This section shows that Linden Lab warns the user that there are people gathering information via the scriptable methods available in SL and using for their own purposes, and that Linden Lab isn’t responsible for any of that, pretty much exactly those words.

This means that they consider CDS and RedZone and (the former) BanLink and the W-Hat name-to-key database and the JLUfags database(s) and anything resembling these to be outside their control or jurisdiction.

You raise an important question regarding whether the detection method of CDS is illegal. And that also depends upon the jurisdictions which may apply. LL assumes that it is principally bound by the laws of California but is also subject to the Federal laws of the United States. Through various treaties, American companies are also potentially liable for any contraventions of the laws of other countries, for example in the proper use and protection of data provided by European sources for international travellers. Equally, LL has registered offices in other nations and will be subject to the laws that apply in these countries.

So too are the SL account holders who operate systems such as CDS, irrespective of their personal location. If data is stored, accessed or transacted through other countries, local laws may apply. For example, rumours that Mr Ashley Stone (Ash Qin) is hosting the CDS database on a server in his family home, mirrored on server space used by Modular Systems in Germany, could bring him within the scope of both the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz, as both countries are member states of the EU and comply with its Data Protection Directive.

As regards the potential “illegality” within LL’s own ToS and CS, there are apparent contradictions in the company’s own limitations of liability that would potentially render these valueless if challenged in the real world. I am referring specifically to its Privacy Policy in the section called Information Displayed to or Collected By Other Users, and which states “Further, you agree and understand that Linden Lab does not control and is not responsible for information, privacy or security practices concerning data that you provide to, or that may otherwise be collected by, Second Life users other than Linden Lab. For instance, some services operated by Second Life users may provide content that is accessed through and located on third party (non-Linden Lab) servers that may log IP addresses.”

However, the above seems to run counter to its own ToS 8.3(i) – for the in-world components of CDS can be defined as “computer programming routines” that “may harm the…interests or rights of other users, or that may harvest or collect any data or personal information about other users without their consent”.

Therefore the matter of CDS being legal or illegal is unclear and untested. You used the expression “Linden Lab themselves washes their hands of responsibility for third party security systems used in SL” in your post and I wonder if you have any quotable sources from Linden Lab staff you might share with us?

T.E.

It uses a long-standing property of LSL to do it, performs the actual calculations on third party servers Linden Lab doesn’t control, and Linden Lab themselves washes their hands of responsibility for third party security systems used in SL, so it’s not a ToS violation either.

So what part of this is illegal?

And if it’s not illegal, then what’s all this “evidence” talk about? It looks like Woodbury just trying to misdirect public attention away from themselves from where I stand.

Also Detection of their ways of detecting is simple, Disabling Media allows bypass from that method, Disabling Voice disables voice IP tracking, and client detection Via that method. Not Clicking objects disables that method fo detection…

After this if anyone was smart enough to actually get your client to send information, using an analyzing program you can easily find out where the data was sent by your client, ect. And block out their system via your PC Host file, in which you can easily make a new account, and reguardless of if they had your info it would be unable to detect you now, and your free to copybot anything you please.

Therefore this system is not 100%, nor will it ever be. The evidence against Skills Hak, and the whole Emerald Team with their working with JCool410 is overwhelming right now.

Only dumb people who are unskilled would not know how to bypass such systems, but We are educating more and more people on methods of how to bypass CDS, and any other systems like it inside SL, and outside. I am not responsible for their actions, what ever they are, I am only Educating people, due to their abuse in world who do not wish to have their info shared…

Hay una explicacion muchísimo mas sencilla sobre cómo funciona el CDS. Si aplicamos la navaja de Occam seguro que muchos estarán de acuerdo en que es la más probable:

La mayoría de los visores con funciones ilegales han sido hechos por el mismo equipo de hackers aparentando ser distintas personas (incluso peleadas entre ellas, para dar más veracidad al engaño). Estos hackers venden sus visores ilegales trucados y con dichos visores, además de sacar el dinero a la gente en la venta, sin que ellos lo sepan les toman sus datos de nombre de avatar y password al conectarse (es extremadamente fácil de hacer y todos recordarán la cantidad de comentarios que se han leído en los foros acerca de que al conectarse siempre fallaban la primera vez con cada avatar nuevo, misteriosamente) Estos datos van directamente a la base de datos que hoy se usa en el Gemini CDS, junto con el nombre del visor utilizado y alguna que otra información más.

