Op/Ed: LL Selling Residents’ Souls To Data Miners?
by Alphaville Herald on 07/09/07 at 8:37 am
ANYTHING goes in Linden Lab’s headlong drive to get the corporates on board
by Inigo Chamerberlin
Linden Lab may have found a way of dangling a tasty carrot in front of the corporates – a way of connecting a Second Life resident identity with a RL identity – and this may explain the Linden’s fascination with pursuing an identity verification relationship with Integrity-Aristotle to build resident “trust” relationships – which residents deeply dis-trust. The hook-up with Integrity-Aristotle, which I really couldn’t see the sense in, given their established track record of online age verification failure and selling identity data to absolutely anyone (see this May 2007 article for details), now makes a lot more sense.
I came to this conclusion after the recent article concerning the latest on the Age Verification system caused some very interesting comments, several raising issues which I hadn’t even considered. Subsequent in-world conversations with various residents also brought to light some interesting thoughts. For instance, Victorria Paine makes a very interesting point regarding Age Verification as it applies to the continuing Linden Lab obsession with corporatising Second Life. This raises a possibility I missed completely in an earlier article in which I attempted to examine the future of ‘Corporate Second Life’.
Linden Lab may well NOT keep your personal data – if you can trust them – but Integrity-Aristotle have made it quite clear that they WILL. Now it really shouldn’t be necessary to draw a diagram showing how that works, should it?
Linden Lab can take refuge in their usual ‘implausible deniability™’, while gaining the advantage of being able to point their precious corporate customers in the direction of Integrity-Aristotle, or Aristotle Inc, the data trading part of the Aristotle group, or maybe some less obviously titled subsidiary – and then the corporates can tie a Second Life avatar’s interest in their offerings to a RL identity. For example:
Visit Nissan’s estate in Second Life and three days later your friendly local Nissan dealer pops up in RL to give you a test drive in their latest offering…
Tailored to your income/current vehicle preferences/geographic location/marital status/etc,etc. Talk about targeted marketing?
All drawn from Aristotle Inc’s detailed databases which by then will contain a simple code indicating that you are a) a Second Life resident, and b) your AV uuid, thus linking your RL ID with your Second Life activities.
My view on that all too likely scenario is that, if that is what Linden Lab are up to, it sounds worryingly like someone selling their soul to the devil – or possibly more accurately – them selling someone else’s soul – YOUR soul – to the devil.
Age Verification is only the beginning
Next we move onto the alarmingly consistent statements by Linden Lab that the Age Verification system is simply the first step in a larger process designed to ‘assist’ us in ‘shedding’ our anonymity.
A total reversal of one of the six original pillars of Second Life, not to mention the completely worthless TOS.
Well, it wouldn’t be the first time Linden Lab has vigorously back-pedalled on policy, so it’s probably not that surprising – but WHY remove anonymity from Second Life? I mean, the notorious Open Signup process – which the Lab started June 6, 2006 – made Second Life more anonymous than it originally was.
Linden Lab was all for an anonymous avatar free for all – but not most of us who’d signed up under the old system which did at least provide a reasonable degree of RL ID validation.
So, why this apparent about face? Could it be that Linden Lab now, finally, recognize that Open Signup, which many of us saw and still see as nothing but a shameless ‘numbers chasing’ exercise designed solely to produce unfeasibly optimistic user numbers to fool the corporates, was a mistake?
If that’s the case, I, and a lot of others, would really like to hear a candid admission of that from, um, what’s his name? Little guy – good talker – sequined jockstrap, you know who I mean… I think he used to be in charge or something… Philip erm Linden is it?
FaceBook with animated 3D chat anyone?
It has been suggested that Linden Lab may be attempting to steer Second Life down the ‘FaceBook/MySpace’ path – probably on the basis that FaceBook is really pretty easy to get ‘into’ and is gaining users rapidly, while Second Life has something of a learning curve and isn’t any more.
Now, apart from the fact that that would be a tacit admission that Second Life as we know it has just about plateau’ed out, and recent figures suggest that if that isn’t the case, it’s fast approaching. It’s a concept so different to the original concept that I really don’t think what was left would actually be Second Life any more.
I don’t think that one really flies, though with Linden Lab, you never know what they might try.
