• Advertisement
My Photo

Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Official Second Life Blog


« Sus-Sus-Piria | Main | Wait. We Didn't Use to Have a Linden Named Moderator Linden Before Did We? »

February 23, 2011


Laetizia Coronet

Um... You yourself didn't vote to keep the vote. At least not visibly on this end. You may want to do that.

Tateru had an interesting piece a while back, and it does explain some of the thinking behind customer care.

Prokofy Neva

I can't vote to keep the vote. I'm banned from the JIRA. I literally can't click on it.

Laetizia Coronet

That is idiotic in the extreme. In any democracy (yes I know, it isn't) you need to do pretty nasty things to have your voting rights revoked.

Rene Erlanger

I've not gotten myself involved in the hordes of Redzone & Greenzone discussions. It's truly sad to see this Civil War break out amongst it's community. It's very destructive & detrimental to the in-world economy as more and more people become aware of these Gadgets.

What today might be only 10's of thousands of SL'ers (readers from forums/blogs and wesbites)...might become 100's of thousands tomorrow through word of mouth.
These type of gadgetry creates uncertainity as regards to in-world shopping, instead of TP'ing over and risk some details being scraped, it's easier to search for products on Marketplace.

...and there lies the rub. Why hasn't LL intervened to date.?
Well maybe Redzone fits in perfectly into LL's own strategy of having most of commerce channelled through its Marketplace. I know it's hard to believe especially as Land Tiers are still the main revenue driver for Linden Lab.....however since the summer and the opening of Marketplace, LL has heavily promoted it. It kind of suggests LL would prefer most of shopping driven to their shopping website (just like IMVU with their Catalog shopping site...that's hardly surprising given the smilarities between the 2 websites)...and have a select few/those that can afford-i.e high rollers/elite brands....being the only ones that can trade in-world.
The same could be said of their Land model...heading towards dealing with fewer entities and those being primarily the largest Land Estates (e.g maybe top-50 or top 100)

You can see how All Search for example is now heavily biased towards SIM size shops, courtesy of Sea Linden's manipulation of it.
This has led to increase of abandonment of smaller plots....both on Estate sims & Mainland (on Mainland it's more obvious as it remains empty more often than not). Same can be said how they have wrecked Places Search, Classifieds, Events and Land Sales searches in Viewer 2 by googlizing them.
All of this plays into the hands of fewer but larger entities surviving within the SL it content sales or renting land.

Who knows, maybe this model is what LL prefers and their forward strategy. My background as an Accountant however, i just cant't see it as viable business strategy instituting growth (in terms of profits to LL).

Lets make no bones here, LL are well aware of both Redzone & Greenzone systems.

Prokofy Neva

I have not done anything "nasty". I will find the two JIRA threads I participated in that led first to a warning, then to a ban, and you will see the appalling behaviour of these JIRA Lindens. Anyone outside looking at this situation would be appalled at their behaviour.

The people in these threads who harried and harassed me for copyleftism themselves got off scot-free.

Prokofy Neva


Sorry, but I don't buy this idea that "we can't have debates on the forums or free speech on the forums because then people are driven away from Second Life" or "driven away from the SL economy".

That's like saying "We can't have free media in the United States because then tourists and immigrants are driven away."

While some finicky German tourist who is appalled at our press freedom might be happy to restrain it with press laws that they have at home, they're happy to tour a country that they find attractive for all kinds of other reasons of interest. And the immigrant who comes here from anywhere may come from an unfree press situation, and may even wish to replicate it here, but he's usually happy that this regimen exists, so that it supports his own freedom of expression.

Most people don't read the forums, but that's not a reason in an argument; more should. And they are not driven away by uncertainty about copyright. Unfortunately, most people reach their hands out to take something free and ask no questions about the larger ecology. They themselves aren't a force you can rouse. You can make it harder for them to reach and take with DRM and enforcement so that they are not tempted for an easy grab.

But there's a social aspect to purchasing in SL. Most people buy something because they have a relationship to the person who is selling. It's different than in RL because there isn't an objective need for a house or a piece of clothing. So it's more social, and you buy the house because you know the guy and want to support his art work; you buy the dress because she's your girlfriend and she's starting a store and you want to show solidarity.