Después este mismo equipo finge haber inventado un gran sistema de detección de visores ilegales (como el CDS) y cobra dinero también por utilizarlo, así como cobra dinero por quitar de esa base de datos los nombres de quienes lo paguen (sin hacerlo público, claro). Por cierto, en esa base de datos hay mucha gente que jamás ha usado un visor ilegal, pero que ha sido incluída ahí por Skills Hak para perjudicarlos por ser competidores peligrosos o gente de la que se quería vengar; como no tiene que demostrar nada puede hacerlo cuando le venga en gana. Es decir, es todo un negocio pensado así ya de antemano desde el principio. Un negocio que LL debería abortar ahora mismo si es que no tiene nada que ver con dicho negocio.

De ese modo es fácil comprender por qué y cómo los nombres están en esa base de datos y por qué puede saberse de antemano cuáles son todos los alters utilizados por la misma persona y por qué esa persona queda baneada automáticamente a través de cualquiera de sus nombres de avatar, aunque ya no utilice nunca más alguno de los visores ilegales por los cuales averiguaron sus datos.

Los expertos en estos temas aquí sabrán que lo que he dicho es muchísimo más fácil y simple de hacer que cualquier sistema de diálogo HTTP interno mediante scripts hacia el parcel multimedia

Por cierto, he podido comprobar que una de las cosas para las que sí que funciona realmente el CDS es para enmascarar cualquier labor de copia ilegal que Skills Hak quiera realizar con su script en el terreno de quien lo instale (y tambien con bots no necesariamente en el mismo terreno) El aparato permite copiar libremente al disco duro de Skills Hak y sus secuaces (Ash Qin, LukaStar Mattercaster, Cinndreia Messmer, GEMINIbot Inventor, Lonely Bluebird, Fractured Crystal) todo lo que se halle en el terreno que lo tenga instalado, constantemente. Incluso cualquier cosa que se ponga después. Además, también permite que algunos visores ilegales fabricados por ella puedan conectarse a ese terreno sin ser detectados ni por LL. ¡Menudo negocio han hecho los dueños de tiendas dejándose engañar por hackers! DD Les está bien empleado por creer ciegamente en algo que jamás les han mostrado ni demostrado y que encima perjudica a sus clientes actuales y a todos sus clientes potenciales.

While the existence of this device or its use by land owners may not constitute a breach of the ToS and CS, the database and autoban facility, together with the non-transparent appeal process may render those responsible for its creation, development and management vulnerable to charges of abuse. The system of tracking which viewer is in use by an AV entering a sim and ejecting said AV is not in question. It is the recording of the AV name in a database and the autoban feature which may contravene LL’s rules.

Consider if person “X” has been detected using a malicious viewer and is (rightly) ejected from a private sim, as this viewer is capable of griefing and.or copybot. So far, no complaint. The land owner exercised fair and reasonable rights, and perhaps even a “duty of care” towards people using his sim.

But person “X” then abandons the malicious viewer and, using a bona fide viewer, enters another sim protected by CDS. The presence of person “X” on the database triggers their immediate autobanning from this second sim despite there being no threat of griefing or copybotting. The owner is exercising his rights to this power, afforded by Gemini through CDS.

But…has person “X” (who is now acting in a manner compliant with ToS and CS) subsequently been Assaulted by the “creating or using scripted objects (CDS) which singularly or persistently target another Resident in a manner which prevents their enjoyment of Second Life”? And are they being Harassed because communicating the database holding their details is “likely to cause annoyance or alarm”? And does the CDS database and autoban facility “inhibit another Resident’s ability to enjoy Second Life” which constitutes Disturbing the Peace?

Furthermore, is the transmission of the database itself a breach of 8.2.iv., i.e. “harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person’s privacy”?

Finally, if person “X” is now using a standard viewer such as LL’s own or one from their TPV Directory (which does not include Emerald), does the database and autoban feature of CDS breach 8.3.iv. by impeding or interfering with “other users’ normal use of the Service;”?

If the answer to any of the above questions is Yes, then who is at fault – Skills Hak alone, as the creator? Skills Hak and her colleages (Ash Qin, LukaStar Mattercaster, Cinndreia Messmer, GEMINIbot Inventor & Lonely Bluebird)? All of these and the land owner who exercised autoban without just cause?

All of this can be simply and swiftly remedied if Gemini abandons the database and removes the autoban feature from CDS. This in no way will dilute the effectiveness of their product, whose aim is to detect the presence of malicious browsers and giving the land owner a means to protect against griefing and copybotting. Auto ejecting without the shared database is all that is required to achieve the desired result. Anything beyond this is excessive and disproportionate.

However, if Gemini neglects to amend CDS after fair warning, they leave themselves liable to abuse complaints on the above grounds.