Op/Ed: Who Are You Again?
by Pixeleen Mistral on 05/05/07 at 6:51 pm
Ah! But how do I know who you REALLY are?
by Inigo Chamerberlin
Ok, here we go again. What’s waiting for me on Saturday morning but another brilliant Linden Lab initiative – announced, as always, on a San Francisco Friday with the office about to close. What a surprise. This time it’s Daniel Linden posting an entry on the Linden blog called Age and Identity Verification in Second Life.
This initiative demands that I, someone who’s spent tens of thousands of dollars with Linden Lab using the Visa card which I originally used to verify my age and ID when I first took out a trial membership (remember those days?), ‘verify’ my age and identity.
Of course, it’s not (quite) compulsory (yet), if I don’t care to ‘verify’ myself – and trust me, I don’t, not bearing in mind the sentence above – I can no longer wander and explore Second Life freely – certain areas will be denied to me, based on whether the landowner has any declared ‘adult’ content (with no definition of ‘adult’ provided please note) – something Philip publicly said he absolutely refused to do to anyone, it was his reason for REMOVING all forms of verification and allowing anyone, regardless of age, sex, geographic location, etc, etc free access to Second Life! Nothing at all to do with producing totally unrealistic ‘signup’ figures of course – oh no!
Not ‘bits of Second Life’ – he never said that. Not ‘just the nice bits, not the naughty ones’. He said he was determined to allow everyone access to Second Life. No conditions. Really? Well how long did THAT last Philip?
So, ignoring what this tells us about Philip Rosedale’s integrity and suitability for his position at Linden Lab for the moment – why the sudden change? What exactly has happened to cause Linden Lab to make such a sudden change to the access arrangements for Second Life?
I can see two likely explanations at present – one is in some way connected with inworld gambling. It still continues, though somewhat curtailed. Could it be that Linden Lab is concerned at the possibility of someone underage gambling inworld and causing the wrath of the US, or some other, more restrictive, government to descend on Linden Lab? Possible I suppose, but it seems a bit of a long shot to provoke this reaction – though we did have that recent clamp-down on casino advertising recently.
Another possibility is that Linden Lab is already facing investigation concerning subsequent real life events which were initiated with the meeting of an adult resident with an under-age resident in Second Life. This could be a more likely explanation for the rather precipitate announcement of a new feature in such a short timeframe.
Sadly, this one seems more plausible. Hopefully it hasn’t yet happened, someone at Linden Lab, after all there must be some sensible people there, is trying to head off the possibility maybe?
Ignoring for the moment the fact that neither of the above scenarios would be so likely to have occurred, nor any others more fertile imaginations than mine might conjure up, IF our respected CEO hadn’t become obsessed with ‘signups’ and allowed all comers, with no verification whatsoever, to enter Second Life. Something fairly drastic must have prompted this sudden change. Unless it’s just another Linden Lab whim.
Still, it’s a typical Linden Lab poorly thought out messy compromise ‘solution’. After all, we can’t upset Philip by quietly dropping unverified signups, can we?
So, let’s approach it ass backwards by attempting to segregate Second Life, create ghettos.
Brilliant idea!
Yet again, Linden Lab appears to have fallen foul of one of its own CEO’s questionable decisions. A decision every responsible adult in Second Life at the time protested for reasons that now may be coming home to roost – and was, as usual, ignored.
Meantime, who has to live with the consequences? Yes. As usual. The residents.
Fresh from having Cory tell us the bugs were all OUR fault for not using Beta more – right after admitting Beta was ineffective as it couldn’t replicate main grid loading – we are now told we are legally and morally responsible for what happens on our land.
Going to enjoy hanging out on your land 24/7 and acting as a ‘morals policeperson’ to cover Linden Lab’s corporate ass? Hmmm, I must try and get a response from Anshe on that one.
It seems to me of late, that besides hiding in a corner with their corporate fingers in their ears and the phone off the hook, Linden Lab are now seeking to avoid any and all responsibility or liability for any aspect of Second Life, and offloading everything onto their customer’s shoulders.
One can’t help wondering just what they think we, those of us who DO pay our way, are actually paying them for?
Or are they just laughing? All the way to the bank…
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
Untameable, where do you see any information, language in a TOS, or *facts* claiming that a company that will *verify* your personal information will also store and use it? I don’t see it. I don’t dismiss it as a problem, but I think you need to establish that this will be done before you crank up the indignation about it.
Anonymous
May 6th, 2007
Linden Labs seems to be trying to ensure the defensibility of their position as an “Internet Service Provider” a la Myspace, AOL, etc. … as in “we’re just too big to be responsible for what our users choose to do” so that they can be in a position to respond to DMCA notifications, child porn, etc. but not have to actively police it themselves. Understandable (see Cubby v. Compuserve– and lately the whole Digg thing: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070504.LDIGG04/TPStory/Entertainment )
I suppose my largest concern regards intellectual freedoms and that well trod blurry line between art, pornography, and obscenity. The Communications decency act was ruled unconstitutional (Reno v. ACLU) and the ACLU has won their challenge to COPA (Children’s Online Protection Act): http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/29138prs20070322.html
Who defines “adult?”– apparently in this case Linden Labs- who, as a private company, have the right to limit speech on their “property”… or do they? I thought these articles were interesting since they show that beyond the question of whether or not SL has become a “public fora” could come into play:
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Jul/12/129653.html
http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring05/cos491/?p=266
In any case, I do think that this development could lead to significant commercial disruption and loss in the short term as people sort through the confusion and, if left unchallenged, leaves SL open to competition from providers more willing to protect their user’s speech and privacy.
Anyone know a typist that works for the ACLU?
Untameable Wildcat
May 6th, 2007
It’s ambiguous. The 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act requires Internet companies to retain any “record” in their possession for 90 days “upon the request of a governmental entity”–a practice known as “data preservation.” but there is ambiguity here. Question: If ONE person is under investigation for whatever reason, does that REQUIRE – under the ECTRA that ALL details are retained of ALL residents? We just don’t know, and there’s no way of finding out.