That dynamics makes for purchases and respect of DRM and more social support for fighting copybotting because copybotting is not participating in the social payment system which isn't about the object sold so much as it is about relationship. I don't articulate this to undermine Berne inherency or spout social media woo-woo like John Perry Barlow, because what ELSE makes up the market is that strangers buy from strangers AS IF they were girlfriends and art admirers because they sense themselves to be in a larger community of sorts, and they can be persuaded to see copybotters as disrupters of this. It's also the case that some items are bought because they are bought, not due to any social overlap. If I'm a landlord and I need a plant to decorate a porch in a public building I run, I go buy a plant from a stranger.

But whether this hurts the economy or hurts the image of LL or SL in your mind, I don't care if there is a "civil war" in Second Life. That's fine with me. Let there be. Fight it, and fight it fairly. Fight it by not trying to use alts and harness Lindens on this or that side of the issue. Of course, the fight it never fair and that's why you don't like it, but fighting is ok, and this fussy distaste for sharp debate is merely a way for one side usually to prevail in the argument on grounds of "civility".

There is a war to be had over copyright. It's a war against Tim Berners-Lee and all the framers of the Internet on down, including Mitch Kapor. It's a war against Google and it's a war against Cory Doctorow. If you want a livlihood, if you want creativity coupled with commerce, these are the people you have to fight, and fight hard, and fight hammer and tong.

RedZone appeared not only because of Linden ambivalence about just whose side they are in this war on the California Business Model, and their deep collusion with it. If the Lindens had effective action against copybotters, and weren't hobbled by their Electronic Frontier Foundation bullshit about the "impossibility" of doing anything about this (as a way of undermining copyright), if they cared and did the basics for deterrence, then there'd be no internal civil war. There'd be no need for one.

The problem is that the RedZone guy is not trustworthy because of the datamining issue he himself is indulging in like any California Business Model practitioner, and because of the alt issue.

The Green Zone guy is no more trustworthy not only because he may be a copybotter, we don't know if he, too, is datamining.

Ann Otoole keeps saying "hire a lawyer" and "the Lindens can't do DMCAs faster".

Well, no. They can. And they can do lots of things to spiff up their policy. It's probably been 2 years since they unveiled their copyright policy and their means of protection announced to the community under the initiative of Cyn Linden at that time. What have they done to upgrade it, refine it, enforce it through presence and protection? They haven't done anything. It's a dead weight that has no active life.

They stepped up on Emerald and the third-party viewer policy. They worked very hard to craft a policy, took endless onslaught from horrendous griefers bent on destroying the policy, got thrown and bullied on a few points and wound up compromising, but by and large they had a pretty workable policy.

So that is a good precedent. But it is a matter of resources and people and time. There are far less Lindens than there used to be to sit and craft policies, churn them through stakeholders and get buy-in.

Of course, the JIRA could be used for that if only they freed it up to be the Features Voter that it needs to be without all the little prissy sandbox foxes telling people to shut up, that it's not a bug it's a feature, that it's not possible to do, and then closing their proposal.

And Rene, listen up, please. Take your plaintive sentiments about refraining from violent civil war not to the community but to your beloved Lindens.

With Oz Linden telling people they will have their privileges revoked if they reopen a JIRA he thinks isn't "viewer" and should be closed; with Soft Linden seeming to concede it *is* viewer-related (as a possibly security patch); with now a WorkingonitLinden response, how on earth does Oz think he can threaten and bully like that?!

To be sure, he hasn't resurfaced to keep threatening people or banned anyone, but that ugly response from this tech thug (and that is exactly what Oz Linden is, a tech thug) lets us know where the real civil war is. It's still within Linden. It's still with people even more extreme than Mitch, who is a kind of gentleman farmer copyleftist, not an industrial workers union copyleftist, even if he has more clout and money than they do.

The Lindens canned interop and its implications. They've reined in some of the open-sourced sillyness. Zero Linden, one of their worst Stallmanites, is gone. But there are still a substantial number of coding and program Lindens who want information to be free (that means YOUR content!) and scorn "little dressmaker genocide". They are the enemy, make no mistake about it.