However, attempting to enforce full RL disclosure by a sort of stealthy death of a thousand cuts, while attempting to do so rapidly enough to make such a transition quickly enough to avoid being outdated, yet slowly enough to avoid stampeding the customers would be something of a ‘rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic’ manoeuvre – something which rarely comes off well.
It’s possible that that’s what Linden Lab’s up to. But I suspect that would be doomed to failure. Before the required changes could be put in place and everything brought up to speed I suspect that sort of ‘in your face’ social networking will have become yesterday’s ‘big new thing’.
In fact, Second Life itself is coming perilously close to that stage – as the hype grows ever more hysterical, Second Life begins to sound a more and more dated…
Grafting on yet more improbable functionality isn’t the answer. Refining what you have into a reliable smooth and enjoyable experience for users is. The trick is not to leave the process of refinement too late.
Is this a manufactured crisis?
Finally, and I almost hesitate to bring this one up, reeking as it does of conspiracy and dark doings. In response to the idea that Age Verification was simply CYA manoeuvre by Linden Lab in response to a law enforcement agency’s none to subtle hints, a number of people have suggested that that may not be the case.
It’s been suggested that the whole ‘Virtual Paedophilia’ saga, to which Age Verification appeared to be some sort of attempted CYA response MIGHT have been staged in its entirety by Linden Lab in an attempt to get Age Verification in, or at least on the table, in a ‘think of the children’ manoeuvre.
Personally I’d hate to think that the management of Linden Lab could be that cynically manipulative, but in the light of developments I’m afraid it’s an idea that possibly needs consideration.
These days it seems that absolutely ANYTHING goes in Linden Lab’s headlong drive to get the corporates on board.
What was it Philip said a few years back? ‘Where are the competition? Bring them on?’
Yeah. Right.
Loki Eliot
Sep 7th, 2007
why cant they just make a new grid called Facegrid and fill that with all their stupid new ideas on culture control. Leave our grid the way we like it please LL, we dont want the corporate scum on here anyway, its our world right? our imagination?!…. make a new grid along side ours and call it “linden Labs unoffensive kid friendly, christian friendly, personal space invading corporate filled Junk mail grid” with the slogan “Our World, Unimaginative – do as your told or be banned”
LL annoy me, wish i could ban them…. ok im off to put nipples on my BurningLife sculpture!
Tenshi Vielle
Sep 7th, 2007
No, no no no no!!! GAH!!
In reply to your conspiracy theory – I’d be semi-inclined to agree with you on this… due to a number of Lindens replying to a report of a sexual ageplay sim as “It’s not my job.”
Uh… whose is it?
Ali
Sep 7th, 2007
This was an awesom article(well as all of your articles are,Inigo:])and that last thought ’bout the ageplay scandal being staged…well i don’t know if the Lindens would bother to go through so much trouble just to make us verifie our age(they and theyr product were kinda humiliated[did i spell that rightXD]in front of the whole world)…but from what i’ve learned from the L’s is that you can never be sure about what’s going on in their heads;).
Mytwo Cents
Sep 7th, 2007
The data mining theory in this article is highly unlikely:
Quote from LindenLab blog entry August 29, 2007:
“Linden Lab will not be storing this data and nor will the third party verification specialist, Aristotle”
Quote from comment 23 by Robin Linden from LindenLab blog entry August 29, 2007:
“Integrity is contractually obligated to perform the matching service and that’s it. They will not store any personally identifying information, nor will we.”
Urizenus
Sep 7th, 2007
Yah, this is an issue that we have been concerned with for some time. I’m reminded of Humdog’s “History of the Board Ho” back in May of ’04 in which she worried that the community forums and stratics boards were being mined for data and we were being commodified.
http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2004/05/the_history_of_.html
It’s hard to imagine these companies resisting the temptation to mine this data. it’s virtual gold.
SqueezeOne Pow
Sep 7th, 2007
…geez. This is pretty naive. Ageplay staged?? Come on! Any credibility this article had was lost right there.
