they still changed a legally binding (or is it? ) contract which you signed wihtout your approval/you had no say in the change. It's not about wether or not the changes are acceptable or not, it's just the fact that there was made changes that you weren't aware of and/or changes that you had no say in.
Every time they change the EULA (and often when there's a client patch with no EULA changes!!) you have to re-click on that "I AGREE" button. That IS your approval of the agreement in its entirety.

In reality, I doubt many people bother reading it.

I certainly don't because I work on the basis of common sense rather than what I consider to be minutiae, but that doesn't change the fact that I have quite clearly agreed -albeit tacitly - to whatever's written there.

I dread to think how long I'd stand at the Hertz counter next time I pick up an airport rental if I was to read the entire A4, small print, agreement before I drove off :shock:

The issue of whether a software EULA agreement is enforceable or not is a long subject of debate with quite a few documented test cases and mixed results.

Perhaps the most relevant such case was between Black Snow (one of the first professional gold farming outfits, based in California / Mexico) and Mythic, where the EULA for their online game Dark Age of Camelot was held to be entirely enforceable.

That was in 2003, so the EULA enforceability discussion is far from new and although perhaps Warden does something different, the discussion as to whether what it does is acceptable or not is quite distinct from the discussion of whether the EULA we all agreed to (and continue to agree to) is enforceable.

I am ill-equipped to have a legal discussion on such matters, but my personal opnion is that people simply should not agree to something they don't actually agree with.

Agreeing to something in the hope that you'll get away with breaking the agreement if push comes to shove just strikes me as bizarre and in the broader context perhaps says more about the person than the Agreement.

I've enjoyed reading the debate here, and my views are unchanged. I want the game as cheat-free as possible. I suspect Blizzard do too. I choose to believe that Warden exists entirely to achieve this (because that's what common sense tells me) and I'm more than happy to have them sending encrypted information from my machine to their servers.

If I wasn't, or if I found the game so dull that I felt the need to entirely automate something, then I simply wouldn't keep playing

Kudos to everyone who's put so much effort into expressing their opinions here - especially Vyndree, who's views are so closely aligned with my own, but was clearly willing to put more time into expressing them than I - but let's not make this a divisive issue for this particular community.