It's not some hustler like zFire, who saw an opportunity and exploited it. It's Oz Linden, head of the viewer opensource team. It's Soft Linden, Ayn Randian zealot though he is, believer in OS software as a business opportunity. It's other nerdy and less smart Lindens who follow this cult for social power. And their hangers on in the user base in the AWGroupies and such.

They are the inciters of civil war, because they keep thwarting the community at every turn, and become a problem even to other Lindens. Management can't just say to everybody, "all your content are belong to us and we're flushing it to Open Sim for IBM and Maria Korolova et. al. and their business opportunities."
If they did that, they'd have even more of an uproar on their hands.

The struggle over copyright is a struggle for power. Those who want to undermine it want to do so only to empower and enrich themselves with it and suppress others. Those who want to retain it want to establish a power base away from those others undermining them, but in their struggle, they don't hesitate to use the same thuggish methods or worse, and the creator fascist problem of people willing to side with oppressive companies if they make deals is all too prevalent.

If Linden offered a merchant registry as a means to help save copyright, and essentially created an A-list group with Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval, and told the rest of the poor NPIOFs to fuck off unless they gave a name and ID, there'd be a sizeable population who would be happy to screw over their fellow man just to get more "protection" (that would be rather dubious).

Now as to your speculation as to why Linden is doing nothing, well, why is this a mystery?

o they don't need copyright, objectively speaking, in the long run
o they do hope to drive people to the web rather than inworld stores, but they don't care if there are some inworld stores, and they have to leave at least some -- but let them be big ones on islands, with big systems of protection
o you're right they prefer to deal with fewer and bigger entities -- but they can't move too precipitously there because the hollering of unfairness and the screeching of those left out is too loud for now
o it's in the interest of any system, Google or Linden, to reward large players with search returns because they can't physically fit the long-tail into the view.
o I wonder why you are coming only now to this big epiphany that Lindens want to deal with prosumers and large aggregators, not mom and pop. That's been the story for as long as I've been in SL. They gave enormous latitude to Anshe Chung, because she took care of a problem they faced: volatile land auctions and wildly fluctuating prices because there were too many players and too many amateurs. She lowered and stabilized prices to make the market more predictable and comfortable for newbies.
o Your notions as an accountant don't make any rational sense. Everything on the Internet is an economy of sale where only the big and the aggressive win. The notion of the long tail is a fiction. There is no long tail because it can't fit into the viewer.

Social media undid that unfair situation by routing around Google. With 100 Facebook friends, I can ask where to get a sofa on sale and get 10 really good recommendations from people in my neighbourhood, and not have to fight Google's idea of what I should see, which is whatever pays them the most or whatever is linked the most -- which ends up gamed.

Google hates that, so it is constantly banging on Facebook in all kinds of ways, and FB has caved in some areas. But FB is an important bastion.

Picks was the social media workaround to the old Linden search as was traffic, because it was mainly merited. The Lindens had to kill all that off the way Google has to kill Facebook.

But not too much. Because surely they must realize at some level that social circles and smaller actors are important in the ecology. Yet they don't need to really nurture this the way Obama might need to launch Start-Up America to ostensibly nurture small business in the recession. The Lindens have never had a small business vision. They either hate arbitrage based businesses (land) or hate and distrust commodities based businesses (copies of things on DRM) because they set up the Lindens with expectations they refuse to act on.

The Lindens love the idea of selling service or experience and that's why Desmond is perfect for them. But while getting a fair amount of loving from Linden, Desmond never gets enough, because at the end of the day, the Lindens sell servers, reward large server re-renters in the Atlas program, and try to move people into residences where they consume content and become a landlord's problem rather than to inworld stores where they merely become a lag and server overload problem.

Growth does not come from sustaining little businesses. I wish it did. I believe it does at some level or I wouldn't be in SL. But let's face it. It really doesn't. Growth does not come from opening a little book store. It doesn't even come from opening Borders and selling coffee and chocolates with the books. It comes from beating everyone else and being bigger, like Barnes & Nobles.

