I think, the fact this behavior is documented makes this okay. It's not an EA's fault that users don't read the accompanying documentation then are surprised the software does some things as a part of its job. I mean, accessing any information (private or not) is okay if you had reasonably clearly stated you would/may do so.
However, the fact accompanying documentation is a mess, so it's very hard to comprehend it, makes this not really okay.
I documented punching an old lady in the head, so it's ok.
No, it's not ok. Origin is a piece of software used internationally. Many countries have explicitly ruled that the EULA is not an out of legal requirements of those countries, which are more protective than the legal requirements in the US.
You can't just go and do something illegal and claim it's ok because one country has interpreted that the EULA lets them do that due to that same country's laws being heavily biased towards the corporation. That's what the GP was saying.
> I documented punching an old lady in the head, so it's ok.
How did you come with that? That's non sequitur.
As far as I know, no country outlaws merely scanning a list of recently ran applications. And article in question only talks about that, not storing, sending or whatever - actually it has completely no idea why Origin's accessing that UserAssist key.
If you insist - please, name me a country where, for example, it would be illegal to locally access (one again, not send anything based on that to a remote processing or storage system, that's another story) your contacts for a piece of software on your phone that had forewarned you it will access your contacts?
There's (almost) no permission systems on desktop, but there are other means to convey that information. Here, I'm considering EULA as not a legally binding piece of text, but as a part of documentation.
However, the fact accompanying documentation is a mess, so it's very hard to comprehend it, makes this not really okay.