If it was all completely transparent, then I’d be less worried about it – but it’s all couched in various kinds of language which introduces a whole serious of possible interpretations. If you’re saying to me “Unless you can show me EXACT evidence to back up your point of view” – well, I can’t… so it’s up to you and everyone else out there to decide where they stand. But there ISN’T anything so obvious, or so transparent. I wish there was.
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
Untameable, quoting some law doesn’t mean anything. If they retain your record for 90 days, so what? That doesn’t mean they sold it or used it. If they retain it so that the government can examine it if they have probable cause of a crime — so what? That’s what governments do everywhere, there’s no such thing as some refrigerator that your data can be chilled in and never seen by a government entity or even a private entity bent on seeing it.
If you don’t like that feeling, I totally understand. I don’t like the invasions of privacy that occur on SL, either. But then, your options would involve not giving LL that verification and face being banned from adult sex palaces.
It just seems to me that Linden Lab is telling the sex clubs that if they want to be the moral and legal equivalent of a porn film production company, and run websites with explicit porn on it for use by adults, they will have to clear the same hurdles you’d have to clear in real life if you wished to do those things.
You might as well go and spout the exact same complaints to the Internet porn industry and its suppliers — with exactly the same of non-results. It’s life in the big city. Most countries wish to control the manufacturer and use of porn.
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
The Communications decency act was ruled unconstitutional (Reno v. ACLU) and the ACLU has won their challenge to COPA (Children’s Online Protection Act): http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/29138prs20070322.html
This kind of stuff will get you nowhere. Little Grey, who is an ACLU member who hangs out in SL, may have an opinion on this, but it won’t represent a proper legal opinion or even the official opinion of the ACLU.
SL has yet to be characterized by any judge in the land as a public commons such that it must protect free speech. Rather, due to even its free and nominal membership requirements and its status as a world requiring a download, it is more like a private club, which has less obligations under the law to protect free speech.
There’s a simple definition of what adult is for this purpose: what you decide is adult. That’s how they are cleverly doing it. If YOU decide — not them — that you engage in adult behaviour or go to adult sites in SL, then you must verify yourself so as to avoid being banned if those sites you frequent decide to card people and check off their lot.
You can then ask THEM, not Linden Lab, not the ACLU, not God, what an adult is as THEY will define it with their own compliance or lack of compliance.
So watch what happens? Some clubs will ignore this and never check off anything. Their enemies will abuse report them, in the usual SL gotcha way. The Lindens will be forced to act, and make a few token bans of accounts for 3 days or warnings. Then everyone will come back and do the same thing.
A few giant sex palaces which are already attached to real-world porn outfits with RL porn licenses already will shrug and get verified and check off their lot and keep going, never lacking in patrons willing to verify themselves to go on playing.
LL is clearly at a point now that even if all the sex practitioners are shut down tomorrow, they can’t lose, because artists, educators, businesses, etc. can go on carrying it for them, and they don’t need the socializers as much, or at least, they are willing to sacrifice at least the most explicit and pornographic of the socializers and not blink.
Untameable Wildcat
May 6th, 2007
If they retain it, then that causes issues. If someone has a list, chances are someone wants that list. Again, I refer to the music industry as a classic example. “We need that list because some people might be playing music into SL that they haven’t paid us royalties to use, acting as an internet radio station without paying the fees associated with such.”
Again, I’m not interested in the government aspect. The government could find out what it wanted anyway. It’s third parties, that work under a partial veil of secrecy because they pertain to be at least partially involved in law enforcement that are the primary worry. The music industry (to again use them as an example, primarily because they’re one of the most active in the field) are well known for trying to get the law changed to do what they want, and then enforcing that ruthlessly. They may be the most active, but they’re not the only ones.
And again, I’m not interested in it if it’s just for sex areas, but my feeling is it will soon spread to ALL of Second Life if it’s not held in check. Pandora’s Box. Open it today for tiny parts of SL and for good reasons, and six months down the line it’s enforced for everyone and open to abuse. That’s the danger. That’s what’s upsetting people.
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
There’s no way I’m hanging around while Linden Lab climbs into bed with a company run by people like the Phillips brothers. Those two are so far up the American and UK government’s arses it’s scary, and living in the UK… Confirm my identity to THOSE guys? I wouldn’t confirm the time of day to them!
I hate this kind of surly unionism, Inigo, it represents cessation of thought.
Political parties use list companies for campaigning. So? That’s how it’s done. There’s nothing inherently corrupt about it. Everybody gets junk mail. Throw it out, try to get on one of those opt-out lists they have, and shut up.
At election time, I get deluged with political flyers and telephone calls. I can put my message answering service on, and I can throw out my mail for 2 weeks. I find some of them helpful, despite their hype, and some of them that call, I pointedly ask my questions about my issues to try to get traction on them. Some of the local elections are actually usually and actually put into power those people who do stuff about issues like the attempt to close a hospital or raise the cost of low-income housing, etc. I don’t understand why I have to view THAT as being “up my ass” and “OMG the government is under my bed”. That’s retarded, and just part of that uber shrill leftwing hysteria that merely then by default offers as a solution no campaining and no political parties and having just the Kremlin and one big gas company run all the parties or something.
If this mailing list house is owned by Philips, Murdoch, or Satan himself, so what? That doesn’t mean your name will be used. Or if it is used, it doesn’t mean you can’t throw out the mail that results from it. I’d rather throw out a few pieces of mail or keep my tape recorder on 2 weeks out of the year than not have a system where non-profit groups and political parties can buy mailing lists and work them. They are the heart blood of democracy.
What were you offering as a substitute? Code as law? Ashcroft? Seriously, I don’t get the hate and the allergy to a simple thing like a mailing list house. If you have ever worked for non-profits as I have, you know that doing your lists and keeping track of all the customers, supporters, donors etc is a HUGE amount of labour. Labour costs something. People are willing to buy that labour.
