
Does the device operate from so far away I dont see you use it.
If so then its non intrusive. And legal in quite a few countries depending on the device. Looking in someone’s window as they drive past is even more legal. And is a much closer analogy again than anything you’ve come up with. Non consensual does not make something a crime.
Lets run through the 3 operative terms regarding scanning another players fit or cargo.
Intrusive: Absolutely. You are literally intrusively, in every definition of that term, looking into MY PERSONAL fit and cargo, which is none of your business.
Non-Consensual: I do not consent to you intrusively looking at my personal fit and cargo. Thus its defacto, non-consensual.
Suspect: It is suspect as hell that you are intrusively looking into my personal fit and cargo, without my consent.
There needs to be a cost to this kind of intrusive, non-consensual, and suspect act of looking into my personal fit and cargo, to access my ships data, and that cost should be that you get flagged as a suspect and I can shoot you for doing so.
My fit and my cargo on my ship are none of your goddam business.
If you want to use devices to get intel on my personal ship data, I want to be able to shoot you for doing so.
Thats fair and square.
That is not a valid analogy, as you cant see under my hood or into my boot, through my windows. All you can see, is me driving it, and that is already possible for all in EVE, as which capsuleer is flying the ship.
Suspect flag for scanning another players cargo or fit, will only effect HS, and non-wardec scanning.
The only group this would harm, is suicide gankers from cherrypicking targets in HS.
But it doesnt harm them much either, as though the character goes suspect for scanning, that doesnt mean they will be shot at.
Going suspect doesnt involve CONCORD or gate/station guns.
You can stay indefinitely there continuing to scan, unless a player decides to shoot you.
You can scan on a corvette, and the scan modules are cheap as dirt.
That’s Salvos in a nutshell
Opinions and denial
I also love how he started with looking inside cars to looking under the bonnet (something that you’d need to break into the car to do )
Are you certain about the latter?
The only people against a suspect flag for scanning the fit or cargo of another non-wardecced player, are HS suicide gankers.
They like to sit and scan the fit and cargo of HS traffic, with no risk or cost to themselves, to cherrypick targets.
Post change, they can still scan fits and cargo in HS all they want, but someone might shoot them for it.
Its fair and square that if you take action to peak into someones personal ship fit and cargo for intel on them, they should be able to shoot back. Thats the cost.
Exactly what do you think ‘offense’ means in that context? (hint: it means ‘crime’.)
Again, you are literally arguing to make ‘he looked at me funny’ a crime punishable by death.
No, it’s not. You’d like it to be, but it’s not. This statement is about as accurate and truthful as your declaration that social corps must be limited to HS and not allowed to go into low/null/j-space. How’d that assertion work out for you?
No, that is the claim. The claim is not the ‘reason’. The claim does not support and justify itself.
Well, as I’m not a high-sec suicide ganker (and don’t even usually have the time to do Burn Jita each year), we can add this one to the list of ‘things you’re demonstrably wrong about’.
If you intrusively, without my consent, investigate the contents of my fit and my cargo, that is suspect as hell.
If you want to pry into my personal ship fit and cargo data, yes, I want to be able to shoot you for it.
You get the data for your suspect act, and I get to shoot you for doing so.
That is fair and square.
In your opinion. Again, you have provided nothing beyond your opinion to substantiate or quantify the claim of ‘fairness’ you present. You have not demonstrated the equivalence between the quantifiable cost of a destroyed ship, and the unquantified damage sustained by you never knowing you were scanned.
If you scan my ships fit/cargo to get intel on my personal ship data, yes, damn right I want to be able to shoot you for doing so.
My ships fit and cargo is none of your business.
If you choose to intrusively, without my consent, and very suspectly look at my ship data, the cost should be I can shoot you for doing so.
What part of that are you not understanding?
I understand perfectly well that you want this.
That doesn’t mean you’ve demonstrated any equivalence in damage incurred.
It doesn’t mean you’ve provided a single shred of evidence to support the claim that this should be an offense people can be shot over.
It doesn’t make repeatedly claiming that it does provide that evidence any less of an utter falsehood.
And it doesn’t make you being completely unable to comprehend a single sentence of this or any other reply any less hilarious.
Just because you want something doesn’t mean a damned thing. So you can keep on stomping your feet and whining about how amazingly unfair it is that you can’t shoot people for doing something despite not knowing when it happens, and I’ll keep on happily pointing out how amazingly childish and petty your particular brand of stubborn pout-tantrum is.
I have, repeatedly.
That you dont acknowledge it, doesnt change that.
Nobody has any business scanning my personal ship fit and cargo, without a cost, and that cost is me being able to shoot you for committing a suspect act.
Ive explained and shown how that is rational, many times.
Ive also shown how its a trivial matter to continue scanning on a corvette alt with cheap scanners, with a suspect flag.
If you want to intrusively scan my fit/cargo, without my consent, outside of wardec, and as obviously a suspect act, I want to be able to shoot you for it as a suspect.
If you think the majority of EVE players wont agree with that, youve completely lost the plot.
You haven’t. Here’s how I can demonstrate that you haven’t:
If you blow up someone’s ship, that costs them ISK, immediately, even if insured. That amount of ISK is an actual, quantifiable number.
This is the cost you claim being scanned is equivalent to—the cost you claim being scanned is roughly equal to.
If someone fits their ship with a passive targeter and scans you, you never even see the target lock. You will not know you were scanned.
You have not yet demonstrated that just existing, without knowing that you were scanned, has cost you even 1 ISK. Or that it has cost you anything. You haven’t even identified what you think it’s cost you.
So: ship blown up == cost. Scanned == no cost established.
Cost =/= No Cost Established.
They are not equivalent. It would be like comparing your mind to that of say, an actual grown, adult man.
We arent talking about blowing up a ship.
We are talking about scanning its fit/cargo with no cost, whereas you should go suspect for it.
You may or may not be shot at as a suspect afterwards, and you can do it in a free corvette with dirt cheap scan modules.
You will still be able to scan a target, though going suspect, in a FREE ship and the few thousand isk it costs for scanning modules. Hows that for cost efficiency?
Yes, you are:
If you scan my ship for intel on my personal fit or cargo, as an intrusive, non-consensual and suspect act, damn straight I should be able to shoot you for that.