1.8.0(3) - P2P changes! Huge privacy and landowner rights victory for SL!

The reason I bought land in the first place was to restrict access to those I know.
I got so sick of ppl just barging in and griefing
I don't consider this to be unfriendly - Much as I don't consider leaving my door wide open in rl or leaving my email/PayPal account in a public place for all to see as being unfriendly.
And if someone wants to restrict their SL land, that they pay for, to only themselves, why shouldn't they?
The "ban lines"/access restrictions only go so far up anyway, so if you're flying past, you won't bump into them. I do have a visible brick wall around my property, but unfortunately, just like in rl, it won't stop idiots from jumping over and making trouble.
Therefore I lock my door and only open it to those I know will be friendly.
And there's a difference between consciously Allowing and consciously Banning isn't there?
I'm not new to SL and I'm not a jerk - just want to enjoy SL and to have some sense of control over my bit of paid for space.
You, of course, are also free not to restrict access to your land at all.

Er, Coco, it's a fairly common jargon where access lists are concerned. a "blacklist", of course, is a list of people (or accounts, IP addresses, etc) that are never allowed under any circumstances. Conversely, a "whitelist" is a list that is always allowed under all circumstances.

I have very bad connotations for blacklist.

coco

It's ordinary terminology in the computer security community, but I agree that it's unfortunate that it has racist connotations... ones I didn't even notice until someone pointed out that it could be taken wrong.

That's why my own spam filtering program refers to them as the "green-light" and "red-light" lists.

As far as the redlines, I just had to help someone who hadn't intended to turn them on get them turned off on her group-owned property. Because it was group-owned, it'd warn that she was going to get kicked as soon as she turned off the "group" block because she didn't think to turn off the "avatars" list first...

Also, they interact badly with walls that have alpha texture. I had to put some extra default-textured prims inside the walls of a house a while back, or else the red lines from the parcel next door would leak right through the walls!

I really think LL should rethink the way the interface works, and the way the redline texture works.

Racist in the sense that the very old meaning of "white good, black bad" was co-opted as terminology for different regional varieties of human.

Which, as with many other symbols that have been degraded when evil people have adopted them, I do my best to work against the degradation.

But that's me, and I certainly can understand the discomfort. I use "white/blacklist" and "master/slave hard drives" with the caveat that these are technical terms with no connotations intended.

No - blacklist like the 50's Hollywood blacklists.

coco

You banned everybody because of the actions of a few. Consider it what you like, but I suspect people who are banned without having done anything to you will tend to think you a bit unfriendly.




If you want an analogy to locking your door, you could always ... lock your door in SL.




Because it's unfriendly?

I personally don't care whether someone does or doesn't, but I'm still going to consider it unfriendly, just like I would a big chain link fence with a "No Trespassing" sign in RL.

Dyne,

I didn't "ban everybody" I allowed permanent access to a few named people - There is a crucial difference. Just as in rl we lock our doors - Not because everybody is a burglar, but the few who are would take advantage of an open door. I have a doorbell, ppl can IM me, I have a Group list. Then again, I suppose it depends on which way you look at it: If I lock my car, am I "banning everbody" or restricting access to those with a key?

Erm, I DID lock my door in SL - Unfortunately locked doors have no effect, as I'm sure you know - I can appreciate that someone with empty, open land may get ppl wandering over it by mistake, or out of curiosity - but I was in a clearly defined, walled, textured building with a locked door - and still some ppl think it's ok to come in and give me hassle. Same with my current land; Unfortunately, for some ppl in SL the visual cues of wall, locked door and gate aren't enough to deter them (and as you say, some see it as a challenge).

With regard to vehicles, my land has a wall, and is off the road, so any vehicle which gets to my boundary would be stopped by that, not by any "ban lines". Low flying vehicles, just like in rl, should take care to observe airway restrictions. In SL this would be "Don't fly lower than 10m in built up areas". I too have experienced this a number of times (and the over zealous kicking one can sometimes get), but I've learned to fly a bit higher!

Well, I guess we'll agree to differ on the question of friendly/unfriendly - And with regard to the chain link fence with "No Trespassing", we're back to my original point: A Landowner who sets up access controls doesn't have control over the big red lines, which I agree DO look unfriendly. The rl equivalent would be: I install discrete security at my property, by locking the door, having an entryphone and giving a list of friends to the security guy on the gate. Because I've done this, the government automatically come round and erect a 10m high fence with 3ft high letters painted all around it saying "NO ENTRY".

On the one hand yes, and certainly while a person is home I do not deny every right to one's privacy.

On the other hand, the reason you lock your things in RL is, in part, to prevent theft. I can't exactly burgle your apartment in SL, so when you don't have an actual privacy issue (through being there) why worry?