I don’t think LL is implementing it correctly but the idea they have isn’t that crazy. They’re trying to rush to the “Internet in 3-D” idea Phil’s got in his head but they’re skipping some steps. They need to do like the regular internet did and BECOME REASONABLY RELIABLE AND ACCESSIBLE before they can expect corporations to adopt their platform. Screw what Forbes says, corporations will ACTUALLY leave if they start depending on it for more than “hip marketing” points.
It’s not that hard to get your information once you buy something on the regular internet. It’s ridiculously easy if you have a web site! How is it that different than this?
I think the issue is people want it to not be a game half the time but not have any consequences. It’s serious business when we want to complain about money and services but we want a game-like anonymity to escape any consequences.
You’re going to have to pick one soon, guys!
Obscure Doodad
Sep 7th, 2007
Two comments: The whole article is undercut by the final speculation that the child pron stories in the media were planted by LL to provide them cover for getting RL identity of users. A Board of Directors would never ever sign off on this kind of business silliness. Such a maneuver runs the risk of 1) Law Enforcement showing up and closing them down THAT DAY. 2) The tabloids themselves seeing through the plant and exposing the maneuver.
This company has gross annual revenues in the 10′s of millions of dollars. There is no way in hell that any investment team (forget Rosedale, this is about the people who put up big money to fund the company, not about him) would allow those kinds of risks with their investment. And if he put up even 25% of his own personal net worth when SL started, he wouldn’t take that risk either.
Second, please . . . people Get Focused:
“Quote from LindenLab blog entry August 29, 2007:
“Linden Lab will not be storing this data and nor will the third party verification specialist, Aristotle”
Quote from comment 23 by Robin Linden from LindenLab blog entry August 29, 2007:”
THIS MEANS NOTHING. For two reasons — firstly it is a statement by an employee. It carries no financial responsibility. They will reveal whatever they have in response to a subpoena. For this “promise” to have teeth, they must explicitly lay out in the TOS complete LL financial responsibility for any losses suffered by a resident is at any time exposed as having sought access to SL adult material by submitting him or herself to what RL society will view as a database of perverts. LL has to put their own financial responsibility on the line behind these promises. Otherwise, you get exposed someday during a divorce or a job background check and LL’s response will be, “we complied with the legal request that required us to reveal your having requested access to adult content”.
Well, you know what? They will never promise to cover the financial losses you incur in such a situation in their TOS. That’s not consistent with their philosophy of shedding all risk from the company and dropping it on customers.
Your only possible defense is simply to not participate. Don’t verify. Then let the loss of LL tier income from those adult areas that lose customers apply pressure to them. Watch them find another way (like what all legit places do, like Yahoo with their three Yes clicks in adult areas) to declare that they have taken adequate precautions against children on their service.
Hiro Pendragon
Sep 7th, 2007
“A total reversal of one of the six original pillars of Second Life”
Not really. More like, “enabling services that require age-verification to enter the virtual world”.
Or, on a broader scale, the real key is that Linden Lab is moving toward a mixed, all-ages grid. There will be adult-only area, kid-supervised areas, private areas, etc. If people want to be anonymous, that’s fine, but just like the real Internet – don’t expect to get into adult areas if you haven’t age-verified. And “agree that you’re 18″ just isn’t going to cut it anymore for some of the restricted content.
I think the problem really is that the traditional flat-WWW does a piss-poor job at enabling people to restrict usage to people who should use it. Sure, if you’re Yahoo or CNN or whatnot, there ought to be no restrictions, and that works just fine. But what about adult areas where kids shouldn’t be? Or kid areas where interaction should be easily monitored by parents and transparency with who your kid talks to? These are things the Internet does *badly*.
Mining data? Sure, that’s useful, but that’s not the point. I should be able to open a club in Second Life, have adult content, and know that my visitors are adults. And I should be able to provide a service to all people of all ages, at the same time. There are two clearly distinct choices for age verification, doing it by the site, or doing it by the person:
1. (per site) The Internet paradigm – let each website do their own, or, of course, stick your fingers in your ears and pretend asking “Are you 18?” is a good way to verify age, and that no one lies.
2. (per person) Use one or multiple 3rd parties that the *individual* vets through whose data is accessible to everyone.
#1 just plain sucks. Who wants to register with every new site you go on, just to verify you’re adult? And asking someone sure isn’t going to solve your problem.
