Full P2P Treads All Over Privacy

Full P2P treads all over privacy and land owner rights.

It also essentially destroys SL as a viable game platform.

I absolutely urge LL to rework P2P and "port to me" to be an opt-in (not opt-out, as it currently stands) system where the option to ONLY port to the landing spot of a parcel is supported.

As an alternative, there should be a completely seperate ban/allow list for porting as for simple access.

EDIT: Here's my proposal, via my 'blog.
http://secondtense.blogspot.com/2005/12/point-to-point-teleport-and-telehubs.html

I'm pretty sure this has been addressed already (parcel TP point selection, TP rejection, etc.) but I'm too lazy to cross-link to the pre-release notes.

I'm not!

/3/f6/75068/1.html

Actually, if anything the feature we already have, basically teleport to me, has a much greater ability to destroy SL as a viable game platform than P2P where you can specify where on a parcel somebody teleports to, or set no landing point and not allow them to teleport to the parcel at all.

So, I guess, you should really be asking the Lindens to stop the teleport to me function we've always had. As I see it the starting implementation of P2P gives you pretty good control over where somebody can or cannot teleport to that does not "destroy SL as a viable game platform" because teleport to me already does that.

I totally disagree with you. The feature is in the land tools. If you have it that way then you destroy the purpose of Port to port teleporting.

Yes its in the land tools. No more work on this is needed.

No.

If I am a landowner, and I want people to be able to access the land but not port there, I have no option.

If I am a landowner, and I want someone to port only at one spot, I have to now parcel off this area to a seperate chunk of land.

...

Check out my blog entry. My suggestions go beyond just this - I think we need to rework the architecture of telehubs to make them scalable. Currently they are not.

If you want people to visit you what's the point of not letting them port there?

Also you don't set a parcel to be the landing point, you set a point as the landing point. No need to start dividing up the land.

Quote from your blog:

1)The telehubs are being replaced by community centers.
2)You set the landing point that all people will go to when they teleport to that parcel
3)Port to Me isn't getting changed at all. It's initialized by the person who is being teleported to I dont' see how there are any privacy issues when the person is inviting someone.
4)See 3

Also you say to keep telehubs, but still allow the P2P teleporting to land. What would be the point of telehubs then? They wouldn't get any use...

Have you forgotten something? True privacy cannot be acheived in SL anyhow. If someone wants to find you, they will.

You're assuming every land owner wants people to port there. It's a false assumption.

There are plenty of reasons why someone wants their land not portable - which is not necessarily the same thing as not accessable.


In direct P2P, the landing point currently has nothing to do with where the person ports in. Hence, if I want someone to be able to port in, but ONLY at a specific place, I need to parcel off some land, set the main part to no-port, and the small piece that I parceled off as port-able.

EDIT: I'm sorry, you're correct. Some how I skipped over the mention of the landing point in my read-over of the features. I'm very happy about this point, then.


I think this is a bad move. This is unscalable. LL will not be able to keep this up, and further, as SL -> Metaverse, people will be obliged to make them, which they may or may not want to do.

It's a better idea to set up a system where the telehubs still have some intrinsic meaning.


Damn, I wish I posted my blog a day earlier, and I would have shown my foresight.


As I said, it's controversial. But I think there's a difference between 2 distinct permissions that need to be differentiated:
1. The permission to teleport to a person's landing point.
2. The permission to teleport anywhere on a person's land.

There are many cases (games being the most obvious) where the second of these would not be desired by the owner of the land.


For places where landowners choose not to have P2P enabled. They would act as a default.

Okay, then ... what succinctly *is* the purport of P2P tp? Can you define that specifically, and show that my suggestions don't better lend to those goals?

Check out my blog - at least the "needs" section of the post.

Yet. I agree.
But, it will become inevitably demanded by the masses, I believe.

In any event, you can't change something that big all at once - there are a variety of reasons why privacy is tough in SL, and "port to me" and P2P (without landowner control) is simply one of them.