Untameable Wildcat
May 6th, 2007
Your argument seems to be “It doesn’t mean your data will be used” and you may be right. Mine is it doesn’t mean my data WON’T be used. Either of us could be right – but my picture, if it turns out to be the correct one, is the more worrying one. If a list of personal data is stored, even if it gets hacked and stolen by a lawbreaker… the effects of that personal information being passed on to parties unknown who have no right to use it could be potentially devastating. Not storing a list in the first place eliminates the chance, however small, of the data on that list being misused.
You ask for my solution? Very well. We have Teen Second Life. We have Second Life. My solution would be a third grid – Adult Content Second Life. Let those who want it be the ones that pay for it and the ones that get their names on lists, and let the rest of us opt out. And yes, it would involve a lot of time, effort, money and difficulties to Linden Labs but at the end of the day ARE they truly worried about the problem or are they simply wanting to indemnify themselves? Because it strikes me, that if they are truly worried about underage exposure, then NO lengths are too far to go – including a third grid. Hell, they could even make money out of it – can we say “paid character transfer” people?
If you want to give out your details, then you go right ahead. If you’re not worried about the potential that they could be abused, then fair enough. But I am, and I resent being told that I HAVE to do this “for my own good” and resent the implications that will entail. And if I am right, and it does become mandatory for all residents someplace down the line, then it sets a president I am not prepared to accept.
JimBean
May 6th, 2007
the truth is out: LL is in league with KGB to track you in your sleep. Philip has sex with the devil. i’m leaving SL if this doesn’t stop.
Nacon
May 6th, 2007
People bitch about having some kind of payment to prove yourself as verified…
They took it away…
People bitch about kids and alt noobies…
They gave us back the verified check up…
Now Alt noobies are bitching about it.
How about take a nice cup of STFU? Go to Teen Grid if you can’t play “adult”.
Untameable Wildcat
May 6th, 2007
That’s very brave of you, Jimbean and Nacon… not even using your SL names to post. Yes, lets all insult one another directly without letting it be known who we are.
I believe I have valid points. I also believe Prokofy Neva has valid points, even if I disagree with him. At least we’re willing to stand up for what we believe in; what’s your excuse, you two, for the anonymous namecalling? Who comes over more as “noobies” and trolls?
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
Um, that's what they're doing, only with less technical headaches by physically partitioning any grids. I love how the entitlement-happy kids always think up more work and more expenditures for the adults at LL to keep their fantasy world intact. I sympathize, because it's my business to provide land for people who wish this, but ultimately, we're all going to have to wake up to the fact that LL doesn't want us here, that a world primarily based on sex, and based on really gross and explicit and violent manifestations of sex, is not what they wish to sponsor. Nobody can *make* them do that. Some *other* company will have to take that on, like the people who made Sociolotron.
They are making it opt-in. No one steals your data if you don't give it to them, duh.
They are making it definable by the owner himself, if he wishes, he can verify first himself, then his patrons.
Islands are already separate from view. Any island is already "on its own grid" in a sense as you can't cam into it from a neighbouring island or the mainland.
Only mainland sex palaces, such as they are, will have to be concerned, I suppose, but that was always at issue.
I think this issue is just giving you a chance to vent about all these things you think have power over you, and gives you a chance to vent that you think you are powerless. But you have the power not to give your ID to something that you think will misuse it -- or, if you want badly enough to play in sex clubs, take a risk that your ID will be used to inform your employer some day that you play in SL sex clubs.
You don't "have" to do a thing. You're fuming and not making sense. If you don't wish to go to adult sex palaces, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to do this. If you wish to go to your favourite sex club, then be prepared for them carding you now as they may not wish to be shut down. So get carded, or shop around for one that isn't going to bother with this and hope that no one will report you. Or don't play.
I find the idea that some mail-list house is going to use my personal data for ill completely preposterous. Such companies thrive on their reputations for not misusing data or making it hackable.
By sharp contrast, our favourite metaverse service provider not only had a self-acknowledged data-base hack on September 9, 2006, they also just put up a funny notice about May being password month, kids, and added a decidedly freaky and atypical use of captcha lettering AFTER you already use said password and log-on, as if something happened they don't want to tell us. And that's just for the regular verification on premium accounts they have now -- and for freebies, who provide nothing.
I've never had anybody disclosure my real life, obtain even things like my phone number and harass me at home, and publish false information about me -- until I came to Second Life. That has to do with the evil anonymity of the fucktards that are attracted to the evils of this machine. That happened to me without any "evil Aristotle" grabbing my information and selling it to "evil Murdoch". So I'm pretty sanguine about all your concerns. Evil companies, whatever their evils, don't bother me as much as the anonymous and unaccountable fucktards of SL who use disclosure and blackmail to try to silence critics and dissenters.
No service I've ever been in, like a tripod.com or some other Internet club anywhere ever made me undergo that sort of invasion of privacy that I've undergone in Second Life.
By sharp contrast, our favourite metaverse service provider also enables the rampant witch-hunting of people for their RL information and allows them to disclose it even on their official forums and inworld and without policing, and without punishment. Furthermore, as we know from Daniel Linden's video, the Lindens never really believed in first-life disclosure as a real offense, as they are now going to get rid of it as an offense. Businesses and educators using SL don't mind disclosing first life information whatsoever, and even clamor to have their real names as the avatars names, they don't need to have secret alts of the opposite gender.
No, you can't ask Linden Lab to create a separate grid for you and huff and puff and work overtime for you to realize your little sex fantasies with your little friends. Instead, they are essentially saying they don't want to be in this risky and difficult porn business anymore, filled with liability. They wish to limit the liability their company faces. So it will mean that some other company, that is willing to assume the licensing and risks, will have to make an entire standalone virtual world like SL, or they may try the route for now of making a third-party API, buying a bunch of islands they police rigorously, and providing their own age verification if they think their patrons are going to be like you and get all paranoid and freaky about this company LL has currently chosen.