#2 is the natural alternative. Keep the verification companies under tight scrutiny, and rather than having to scrutinize hundreds of thousands of different sites, you regulate a manageable small amount of companies, and make sure that they keep your data private.
“Reeking of conspiracy”? Come on, seriously. Maybe Linden Lab (and myself as well as others) are looking toward a horizon farther away than you care to envision.
Alazarin
Sep 7th, 2007
It wouldn’t surprise me if the entire SL populace has already been data-mined. Look at the number of scanners lurking inside all those ad farm spinners all over the grid collecting and tracking avatar UUID’s. I’m not sure how it could be done, but I’ve heard people mention that it is already possible to link an avatar to an RL ID without going through LL. It sucks, but what can we do? Screaming and shouting won’t change anything. As for myself I just get on with my Second Life and hoist a hearty ‘fuck-you’ to the data-miners.
Jessica Holyoke
Sep 7th, 2007
mytwo cents,
The thing inigo was pointing out was that while they may not retain the information that you supplied, Integrity could still retain a record of the transaction and link that transaction record with the information that they already possess through public databases. The statements made by Robin Linden and through blog posts would still be true under the scheme just described.
katykiwi Moonflower
Sep 7th, 2007
Age verification probably relates more to changes in US law such as the identification and record keeping changes required for social networking websites that are about to become effective in connection with the Adam Walsh Child Protection & Safety Act of 2006. The commentary period for the new record keeping requirements ends on September 10, 2007 which will open the door to Congressional funding and active enforcement of the new recordkeeping requirements.
Violation of the new law results in pretty steep criminal sanctions. Various US states and countries around the world are enacting laws similar to this in an attempt to ensure that minors do not access websites with adult and pornographic content. Once the Adam Walsh Act becomes effective I would not be surprised to find cam connected sex services banned in SL.
Nacon
Sep 7th, 2007
Haven’t we already talked about this?
Get over it.
Victorria Paine
Sep 7th, 2007
Another excellent article, Inigo.
Of course, we don’t *know* whether any of this is true, but … I for one don’t have a hard time connecting the dots. I agree that even if this is what LL is up to, it could very well be just as hare-brained as anything else they’ve come up with in terms of being an effective strategy, but I suppose that’s not so surprising.
frank zappa
Sep 7th, 2007
WTF have you been smoking. This is a totally irresponsible “piece of journalism”. I am shocked. It is nearly totally devoid of facts.
Kahni Poitier
Sep 7th, 2007
“Integrity” has already proven they have none.
Sebastian
Sep 7th, 2007
That´s cool! PN FTW!
Blinders Off
Sep 7th, 2007
I think it’s pretty obvious that Linden Lab is not a trustworthy company. Anyone who believes they can trust one word that comes out of the LL PR engine is very naive. I think a comment made by a user on the SL Blog put it clearly: LL has used its residents as a beta test system and charged them heavily for the privilege, and will have no qualms about leaving those people sitting in the dust as LL moves on to bigger and more profitable things. They don’t fix bugs, they have no customer service for anyone paying less than US$125 a month, and are the perfect example of a self-serving corporate hive-mind. So if anyone believes that LL won’t keep information or won’t do this or won’t do that… hey, I have some prime virtual swamp land to sell ya.
Maxx Something
Sep 7th, 2007
Thank you for this well written piece. In my mind, there is no doubt that LL and Aristotle are opporating in collusion to obtain real life information for resons most nefarious. Keep up the good work!
KMeist Hax
Sep 8th, 2007
Whatever. All we need to do is wait. Wait for open-sourced sim code to be released; and then start our own grid free of LL’s faggotry.
Linda
Sep 11th, 2007
No More Victims Act-2007- An Act of Prevention
I read on a Wall Street Journal Forum that John Walsh is behind this. And something about Foley and what is really on his computer. (?) WHAT NEXT??? Is the fox guarding the hen house??? This really could happen, just like the AWA that was back doored as “Non-controversial” and Congress never got a chance to debate it.
September 5, 2007
The No More Victims Act-2007- An Act of Prevention
Our nation has become one filled with fear and suspicion. We don’t know who to trust and our cries for prevention of child sexual abuse have gone unheeded. We have registration for after…. the fact. It continues to grow at an alarming rate…..after the fact. After the fact is not good enough. After the fact is too late. Prevention deals with before the fact and isn’t that what we want?