One issue at a time...

But the implementation already covers point 2 - if you set no landing point then a person can only come as close as the nearest point will allow:



Land owners have control over whether people can P2P to their land or not. So I'm confused as to why you think this isn't covered? If you don't want people to TP to your land, don't set a landing point.

EDIT: Doesn't get rid of the tp to me problem though, but that's not a new introduction and has always been available. That's the one that affects games etc. - I see nothing in the new implementation of P2P that makes that situation any worse.

EDIT EDIT: Just seen your blog post where you talk about altering the port to me function, which I agree with. But that's got nothing to do with the new implementation of P2P. And as for telehubs, I don't see why they're needed going forward. If people want to "surf" (as you put it in your blog), then hey, just click randomly on the map. I know I'll be doing that. And these community centres, well everywhere with a landing point will now be a "telehub", so the community centres will still be.

Hiro,

/111/3e/75076/1.html

To me - it's that very lack of implementation of a fix to "port to me" that troubles me.

Linden Lab's M.O. is that they tend to pick a method and stick to it. If we want this to happen, and seal up the gaming exploit, we need to jump on this now while it's in Preview - and they're specifically asking and listening to the feedback.

You know I think you're right on port to me, and now would probably be as good a time as any for them to change that functionality as well to give us greater control. Nerfing port to me might actually be easier and not cause such a fuss if they do it at the same time as the new P2P features when it hits the live grid.

I'm not understanding how you think port to me is broken? It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy since you cannot do a "port to someone". The person your are porting to has to send you the teleport request. That means they are saying "hey come hang with me". It has nothing at all to do with privacy. With the new p2p system even if you didn't allow "port to me" they would still beable to port to the closest landing point and travel the 50m or so to the place they wanted to go. If your point is that it allows people on your land to quickly bring others without you wanting them to be there, you can just eject them from the land when they show up. Remember they are being invited by the other person, it's not a privacy issue.

The "port to me" system has so many good uses (Transportation to events, getting people to come to you quickly when you find a great shop/cool build, helping people get around that don't quite understand the map) I can't even think of a bad one.

If it's not broken why fix it?

Assuming there is that landing point. There's plenty of cases where there might not be.

Hence, "port to me" should follow the same rules as P2P.


It is broke. And the whole "if it's not broken why fix it" is merely begging the question.

Anyway.

I want to keep the functionality of the current "port to me" - BUT make it an option that landowners can disable. That make more sense?

You don't have to be the land owner to offer a teleport to somebody to the land that you're standing on. For things such as games, especially ones that you have to work through from a start point to a finish, this provides an easy way for people to cheat, just as an example. Of course there are other issues, such as the sit hack, but closing one at a time would seem sensible. There are other uses as well I'm sure.

By having an option to only allow port to me's to be sent to the landing point, for instance, would provide a means of stopping this.

Since this discussion has moved away from just privacy and is focusing on "port to me", I've made a new thread where we can discuss just the "port to me" aspect.

/108/cc/75117/1.html#post779626

Is it ok to set your teleport spot inside a sealed box high in the air?

I'm trying out PTP in the Vesion 1.8 Preview. Now that you can port just 1m away, there is no longer any need to...

1. Walk
2. Fly
3. Use a train
4. Use a vehicle

It's convenient, but what is the purpose of a contiguous world now? Why not just have 90k 512ksqm islands?

Why do you have to have a "need" in order to walk, fly, use a train or use a vehicle? How about just doing those things because you want to from time to time? And anyway, there was never any need to use a train or a vehicle anyway, because you're able to fly! Yet, there's lots of vehicle makers around, aren't there!

I've never understood people in RL who get in a car just to go 100m down the road - they're the sort of people who require a "need" in order to walk, rather than just taking enjoyment from the simple act of using your legs rather than sitting on your ass.

So having a contiguous world isn't made redundant by having P2P at all. Unless the sky is falling, which it wasn't last time I loo.....*splat*