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
Could someone please explain to me how this works? I complain about the lack of privacy in SL that occurs when the Sheep use Grid Shepherd, or when SL Data scrapes the parcels, and everybody sneers at me and tells me there’s no such thing as privacy on the Internet that my data is always being logged and captured and used and sold and I should just “suck it up”.
But the minute something like this is done that is *just like* this thing “the Internet always does” which is like a porn site demanding not only a credit card but filling out forms with more data, then I’m told hysterically this is an evil government invasion up my ass.
I don’t see how the same people telling me with great glee how ESC can scrape what it wishes and tough titties are now telling me they’re in a lather about the Lindens wishing to behave like the rest of the Internet and card people at adult porn palaces. Hello?
Reality
May 6th, 2007
Yes, let’s try and compare a search engine to verification venues which use personal data.
apples and oranges.
Next rant?
JimBean
May 6th, 2007
> …not even using your SL names to post
pfffff… ahaha. you’re joking, right? that’s a joke. you’re pulling my leg. i’m sposed to laugh, right?
like using my SL name is some kind of official identification now. like i couldn’t just go create a million alts in second life. like calling yourself “Untameable Wildcat” is really putting yourself on the line.
you people crack me up.
Jessica Holyoke
May 6th, 2007
Prok: Reality has a point that with ESC’s search engine looking around in-world, there is not a similarity for asking for someone’s driver’s license. Also, asking for driver’s license numbers or any portion of a social security number is much more intrusive than asking for a credit card number.
Also, the sex clubs are the “presumed” target. However, Adult content is not being defined. Extreme violence is being lumped into adult content explicitly by the Lindens. Does this include any of the combat sims? Extreme sex is the definition used by the Lindens. However, “extreme” is not being defined. In the UK, strippers may be allowable but bondage would not be. Someone else posted that female toplessness isn’t offensive in certain locations, but there is no definition of adult.
I believe people are up in arms because this change creates a major change in how people live their Second Lifes, just like voice, just like the unverifieds in the first place. It goes to show how important this virtual space is to people.
Elizabeth Rookwood
May 6th, 2007
“For their part, land owners will be required to flag their land as ‘adult’ if it contains adult content using the estate and land management tools provided to landowners.”
And is Linden Labs going to send someone around to each and every parcel and inspect it? I doubt it. Despite the word “required”, I’ll bet many parcel owners simply won’t flag their property that way. The high-profile clubs and stores will have to, but I’ll bet this will give rise to low-profile private clubs, the speakeasy.
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
>Reality has a point that with ESC’s search engine looking around in-world, there is not a similarity for asking for someone’s driver’s license. Also, asking for driver’s license numbers or any portion of a social security number is much more intrusive than asking for a credit card number.
I totally disagree. Both are issues of privacy that got people hopping mad because they imagine their private property simulation in Second Life is like real private property in real life.
They don’t want something scraping it and finding things they have out for sale they didn’t intend to be for sale, or at least not to the public.
The technical capacity of that bot being able to scrape it against their will isn’t at issue, after all, you aren’t being asked to give your driver’s license to play Second Life period, but only to go to sex clubs.
And what makes people mad is that they know, that on the privacy of their parcels, they do things that in fact would be characterized as pornography on the Internet, if they were watching it as a movie on the Internet. Just the fact that they script and act in and prop and produce their own porn movie doesn’t mean it isn’t pornography in the eyes of LL and the law now.
You have to give up privacy when you decide to become a customer of a porn site on the Internet. If you decide to become a purveyor of porn movies to the public, you will have even more hurdles to clear depending on your state or country. In fact you may be barred totally from some activity.
It doesn’t matter if “asking for” this information is “intrusive” — because you don’t *have* to give it. It’s like all the snots who were telling me I don’t *have* to play Second Life if I don’t want my sale information “to go on teh Intarwebs*. Exactly the same song from the same opera.
Both kinds of activities — bots and requirements for more scrutiny for pornographic activity — are invasions of privacy; one had opt-out but not opt-in; the second has opt-in at least.
If your point is that the entire world of Second Life is nothing but a giant porno movie staged, scripted, acted, and produced by its inhabitants, well, they will have to start facing the music about their screams to make SL “more like the Internet”. Now it’s more like the Internet. Happy?
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
“For their part, land owners will be required to flag their land as ‘adult’ if it contains adult content using the estate and land management tools provided to landowners.”
And is Linden Labs going to send someone around to each and every parcel and inspect it? I doubt it. Despite the word “required”, I’ll bet many parcel owners simply won’t flag their property that way. The high-profile clubs and stores will have to, but I’ll bet this will give rise to low-profile private clubs, the speakeasy.
Just like somebody could call their saloon “O’Neill’s Balloon” in the era of Prohibition, somebody in SL could call their parcel “No-see-know” instead of “Casino” and advertise it and escape scrutiny for awhile at least. So sure, there will be lots of people who will either be scofflaws or ignorant of the law as it applies to them.
All LL is doing is limiting liability. They do that by putting the onus on the land owner.
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
>Adult content is not being defined. Extreme violence is being lumped into adult content explicitly by the Lindens. Does this include any of the combat sims? Extreme sex is the definition used by the Lindens. However, “extreme” is not being defined. In the UK, strippers may be allowable but bondage would not be. Someone else posted that female toplessness isn’t offensive in certain locations, but there is no definition of adult.
>I believe people are up in arms because this change creates a major change in how people live their Second Lifes, just like voice, just like the unverifieds in the first place. It goes to show how important this virtual space is to people.
Jessica, once again, as I’ve already said, they ARE defining it. They use the word “explicit”. That means visible, open, advertised on the advertising list, etc.
That means if you want to have a sex club with prostitutes, you will need to be more verified and get your clients more verified.
I wonder if Stroker Serpentine got an early word of this new policy from his Linden pals and that explains why he was in a hurry to sell Amsterdam and put the onus for running Amsterdam on a real-life Dutch company that is in a country where prostitution is legalized and regulated.