Registration has been tested in the highest courts in the land and still stands. It is not punishment. It is not for vigilantism. Its sole purpose is to keep people safe by keeping them informed. The reasoning may be good but those who are already registered do not create the rapid growth. These are the ones among us who we never suspected.
When it comes to sex crimes there is always the question of how many go unreported. Adopting the NO More Violence Act of 2007 can answer that question.
We can use FDA approved assessment tools and polygraphs that are already being used and screen the public at large. If a need for treatment is indicated, it should be provided. These are the weapons used to combat unhealthy urges in those who have been convicted of a sex crime. No child deserves to be hurt and no individual wants to be an offender so this is a win/win situation.
Those of us with nothing to hide would welcome the opportunity to put up or shut up.
This is the solution that has been so evasive. Now we have it clutched tightly in our fists and the time of grasping for straws is in the past. We have captured the beast
Leading politicians and high-profile activists have spent many desperate years advocating for solid solutions. We ask those in the forefront to take our Act and push it through Congress and on the President’s office with record speed. We also ask that these individuals be first in line for the testing that will end the nightmare that has besieged us for so long.
THE NO MORE VICTIMS ACT OF 2007
UNDER THE ACT:
All persons, both male and female, age 18 and over must submit to a plethysmograh and given a risk assessment while under polygraph. The plethysmograh purports to have a 100% effectiveness rate in predicting who will offend, is FDA approved, and already in use in the United States. Given the recent high rate of offenses among teachers, clergy, governmental and law enforcement officials, and any other person in a position of trust or authority I move to start with those individuals first, as well as with any other person that maintains a position where working among children whether paid or voluntary.
Based upon the results of the plethysmograph, polygraph and an empirical risk assessment, each individual who cannot “pass” shall be placed on a public “high risk” registry along with their assigned risk level.
The site must include the following:
1. A current photo
2. Risk level
3. Date of birth
4. Living address
5. Name of employer and work address
6. If attending and educational facility, the name and location of said facility
7. All e-mail addresses and online identifiers
8. List any/all known deviations from currently accepted societal norms.
9. Individuals who pose a risk must obtain a yearly driver’s license or state issued non-operating identification card. The image must, within 3 business days be submitted to the agency responsible for maintaining the sex offender website.
10. ANYONE WHO REFUSES TO SUBMIT TO THE ACT WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED A RISK LEVEL OF THREE AS THAT CAN ONLY BE AN INDICATION THAT THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE AND A REASON TO FEAR THIS ACT.
In order to withstand any constitutional challenges that may arise, any prior criminal act that is discovered to have occurred via the risk assessment and prior to the enactment of this act cannot be held criminally liable based solely upon the information derived from the assessment. However, such acts must be considered when designating the risk level said individual poses to society.
We foresee no challenges in respect to constitutional rights violations, as the sex offender registry is merely a tool for the public, to warn them of those that “may” pose some future risk to society and the intent is to prevent sex crimes. This “Act” merely expands the public’s awareness and would be a vital tool in the prevention of crimes as well as having the potential to catch those who have already committed crimes but have not been caught or prosecuted. Additionally, the courts have already ruled that registration is regulatory and not punitive in design and therefore The “No More Victims Act” will easily withstand constitutional challenges on that ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>END< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
For more information contact: info.nomorevictims@gmail.com
Jessica Holyoke
Sep 11th, 2007
A cursory look at the No More Victims Act is that its somebody’s dream bill and not something Congress is looking at.
outside the norm
Sep 13th, 2007
Whoo-dally.
Am I ever GLAD I don’t live in the US, after reading that little no more victims act thing. Specially the “outside the norm” sounds interresting.
Naturally, the ‘norm’ would be male-female couple, only doing it in missionary position, and believeing everything they’re told like good sheeple.
Didn’t some Franklin guy mention a little something about freedom and security and giving up one to get the other, and specifically mentioning deserving neither?
Doesn’t this whole no more victims act thing sound a liiitle bit scary to anyone who curently lives in the USA?
(ya know, ASIDE from the obvious people who’d think up this shit?)