Rene Erlanger

Apologies, my initial above was not supposed to be for this Blog. I tried loading it in the other Redzone blog (a few days back)....but it wouldn't load and i got frustrated and gave up, so i posted here...when i saw "Redzone" in the headline. I just presumed it was another Redzone follow-up blog.

To be clear on a few points in your reply :
-If you've read any of my postings on any SL forums or Blogs, you'll know i'm hardly a fan of Linden Lab.(more of a descenting voice on the fringe of being suspended or banned) In recent times, I've rarely complimented LL...because they've rarely done anything good in the last 2-3 years that I agree upon.

- So i'm kind of right then, They do nothing about Redzone as it will help drive traffic to Marketplace and therefore dilute the number of businesses in-world. Which is part of their game-plan

- As regards your quote "I wonder why you are coming only now to this big epiphany that Lindens?"

For such a long time, I guess it didn't want to believe it. I remember Ann O'toole bringing it to my attention a couple years back...i thought she was being a bit OTT....but it looks like she called it right.(and you too I guess, although i was unaware of your position)

- The Accountant quote...well it's a case of crunching the numbers. I find it hard to believe that losing land Tiers & Premium fees would be compensated by extra 5% commission (sinks) from sales made on Marketplace. It leads me to believe that Linden Lab at some point will introduce Listing fees (an idea they had about 18 mths ago) on Marketplace once it all finely tuned and working efficiently.

My problem is that i'm very much pro in-world shopping and would prefer Marketplace be more of an add-on (like SLEX & XStreet)and not so heavily promoted. I joined Second Life a 3D Virtual World....whereby in-world shopping is one of those social experiences that I've always enjoyed. I'm not interested in the IMVU route.

Sling Trebuchet

Dear Prok,

I must comment on what you say related to myself:
"Sling Trebutchet is the most vocal and passionate on trying to find a mechanical solution to this issue through turning off the ability to match the name of the avatar with the collected IP address, or collect the IP but then not inform the device of what is collected.

o yes, they may take Sling's very soft option, which is merely a pop-up of warning"

You appear to be confusing me with somebody else. This is perhaps understandable given the amount that has been posted in various places by many people.

My preferred option is a SL Policy that enshrines data privacy for Avatars in SL.

The only mechanics that I have suggested are:
1) Nuking of the in-world devices that provide the essential link between avatar name and IP.
2) Analysis of sim logs to identify (new) third-party servers that are receiving grid-wide traffic. This would be with a view to identifying those that are engaged in privacy invasion.
3) Hidden association of a hash ban (and possibly a hidden short-lived IP ban) with a parcel ban. This would be more effective than anything RZ or similar could enable to combat serial abuse by alt.

My raising in SLU the idea of god-mode for the common avatar to avoid detection was pure mischief, and I think detectable as heavy humour by anyone who appreciated the general mayhem that would cause.
Perhaps I should have flooded that one with animated emoticons.

My initial noises in the Forums and in JIRA concentrated on what was happening and how it was enabled.
I also highlighted that the linking was totally dependant on in-world objects - which are completely open to LL ability to stop them. This was to head off the "Oh we can't control what happens on third-party servers" excuse.

I have never suggested a pop-up solution. Rather I have expressed doubts on it as it imposes a load on residents who may not be informed enough to (1)realise that there is an issue, and (2) be able to make a decision on accepting a media stream based on this strange information.

Suggested patches to Phoenix to intercept media requests are already in train and demonstrated. These are the work of others - not myself.
While I welcome those. I welcome them as a way of detecting previously unknown threats - and as a stop-gap measure pending a Policy and enforcement thereof.
In no way do I see them as the solution to the issue.

Currently, the only solution is to disable media completely.

My hope is that the campaigning will result in a strong Avatar privacy statement in TOS.

Such a Policy statement would encompass not alone the alt-linking via IP, but also the avatar location tracking which is not dependant in any way on media in IP harvesting.

So much has been written about this.
Should any of your gentle readers wish to acquaint themselves with my thinking on the topic, they might like to refer to the JIRA

And the Forums. That's a morass of postings. For something relatively clear and digestible, a thread that I started is remarkably even-tempered, and also affords a good overview of my thoughts.