And they are enabling YOU to define it. Do you think you have explicit adult activity on your parcel? Then get verified so you won’t be shut down and flag your lot.
You don’t think that private poseballing in your private home is explicit adult activity (it doesn’t seem to be, does it?) then don’t get verified, don’t check off anything.
I plan on putting a check mark on only one of my literally thousands of parcels, an adult motel advertised already as adult for 18 and over anyway: Flamingo Court/Motel of Last Resort. And I’m still thinking really whether it’s worth it. I might convert it to a free reading library for old ladies that only log in on Sundays.
Reality
May 6th, 2007
1. The key word there is imagine.
2. Data on an object placed down and rezzed is not personal information – real Life or otherwise.
Again, apples and oranges.
Next rant?
Jessica Holyoke
May 6th, 2007
>They use the word “explicit”. That means visible, open, advertised on the advertising list, etc.
But “visible” and “advertised” are two different things. Let’s take our mutual ‘friends’, the Goreans. They don’t advertise “explicitly sexual or excessively violent” material. (quotes taken from the Linden blog post by Daniel Linden) According to the blog post, which is all we have to go on, ANY adult material has to flagged, not simply the sex clubs.
“visible” is another issue as I’ve posted earlier due to the ability to spy with the camera. Closed doors has no meaning in SL.
Put another way, does this publication require age verification to see the Post 6 articles? Or the Yiffing article of a few weeks back? The yiffing article can be considered “explicitly sexual” but there was not a “click through.”
Of course, I believe we were supposed to have voice by now, so we’ll see how long this beta will take.
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
The blog post does not say that, Jessica, it says “explicit”. It depends on whether the Lindens might find that the sorts of things Goreans do in groups like whip people or force them into dog kennels or execute them or whatever they do is going to qualify as “explicit” and “violent”.
And it doesn’t matter what you think or I think. You’re still not getting my point. Each and every person with a parcel in SL who is concerned about liability will make a definition *themselves*. THEY will decide — yes, it’s explicit.
Or they won’t.
They will take precautions and card themselves and their visitors.
Or they won’t, and assume risk for both.
So that’s why your repeated hammering on more definition is silly, because you will not get it. They will not give it. YOU will decide it.
And as in all common-law situations, precedent will begin to define it. The minute the first person gets abusereported and the Lindens agree with the AR, which will have to happen on the mainland, given that islands are soon to be themselves in charge of all the ARs, then we will begin to have a definition.
Civil law systems try to define everything in advance, and make large long copious big tomes basically saying “everything is prohibited that we define thus and so.” Common law says “unless it is prohibited it is allowed broadly speaking” and doesn’t define it except very broadly and flexibly as in language like “explicit”. So it remains for the community, and the law-enforcers looking over their shoulders from RL to define what that means.
No one believes that explicit means visible, as in what I can spy on with the camera, Jessica, that’s just adding literalism and paranoia to a situation that is in fact pretty clear. Explicit means explicit.
There is nothing on the blog post that says “all activity which you used to do in Mature is now flaggable as “adult” on your parcel”.
It says no explicit adult activity without verification. If you have to keep asking what that is, perhaps you aren’t an adult or a user of these clubs? If you can’t be sure, you have two choices, either flag it to be on the safe side, and engage in overkill that nobody asked from you, or don’t flag it and face prosecution for failure to obey the law. If you think it’s unfair that you don’t have enough definition, well, you can’t ask for more in a multinational virtual world, so start making the definition yourself.
Prokofy Neva
May 6th, 2007
>1. The key word there is imagine.
>2. Data on an object placed down and rezzed is not personal information – real Life or otherwise.
>Again, apples and oranges.
>Next rant?
Relationships, such as sexual fantasies enacted in a virtual world with poseballs, is indeed personal information, and the information about who this is done with, how often, of what type, could be used by law-enforcers for prosecution, employers for not hiring, educational institutions for not admitting, and many more things. That’s why people don’t want SL Data or Grid Shepherd gathering parcel and avatar data. It’s an easy matter as we’ve seen to link avatars with RL identities, and anyway, as we’ve heard from Daniel Linden, the Lindens hope to phase out that concept as a “crime” anyway, so everything you do in SL has the capacity to be recorded. If you don’t like that — and I fully support you there — you are absolutely no different in kind or in case from somebody not liking to give over their driver’s license just to go to the Barbie Club. They don’t even give their driver’s license in real life to go to the Barbie Club, especially if they have gone there for 4 years and spent thousands of dollars at it and the owners know them.
Next idiocy?
Untameable Wildcat
May 6th, 2007
Yet again, in your last few posts, you’ve been ignoring what I’ve been actually saying in favour of promoting the eroding of data security.
How many times do I have to say that I don’t worry about this NOW other than the presidence it sets? How many times do I have to say it doesn’t worry me this ban on “mature” areas, whether they involve sex or virtual firearms.
What bothers me is that I believe IT WILL BECOME MANDATORY ACROSS THE GRID within a short space of time. “You’re fuming and not making sense. If you don’t wish to go to adult sex palaces, then don’t. Nobody is forcing you to do this.” you rant. And for the moment, that may be so. But once this particular privacy has been eroded, the next logical step is to extend it to everything. And yet again we’d probably see you defending the position that data must be handed over, sheep-like, whenever it’s requested “for our own good”.
Well, I do believe that it’s NOT for my own good. I don’t store my pin number with my bank card, because I don’t want someone finding one to have the other and thereby the resources to commit a crime against me. For the same reason, I don’t want them to have more than my name and address and credit card number AT THE MOST, because that’s not enough to commit identity theft against me should it fall into the wrong hands.
Once we allow the collection of such data we set a presidence that it’s okay to collect it whenever any “need” is perceived by the management, and the next logical step is to totally close the age loophole by making it mandatory across the board. THAT’S when it truly becomes objectionable.
