Potential misinterpretation of drone hack data potentially leading to false bans: part 2
This is a direct follow-up thread of https://community.ingress.com/en/discussion/20961/potential-misinterpretation-of-drone-hack-data-potentially-leading-to-false-bans, and I recommend reading the original post. In the original post, I asked two questions, but only the first one was answered. The two questions I asked were as follows:
- "I would like to ask Niantic to investigate its logging on drone hack locations"
- "and also to verify with support how they interpret drone hack locations when doing ban appeals"
The first question was answered by that "Using your Drone will not result in a ban - regardless of how far from your physical location it is located.", which seems to imply that the logging as asked in question 1 itself is correct and you will not get banned by an automated or manual system for drone hacking.
This leaves the second question open: If you get banned by an automated or manual system, and it is a false positive, is there any way for the people doing the ban appeals to misinterpret the drone hack data, since there appears to be no difference between a drone hack and a normal hack? If so, this would result in falsely denied ban appeals. I will give a concrete example, copied from last thread:
Imagine I travel halfway across the world and leave my drone there. I travel back, and I move my drone. I could do this for example in a train, since there is usually enough time to move the drone, but not to hack before getting speedlocked. I then exit the drone screen without hacking and hack any portal normally. After a while, I decide to reopen my drone view, and hack. From the GDPR data dump, I cannot tell if I did a drone hack, or spoofed my location halfway across the world to do this hack. I will post the technical details in the next comment.
My unanswered question that I would like Niantic to respond to therefore is:
Is there any way for the people doing ban appeals at Niantic Support to misinterpret drone hack data as described in my scenario, resulting in wrongfully denied ban appeals?