The point that I am trying to make in that thread is that this is NOT just about alts.
The alt-outing does not affect me personally.

Location tracking affects *everybody*. It's not about hiding some secret. It's about being trackable by any random nutter.

That's why my sig includes:
Second Life - "Your World, Some Nutter's Database"

I have been banging that drum in the hopes of alerting people who might dismiss the privacy issues as being "Alts? Who cares? Meh!"

Prokofy Neva

Sling, what you're proposing *is* a pop-up. It's all there is on software, no matter how you elaborately describe it. You yourself proposed it in the thread, warn the user. Even if you have some more elaborate tracker hash banner blah blah, you've proposed a pop-up. Why you'd dodge that now is beyond me.

Millennium Sands


I'm only a part time journalist for the Herald, maybe not a full staff member, but anyway: I'M NOT ON LSD!

I used to prefer psylos anyway, but stopped using them a long time ago, because they always lead me to metaphysical troubles. (Meeting god can be fun, but in the long run I've been just too much of a critic to enjoy meetings like that, so we parted in mutual agreement to settle some serious issues and differences till later. With eternity at our hands, there's no need to hurry, after all) :D

LSD, on the other hand, is much too synthetic and artificial. Fun without a real deep and direct access to the core of what's called life is simply too shallow for my taste. ;)

Ann Otoole InSL

What does it matter. Rod Humble said privacy of alts is important. Meanwhile he stabbed SL in the back and officially gave a porn website scammer carte blanche to continue invading privacy at will.

Nice job Rod Humble.

Scylla Rhiadra

Nelson Jenkins on no2redzone raises an interesting point with regard to the announced changes to Redrone. zFire has announced that permission must be sought to learn the names of the alts of anyone scanned. However, he also has said this:

"Alts are still banable if they are related to a new user you do not want on your land.
Alts of people you banned are still banned, alts of copybots are still banned, alts of anyone you have banned are still going to be banned, just not named."

This seems to suggest that banning someone using the system will automatically also ban their associated "alts," meaning that one need merely look at the changes to a parcel's ban list to see the names of those alts.

If so, this is hardly much of a victory for the anti-Redzone faction.

And yes, the data mining will still continue unabated.

Prokofy Neva

Well, if it works like Ban-Link, it has lists of bans that aren't showing inside the ban list.You can only fit, what, 100 names on those lists? So they couldn't possible stuff all the alts of all the people in that list, they'd use it up. These scripts are configured to block without putting names in the ban list AFAIK.

Well, Ann, not to carry any water for Mr. Humble. But you know, when he talks about protecting people's privacy, he means REAL LIFE privacy. He means like a casino operator doesn't allow his patrons to be photographed inside the establishment so as not to embarrass them in real life.

But what he doesn't mean is what happens inside the casino if they use fake ID or whatever.

He is NOT available to protect people's SL privacy.

So he's covered his ass there, and very amply, and I can't fault him.

Facebook privacy concerns? Sure. He will not out your RL name on Facebook.

SL alt concerns? Well, yeah, it's in the TOS that you can't out alts. It's called "disclosure".

Did RedZone engage in disclosure?

Well, no. Datamining without publication is not disclosure. One could try a somewhat gimmicky argument: that the fact that every prim-a-donna who can read alt lists inside the device after they buy it from him are now seeing a "publication of alts" that is "inworld disclosure" means there is an AR available.


That would take one of those prim-a-donnas turning against RedZone and abuse reporting him for reporting alts to them. Not going to happen.

Ann Otoole InSL

Prok, do you even read what Humble says? He stated explicitly that privacy of alts is important.

As for redzone and disclosure? That is what it is sold to do. Disclose alts. The copybot detection crap is bs because everyone knows it can't do that.

I don't know why you defend this guy's operation. I don't know why you have not bothered to read the tons of information on how it works.

But have no fear. The TPVs will soon have a blocking system that renders redzone useless. And the exodus from LL's viewers back to TPVs will once again manifest.

LL obviously wants a civil war. Otherwise they would have properly dealt with this issue.

Prokofy Neva


Do you read what he says? Right back at you.