“No, you can’t ask Linden Lab to create a separate grid for you and huff and puff and work overtime for you to realize your little sex fantasies with your little friends.” you sneer, determined to ignore my previous comments when they don’t suit you. Virtual sex and virtual guns have nothing to do with it. In six months time – at the very maximum – Linden Labs will extend this to cover EVERYONE who wants to log in to second life. It’s the next logical step, especially given the comment I read that someone had plenty of 16 sq m plots all over the place, and could put up huge penises, flag them as adult and be abiding by the rules. How can you make sure people like him don’t “continue to expose cheating youngsters to unsuitable content”? Easy – require EVERYONE to hand over their details.
If you’re going to debate, then use the ENTIRE context of the argument I’m making. Don’t spin it of into something it isn’t, just so that you can get a better argument to suit your point of view.
Cocoanut Koala
May 6th, 2007
> I think what happened was they created the problem by opening up SL to absolutely anyone of any age.
oh coco you’re so right. if only they’d started these age checks three years ago, we could have complained about it then instead of now.
i wonder, do you get paid extra for that big brain of yours?
——
This ^ is what you said, turkey breath, not me. I said that no one wanted them to do this sort of verification, but a SENSIBLE sort of verification.
coco
Jessica Holyoke
May 6th, 2007
Prok: you yourself stated that the definition of “explict” included “visible.” Your distinction between common law and civil law based countries is humourous because in the United States, even though it has a common law basis, has a definition section for every statute. Meaning that any law necessarily includes what defines the bad act. The Lindens are not including that defintion and instead are being amazingly coy about it.
And while I may have the ability to define what is “explicitly sexual or excessively violent” on my own parcel, that does not mean anything. The ultimate decider of what is and what is not allowable are the Lindens, of which each individual Linden may have a personal view as to what is and what is not objectionable.
Prok, your statements as to let the Linden’s decide afterward is bad policy. If this is truly “Your world, Your imagination”, then the residents did not sign up for vague warnings and requirements that affect the enjoyment of their Second Life and what can possibly come down to censorship.
Basically your attitude regarding something that changes what makes Second Life enjoyable for at least 30% to 50% of the active residents is wait and see what happens and hope for the best. Hoping for the best helps no one. I believe that posts like mine, no matter how much you see it as hammering for a silly point, will help to narrow down a definition from someone. A definition is needed here. You cannot be in compliance with a vague policy and hope for the best when business is involved. This policy can change drastically the sex industry in SL without giving guidelines on how to be compliant.
In many posts, the chance of finding a Linden to appeal if you feel that you are being banned unjustly is described as slim to none. So instead of saying that this is like a court system, what is being presented is “here’s a rule. It needs to be defined more. If you violate it, you’ll be banned, but you’ll know better next time. Or make everyone pay to come to whatever you are presenting as content.”
Additionally, when you go to a bar or club in real life, you don’t hand over your ID. You show the bouncer an ID. He doesn’t keep the data in anyway. (Covering the temporary storage or the possible long term storage of information.)
JimBean
May 6th, 2007
> I said that no one wanted them to do this sort of verification, but a SENSIBLE sort of verification.
ok, i’ll bite. you mean we should have kept credit card verification, and somehow this would have kept kids out, and kept John Edwards from being attacked with penises, and kept fox news from calling us a bunch of perverts.
you’re a freakin genius. LL should hire you IMMEDIATELY.
> turkey breath
genius i say!!!
Untameable Wildcat
May 6th, 2007
>ok, i’ll bite. you mean we should have kept credit card verification, and somehow this would have kept kids out, and kept John Edwards from being attacked with penises, and kept fox news from calling us a bunch of perverts.
Can someone explain to me how this thread got hijacked into American Partisan Politics? First we have Prok calling protesting opponents “liberals” now we have sarcasm regarding a US Presidential Prospective Candidate reference.
JimBean
May 6th, 2007
> Can someone explain to me…
maybe if you study real hard some day you’ll figure it out for yourself.
best of luck!
Inigo Chamerberlin
May 6th, 2007
I think you’ll find it coincides with the time certain individuals in the colonies crawled out of their pits. Prior to that there was discussion – after, personal abuse and digression ensued. ‘night all…
Untameable Wildcat
May 6th, 2007
*sighs* As usual, certain Americans are jumping to the conclusion that the world = America, or at least the part of the world that matters.
SL is worldwide, not just in America. Keep your stupid partisan national politics to yourselves.
humanoid
May 6th, 2007
Linden Labs seems to be slowly regressing to the same business model used by Prodigy and AOL in the pre-internet days. I wonder if they realise that SL will be just one of hundreds, if not thousands of 3D world service providers one day.
I remember when AOL finally figured out it couldn’t get away with charging people per-minute for access. It was a fiasco. Eventually Linden Labs will discover the same thing about intrusive ID requirements, but it’ll admittedly be a while before it happens.
Untameable Wildcat
May 6th, 2007
I agree… except AOL were big enough to weather the storm. Linden Labs aren’t, and will go under before they learn, I fear
JimBean
May 6th, 2007
oh brother “Untameable”, am i really going to have to explain this one to you?
here’s a hint. even tho you’re not in the united states, and when you play SL you see everyone on your computer which is not in the united states, linden lab actually IS in the united states, and is subject to its laws.
i know, i know, it’s tricky. just think about all those wires going all over the world. think of them as “tubes”.
…
ok, i gotta get outta here. just listening to all this crap is making me dumber by the minute.
Untameable Wildcat
May 6th, 2007
>ok, i gotta get outta here. just listening to all this crap is making me dumber by the minute.
I don’t think that’s possible, you’ve been there since birth… But to answer your attempt at a point yes, we all KNOW it’s in the US, and a number of people who have watched your country degenerating into a police state, like the UK has also done, don’t want to follow you sheep in handing our personal details over to God knows who.