(I'm not specifically arguing against you, Nicola, just doing my usual devil's advocate thing.)

Aliasi,
I don't really have a problem when I'm not there since, as you say, nobody can actually steal anything and nobody can build anything because that's switched off too (perhaps that's unfriendly too?). I am also aware that SL is o**y a g**e and that my virtual property is, well, unreal estate.
We all have the right, in SL, to do whatever we want with the land we pay for. I may disagree/dislike/be inconvenienced by what my neighbour/landowners of land I'm flying over do/set/build/show on their land, but that's their right do as they please, as much as it's mine to do what I like. I've never actually prevented anyone who'd knocked on my door/rang my bell from entering my land (which is split into parcels, not all of which are totally restricted).
The reason for my original post was the snootiness that seems to creep in now and again from some SL residents - Along the lines of "This is how it SHOULD be done, and if you don't do it like that, then you're a stupid noob!" and "We really must educate these poor noobs in how things should be done in SL".
It could be anything from how one's avatar looks, to the fact that your buildings look real/don't look real. Pretty soon, LL will release a special SL Boiled Egg - and there'll be forum posts insisting that the egg should be opened on the narrow end, and others, equally vehemently shouting the cause of the wide end opening technique.
Intolerance of others, I think, is the most unfriendly way to act.
And, back to the point - I don't set the red lines, the system does.

Eh, no-build I don't see as unfriendly, or any of the options that don't actually affect other people in the normal course of SL usage. It's an unfortunate fact that ban-lines do, between being ugly and restricting movement. (Although it's a minor sin compared to overactive "security systems".)

My thing with banning, basically, is if you agree that nobody really needs to be banned when you aren't there, then why set it to ban people all the time (if you - generic you in both cases - do this.)

I should just add that my previous post wasn't targetted at ANY specific individual, just the idea that there's a "right" way and a "wrong" way of doing things in SL.

Normal SL usage for me is to fly high enough over other people's property so as not to bump into anything!

And, ironically, it seems to me that the problems with over zealous security systems could be greatly reduced if ppl used the Land Access options more!

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet or not, didn't really bother to read the whole thread.

But since when an issue of privacy was such a corner stone of second life. You have the same amount of privacy in P2P days as you had before P2P. Whether someone teleports right into your land, or teleports to a neighboring plot, or even teleports to a telehub then flies to the neighboring plot. What is there to stop them from simply moving their camera and looking into your house once they're there? Nothing. Nothing would also stop them from standing miles away and simply using a zoom feature in your general direction (ctrl + 0, ctrl + 9, ctrl + . The only way you can stop anyone from "spying" on you is if you have your own sim that blocks everyone but you.

So in conclusion, why are you whining about something that never even existed in the first place. The only difference between telehubs and P2P, is that with telehubs you'd just have to fly through a couple of sims to get to your place, and then just hover over a neighboring plot and watch you use your precious sex balls. And if that isn't what you're worried about, and more about what you talk about, then there's always private and group chats.

EDIT: And I should define privacy as you being in second life and the ability to seclude yourself from anyone uninvited on your own plot. I'm not talking about the privacy of your real life, that if you wish will be protected in SL. that kind of privacy has always been there and it works.

erm, because....


All good points. I rest my case.
Or, rather, I drop my case on the ground, rush to my land and put all the Ban Lines up to make this kind of behaviour at least a little more difficult for weirdo "Peeping Toms".
Then I go and vote for http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=276

That vote doesn't look like a viable option. This game relies on a free camera. If there wouldn't be one then it would be a huge pain in the ass to build, and generaly play this game with the kind of controls we have right now. Also considering the lag we have to deal with, walking everywhere with a locked in camera to see what you need to see would be a cumbersome endevaour. And I don't understand how a texture would block someone from seeing your house.

Any change to the camera that would somehow block it from seeing certain things would require a major revision to the camera controls, and probably won't happen, since Lindens have enough on their hands as it is.

The proposal MAY be unworkable (not mine, btw), but as long a people think it's ok to spy on people by zooming the camera, then in principle the idea should, I believe, be explored.

It IS ok to move your camera where ever you wish as long as it doesn't go out of the constraints that area already set up for it. This game is based on that free form view. It was always there, and I believe it will stay. The point was always to give you as much as freedom as you want in every aspect, whether it be building, scripting, modeling, texturing, making businesses, groups, friends, eploration, etc. Therefore I doubt anything will be done to a "privacy" issue that has never existed in the first place.

We really don't need a rule or a system to solve this... just tell people to IM first... which they should know is common courtesy anyway... but if they don't tell 'em. And if you really don't want to be bothered, just get a home security device. They'll be TPed home before anything has a chance to rez.