He is talking about *the privacy of alts in relationship to their real-life connection -- the possibility that an avatar connecting to a RL account in FB -- which is what you are supposed to have on FB -- would be outed.

You're smart, surely you can see how cleverly this is all done.

He's NOT NOT NOT talking about *outing one SL alt to another*.

Can't you grasp that???

The Red Zone collects SL names. It doesn't collect the RL info that the Lindens have on file obviously.

It colles *fake names of your SL avatar*. It matches that fake name of your SL avatar to ANOTHER fake name of your OTHER avatar -- and does this by grabbing your IP address.

Linden acknowledges that grabbing IP addresses is fine -- it has to do it itself to make the system work, they say (Ryan Linden's famous explanation on the forums years ago which I often cited).

So other people have to grab your IP, just like this blog grabs it and stores it, and if I had the inclination, I could go look at it, and if I had further world enough and time, I could see if the automatic search system would find a match, or work other matches to try to "turn up something".

Just like this blog, Red Zone grabs IPs, matches them, and show you the matches, *when you look*. It's slightly more easy to do, but *you have to look*.

It does not publish them.

AND furthermore, 4.3 *enables this to happen*. I can't keep shouting myself blue in the face and urging you people to read 4.3. Go and read it. It exonerates third parties of any wrongdoing gathering data in SL. It exonerates LL of any liability for that.

All you have is the TOS offense, "disclosure". So see if you can make an argument that somebody who stores and matches IP addresses is in fact also *disclosing* them.

That's the part you simply refuse to hear. You don't grasp that 8.3 refers to real-life privacy; 4.3 refers to internal SL data -- and there's not a thing you can do about somebody grabbing inworld data.

As long as they don't match it to real life, Rod Humble's lovely quotation is intact.

As long as they don't disclose it in SL, Rod Humble's lovely quotation is intact. He knows it, and his lawyers know it.

Invoke it all you want for its shame value, but he's got his ass covered on this one.

Privacy of alts is important REGARDING REAL LIFE. He also cares enough about privacy OF ONE ALT TO ANOTHER ALT if it is outed per the TOS on "disclosure".

Redzone does not disclose, Ann. It gathers and show the info *to you, the user*. The way Hippo Rentals or any other device shows me the UUID of an avatar and stores all kinds of things on a third-party website like his location, payments, etc.

But if the guy doesn't publish that, he's not disclosing.

The only argument you *might* make is that in a setting where zFire has sold so many copies of this thing, and it has been purchased not only by "responsible" store owners concerned about copybotting and griefing but just anybody with a prurient interest in flying around and trying to out alts, that *maybe* you can gin that up to a construction that it is deliberate disclosure.

But it isn't. Because revealing it to any one customer inside the product is not revealing it on a public website. Like the SL Wristwatch guy did, and that was what made him get taken down in the end.

It doesn't matter if the TPVs have a blocking system. LL might, if it gets upset enough, then eliminate the TPV program completely, if it interferes with the ability of the platform to offer the datamining service that every single platform in Silicon Valley offers its greedy clients.

It isn't LL that wants the civil war. It's people like you. And I'm all for fighting it. Fight away! There is a war in cyberspace and we need to fight it!

However, fight it smart. Realize what they are doing here. And devise ways to make the case.

Ann Otoole InSL

Go read the updated community standards Prok. LL changed it yesterday. Exposing alts without consent is now a violation as of yesterday. Please explain why LL changed the TOS/CS over this issue if it was not about exposing alts in SL?

Prokofy Neva

Ann, I appreciate that you're more immersed in this than I am, and have a real need to tell me "I told you so".

But it's still not addressing the issue I keep explaining: the sense of nobless oblige and eminent domain that Linden Lab has that they can scrape data about avatars and allow third parties to do so without any consent, just as long as they don't link to real life identities.

The deadly paragraph that claws back rights you think are implied elsewhere reminds unchanged in 4.3:

The Service may contain links to or otherwise allow connections to third-party websites, servers, and online services or environments that are not owned or controlled by Linden Lab. You agree that Linden Lab is not responsible or liable for the Content, policies, or practices of any third-party websites, servers, or online services or environments. Please consult any applicable terms of use and privacy policies provided by the third party for such websites, servers, or online services or environments.