This isn’t coming about as a result of any specific laws, it’s to avoid the litigation society which can’t even supervise its own young, and would rather sue Linden Labs for “providing unsuitable content” than not let the little bastards use the computer in the first place. Why should we non-US customers have to pay a price in our details security because you lot can’t supervise your kids properly? Can’t supervise them – don’t HAVE them!
Like a number of people I’m looking at non-US alternatives. I’m even looking at US alternatives, so long as they don’t demand ALL my personal details.
And yes, Untameable Wildcat is my main SL character, for those of you who STILL lack the skills to properly figure out what “main” means or use both names…
Shannon
May 7th, 2007
>Why should we non-US customers have to pay a price in our details security because you lot can’t supervise your kids properly? <
Because Second Life is hosted on US servers and owned by a US company. What is contained on the Linden Lab servers falls under US law. At present, our federal laws regarding sexually oriented material are dictated by fanatical religious extremists. If you choose to use SL, you agree to abide by these laws. If you don’t like it, go elsewhere.
Reality
May 7th, 2007
Prokofy: Your experience is not the experience of each and every user of Second Life.
If it is so easy to link an Avatar to a real person’s identity then kindly prove it. No, you do not count – nor does anyone whom you may have met off line as you already know that information.
Now then – When it comes to the average user, there really is little to tie them to their Second Life account. Most people are actually smart enough to keep their real life information separate from their Second Life account. There are still those that do use a few details here and there, however said details are not enough to track down a person’s identity.
Object Data – such as what is set for sale on a parcel – is by no means private information. Your attempt to suggest that a search system can somehow record all of your Second Life activities is rather laughable, not to mention paranoid.
In order to collect data of the type you have described, you would require an AI that can scan a person’s profile, another to follow them around all the time to record each and every step they took, still another to record their actions as a ‘movie’, yet another to hack Linden Lab’s data on their account, yet another to cross-reference that information with whatever databases will sell them credit Card listings … The list of required AI functions to gather enough information, tie it to an account and then use it on the real person – It simply goes on and on.
Now, I have little doubt that you’ll still rant and rave about Sellable Object Data being ‘personal information’ even after being given the knowledge of exactly what it would take to tie a Second Life Account to the average user …
Now then – if you would like to continue to compare apples and oranges … Kindly go to your local supermarket and buy a basket full of them.
Anonymous Avatar
May 7th, 2007
LL said that they or the verifier do not store the data. But they didn’t say if the data is intercepted/ stored a by fourth party in the verification process. Anyway nobody who knows them don’t trust what they say because they are a typical American bullshit company.
NSA buys data on non-US residents to support their commercial spying.
The economy of SL is in recession – you heard it here probably first. Verification fee will provide yet another necessary sink of L$s when avatars are heading for the exit door in SL.
The population density is sinking. There is one worse thing than campers: Empty camping areas
Katerina Qinan
May 7th, 2007
I still would like to know how LL plans to regulate the landowners being “morally and legally responsible” for what happens on their land. Say a person owns land in a PG sim and a pair of Goreans show up and start doing what they do and a passing person complains. According to the release LL made (and here’s hoping they actually clarify that), the landowner is totally responsible for what goes on, whether or not the landowner happens to be on the land, aware of what’s going on, or even logged on. If a Linden wants to dispute that then by all means please do, but that’s what I get out of this whole thing.
Of course, what LL needs to realize is that SL land is not real land. If a child drowns in my pool on my real land, I can be held accountable for the death if I did not take measures to prevent access (see: attractive nuisance). If LL decides to ban a landowner and take their assets (as I was informed would happen) because people complained enough times that passing weirdos were screwing on the lawn and decides to fight it, I want to see the court that would say “Why yes, Katerina, you are morally and legally responsible for actions committed by another user on this virtual server space that you were paying for from LL and yet had no control over. Shame on you for not being omnipresent enough to keep people from boffing each other in sight of your neighbors.”
After all, LL is providing the service and as much as they are trying to limit their own liability and make it about the landowners being responsible for everyone else in the game, as service providers, they are still the ones responsible. They could write the “morally and legally responsible” clause into a new TOS but that doesn’t mean it’s the magic cure-all that keeps LL from being responsible.
Of course, I could always parcel ban. But that pretty much defeats the point of this game.
Nicholaz Beresford
May 7th, 2007
If this comes, I guess pretty soon land owners (among them a well known contributor to this blog) will figure that flagging their land adult will keep out griefing alts. Or they will call and beg for LL to provide a non-adult verification-only flag for that reason. You know how it goes, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why not reveal who you are.
Then the griefers/alts will be restricted to the remaining land not flagged adult/verify, then those owning those parcels will figure out the solution as well and on it goes.
Besides, I do not know a single adult website that asks for more than a credit card, except you want to be in front of the camera. IMO, if this comes, a CC should be sufficient verification and other services (whatsoever) should be merely an alternative for those not having or not wishing to provide a credit card.
Woolly Mittens
May 7th, 2007
If most of the users are from Europe anyway and there’s no “morality”-police there yet, why are they still situated in “free” America?
Daryl
May 7th, 2007
Inigo you said you’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on second life???!!! What for???
Onder Skall
May 7th, 2007
I mentioned my discomfort with this on a recent podcast (see http://slgames.wordpress.com/2007/05/06/a-week-in-the-metaverse-episode-2 ) but I was really reserved about it at the time. Let me be clear:
This may force me to leave Second Life entirely.
I’ve re-written this comment a dozen times now. I keep deleting it. I keep swearing and pontificating. Bottom line: I’m so mad at Rosedale right now. So very very mad.
zsa zsa
May 7th, 2007
I don’t see any difference between this and having to provide a credit card to access a porn site. Why the hell is everyone going nutz over this?
Anonymous
May 7th, 2007
Daryl – I’ve been here a few years. Add up buying L$ from Lindex, then tier payments, then US$ land auctions, then more tier, then island ‘purchase’ and island ‘fees’ (aka tier). It kind of adds up. Sure, I’ve cashed the resulting L$ out from time to time, but the US$ spend still adds up you know!
And I can easily keep track of it, because I have a Visa card that I only use for Second Life.
When I joined LL required CC details even for a trial, which seeing I’d never heard of SL or LL before and couldn’t find out dick about them at the time – this was before Philip turned into a media exposure junkie – there was no way I was trusting a potentially ‘here today gone tomorrow’ outfit with any of my main card’s details. So I opened a new account and used that, and have done ever since.
It’s a slightly different situation with ‘Integrity’ – I found out a lot about them, and I don’t like any of it.
Plus, I resent the very idea of being asked – required soon if my suspicions are correct – to re-verify myself at the behest of a firm that know damn well I’m an adult (I’ve spoken to several management figures in real life for heaven’s sake) and have done very well out of me too!
It’s a point of principle for me, as well as distrust of the ‘third party ‘verification’ specialist’.
But why should ANYONE who’s already verified their age with LL and has a healthy transaction record with them have to re-’verify’ themselves?
OK, I’ve spent serious money with LL, but ANYONE with a steady record of CC transactions for ANY amount (be it Premium payments, or L$ purchases at Lindex) shouldn’t need any further verification.
Or does LL really think there are Mums, Dads and siblings out there who are ignoring continuous charges on their CC that THEY aren’t responsible for?
What should be happening is that all ‘no payment info used’ residents should, on their next attempted login, be redirected to a page stating that LL, as they are perfectly entitled to, now require formal identity verification if they wish to continue using SL.
Then direct THEM to ‘Integrity’, as LL seem no longer to accept that a CC is proof enough.
But leave those of us who HAVE provided CC info AND validated that by using the CC to make payments to SL OUT of this!
Of course, that isn’t going to happen. If there’s a good way and a bad way of doing things you can trust Linden Lab to find a terrible way of doing it – and stick to it regardless.
It’s my major gripe with LL – they won’t listen, and they never learn.
Anonymous
May 7th, 2007
Onder, you aren’t allowed to be mad with Rosedale. Whatever he does.
If you do, you’ll be labeled a ‘SL hater’ and subject to juvenile abuse. Take care.
shockwave yareach
May 7th, 2007
Lets tally the scores now and see how well this stacks up.
Reduction in sim loads: est <1% (people quitting SL)
Sites becoming Adult: est 12.
People reverifying: est 20%.
Reduction in Griefing: 0%.
Minors prevented from entering main grid: 0%.
It’s all the mess of verification without any of the benefits! Bravo! I never thought I’d see more effort put into something that does absolutely nothing outside of FEMA.
This may legally protect LL, but it’ll be roundly ignored by the citizens of the game. Why oh why would any SL firm that sells anything set itself to refuse sales to anyone? Here is where Rosedale’s model falls apart. Unless LL sets up a police force to patrol everywhere (fat chance, given their shutdown of help, leaving their phones off the hook and hiding their online statuses) people aren’t going to set their parcels to reject anyone with Lindens to spend. And if they make it mandatory, why, that’s that verification thing that Lord Phillip refuses to allow because it’ll lower his membership numbers to folks with money to spend and good reasons to avoid griefing.
In short, LL can’t police the grid, and nobody but a couple highest profile cases will bother setting themselves as adult. As for the neighbors spying and complaining about what goes on next door… who are they going to complain to? You can’t get a Linden’s attention during a grey goo attack or a simcrash. You think they’ll care who Mark’s AV is humping or how often?
Obscure Doodad
May 7th, 2007
I think that assessment is incorrect.
If LL is overtly passing along liability to landowners, and land owners recognize they are RL financially liable for things that happen on their land with kids, they must out of self preservation set their land to Adult — even if they have no intended adult content on the land. All landowners have to protect their personal RL assets and the only way to do that short of selling the land and leaving SL is to set it adult so kids can’t get on.
This means . . . yes, all parcels, every single one, owned by anyone who has any desire at all not to pay RL legal fees as a co defendant with LL has to set their land Adult.
At most LL can drag others into the lawsuit brought against them for what is happening on their servers. They can’t dodge the legal fees with that statement “land owners are responsible for what happens on their land”. Land owners can just form a land owner association and issue their own proclamation “LL is responsible for what happens on its servers.” No difference.
But . . . the bad news here is that all landowners have to set their land to adult to save themselves liability and minimize their legal fees. This means if you’re unverified, there will be nowhere to go — other than away from SL. That looks somewhat inevitable unless SL changes their process on this matter.
Oh, and even worse news, the Blog comment that started all this was posted Friday night and the 100 responses filled before ppl had time to think. The major objections here and on SC and secondlifeinsider will likely never be heard by LL. They have only those 100 comments to go by, and those 100 filled before thought took place.
ArianeB
May 7th, 2007
Thought I’d add a coment here because it is one of the few places that is really discussing this stuff seriously (even thought the first commenter is full of crap).
I have to agree with Onder on this. This age verification thing is a potentially radical game changer. What is odd is that this seems to be coming out at the same time voice is coming out, another potential radical game changer.
Second Life as we know it is going to be a very different place here in a very short time.
I believe that the number of people willing to verify their age will be small, which means businesses not wanting to lose business will avoid the “adult content” label. This made lead to new forms of griefing: The prude police.
Here’s another example of radical change: 17 of the top 20 most popular places are listed as “mature”. Most get to be popular through the use of camp chairs. It is highly unlikely that many campers will age verify. It is also highly unlikely popular red light district sims will be able to get away with not checking the adult content box. Hence, somethings got to give.
Then we have this vague notion of “adult content”. Fake avatar sex is not real sex, hence by definition, not pornographic. (at least in my opinion) But does “adult content” = pornography?
But then there is the whole voice issue. Half the people who use voice are going to be swearing like a sailor, because that is how it is in There.com which has had voice for years. This futher clouds the whole what is adult content debate doesn’t it?
I know there are many out there looking forward to age verification and voice, but I’m one of those that are not.