As far as I can see, there isn't any new policy for third parties that data mine *in the TOS* which is like the Constitution and the main body of law. No special new "data mining policy" the way we have gotten "third party viewer" policies.

Instead, something has been changed in the Community Standards, which is far weaker. CS are just policies tacked on to law that help interpret it but aren't as solid.

CS 4 always said you can't disclose alts and it still says that.

I don't see what you're finding to be "updated".

I think all that happened is that Red Zone made a popup -- which was indeed Sling's solution offered to the Lindens, although not one as robust as he wanted.

Another thing I heard that zFire did was end the distribution of the entire dbase to everyone so only he has it, and the Herald says that -- but who knows. Let us hope so.

There's actually a surprisingly good piece on the Herald about this, but has a lot as well.

Or maybe there is

What I've just read about this is that zFire himself has put a change into the product that asks for consent to be scanned.

Not consent for their alts to be outed. But consent to be scanned -- it will be like the request to give consent to be bitten in the Vampire biting game.

How many people do you think won't click "yes" while they are shopping?

So, point to me some absolutely new redaction that I'm not seeing or some new philosophy about tolerance of datamining -- I'm not seeing it.

Ann Otoole InSL

The CS was just changed and the language about alts was added the day before yesterday. It was not there before. If you had jira access you would have seen Soft's comment that confirms it.

Ann Otoole InSL

How to "douse" the redzone fire:

Feature Request for Do Not Track registry to resolve privacy issue:

Prokofy Neva

Ann, no, there has always been an injunction against exposing alts. That's "disclosure". That's always been there. It's been used on people many, many times to ban them.

What's new is that they are interpreting this now *with regard to Red Zone*.

But it has always been against the TOS to out alts, always.

Just because Soft Lindens claims something on the JIRA doesn't make it true. Go and look at the company website. It has not been updated since December. And it is not changed that I can see, it always had that language.

Surely you can realize Ann that outing alts has always been an offense in SL. I don't see how you can imagine it wasn't.

Prokofy Neva

I'm trying to track this now.

Outing alts has always been an offense in SL. Lindens themselves went through this fiction of treating separate accounts as separate, and calling you "Random" even if they knew that "Random" was Prokofy.

But where is this written?

The Wayback Machine doesn't show it in the CS for privacy in 2007:

It's not there in 2008:

And yet we know that "disclosure' has always been an offense, and outing alts has been part of that offense. So was this an unwritten policy?

The Google cache also contains nothing:

So you're right, now they've inserted it (even though there isn't an update date):


Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about your fellow Residents without their consent -- including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, alternate account names, and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their Resident profile -- is not allowed. Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited.

The Lindens did have some regulation about this somewhere, as it was something they acted on:

The police blotter shows it:

Use the term "disclosure" and search -- Tyche Shepherd has the old police blotter here.

You'll see some offenses are "Disclosure: First Life" and interestingly, "Disclosure: Second Life" is also there.

Prokofy Neva

"Do not track"

Is brilliant, because it ties it to the "Do not Track" issues of RL that even have RL legislation pending or law in the EU -- it's something that takes the whole thing out of the realm of the hacker heckling of SL and the magic woo-woo of virtuality and puts it squarely where it belongs, real life privacy.

This is great.

The problem remains 4.3. 4.3 did not go away. 4.3 still gives third parties the right to scrape data.

Ann Otoole InSL

Sure they can scrape away. However with a do not track system they could not take data pertaining to avatars that have opted out. They could continue to do what Tyche does regarding land, etc. They could scrape all the data they want on avatars that have not opted out.

Prokofy Neva

4.3 did not go away.

Do not track only has 8 votes in a system where vote is going to be shut down.

Good luck.

Ann Otoole InSL

I just created it 5 hours ago and it already has 25 votes and 23 watchers. watchers = Oz's "indication of interest".

It is a low cost easy solution to a growing problem for LL. Let's wait and see what happens.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Advertisement


  • Advertisement
Blog powered by Typepad

Networked Blogs

  • Networked Blogs