Advanced parcel security -- against TOS?

We have all been pushed by someone's advanced home security system. That in itself is insanely annoying and needs to be banned. Here's something new, well at least new to me: teleporting security systems. I was flying around a multi-sim island and flew from one sim onto the next. The security system politely told me that the sim was closed, then tried to teleport me home. Of course there was a slim chance of that working properly, and I was TP'd into limbo.

My question is whether pushing security is against TOS, and especially whether *teleporting* security is against TOS. Does anyone have the right to teleport you without your approval? What if someone bought a smattering of 16m2 parcels and anyone who flew over them was TPed to their sim? Or am I being overreactive?

Well judging from my logs I take it that the place you're referring to is my island, Numbakulla. Unfortuantely as the Estate access tools are so totally borked when islands are joined I have been left with little choice but to implement such a system. I did not want to, but unless Linden Lab can fix the access, banning and even visibility problems (I can't even make the island invisible without it still being visible to those on other, connected sims) on joined private sims (which they acknowledge exist but, despite many emails with Jeska they do not seem to accept as bugs!) I'm left with no choice but to do this. And I can't really afford to move the sim off from Oceana and then back again, at US$150 a move - that is totally unfeasible and ridiculous.

I have been left with no option but to have a system that teleports you home. The fact that teleports are also so totally borked is another one of many bugs that make this a far from perfect solution. But, as development by the winning project team needs to be as private as it can be until launch, I have been left with no other alternative.

I'm sorry if it's got your back up, I know it certainly has mine as well as I did not like having to resort to this method.

Security scripts within reason are not against the TOS.

Teleporting a user home at any time when the object and user are over your land is also not against the TOS.

I say within reason, because if there was a "security" script that was preventing you from accessing your own home, or continuesly pushing/teleporting you, then that would be against TOS.

The current function that allows users to teleport others home (I forget exactly what it is right now), only works on the object owners land, so someone could not put an object on your land and teleport you home. However they could do one that pushes you of course.

Anyway, in short I guess what I'm saying is, from the TOS and CS (community standards) as well as previous Linden rulings, as long as the security script is on your property, only "handles" people who are on your property, and does not cause any permanent or recursive damage to another person (or block access to their own land in some way), its allowed by the TOS.

A warning/explination is not nessisarly required either, but is appreciated by everyone.

Atleast thats all my understanding, I'm not a Linden (to my knowledge).

Edit: Oh and yes I agree with yah Moopf, It'd be nice if the estate tools like that actualy worked how they would be expected too and should.

This is a very grey area.

The problem is that the SL functions to ban people from your land, as well as ejection tools, are quite flightly and really need to be flushed out. Banning only works to a certain height, for example, so griefers can still fly up high and drop bombs, and stalkers can come close as well.

I'm pro security systems. I don't take nearly the offense as some when "bounced". Yeah, its a minor annoyance, and repeat offenders should be drawn and quartered, but I believe there need to be more privacy options inherent to the SL instead of being scripted in LSL. Until these happen... let's keep them around.

Regards,

-Flip

Ok I completely agree with everything Moopf has said, and I must ask:

Please stop abuse reporting and neg rating Moopf!

Regardless of this security system issue, there are 4 other islands in Oceana. If that's not satisfying enough there are over 200 regions on the mainland that people are free to wander. Privacy is privacy. If moopf was over in his sim having a naughty time with some random SLer and had his security system on, that's still HIS choice! The sim belongs to him, so if you don't like it, don't visit! It really is that simple. One relog because of a TP bug, won't kill anyone, and we all have to do it about 10 times a day regardless.

Now when it comes to the mainland security systems...
This is a bigger issue for me because most of the scripted systems that PUSH extend beyond the land edges of the owner. Typically this is because they are used with sensors. However Oz stated it quite well above how to handle such situations.

The most important thing to remember here is that if it is your land, you can do whatever you want with it according to the maturity level of your region. That is pretty much the only broad rule. If your visitors don't like what you have done, then they don't have to visit.

FYI Moopf maybe I could build giant wall in Kumori until they're done building? lol

Just to set the records straight, *I* did not neg rate Moopf nor report abuse. I am sorry for Moopf if others have, cause our Moopf is a swell Moopf (I am putting together my Moopfesquian NES vendor today). I didn't name names or regions because I was not bothered enough to go back and find the sim. Moopf and I have even chatted amiably about this issue. I also do not think that Hiro is accusing me of being a jerk; I just want folk who skim this not to get the wrong general idea.

these security systems are NOT against the TOS UNLESS they prevent you from being able to accesss your own land.

We use one on Cape Destiny as well for many of the same reason's Moopf stated. Although we're not joined to any other sims we DO need adequate security to deal with griefers. Also, the system as is, if an estate or land is owned by an individual then ONLY the individual may control access/ban list on the land. So if other people want to host an event there or whatever there is no way for them to be able to ban griefers or anything. & it's not always as simple as grouping as some people don't want to be group owned OR it would otherwise hinder what they are doing with their land to be group owned. So we are left with no choice but to use other methods of security.
IMO LL NEEDS to fix current security issues in addition to allowing land & estate owners to allow certain administration rights to other individuals &/groups.

I personally do not understand why anyone should be offended by security systems. To me it's not much different then who I would allow in my home & who I wouldn't in RL. We should be able to pick & choose who we want on our land.

Cape Destiny is open to the public 99.9% of the time but that's what we choose. The only acception is griefers which are immediately escorted off the island (scripted security system)& permanently banned.

Also, I have been TP'd from such security several times & 99% of the time it just tp's me straight home. Once or twice I think I got sent into *limbo*

I understand its use in private islands and agree it is appropriate if the built in tools are ineffective, but why should it be able to be used in the mainland sims? You could simply be flying from one location to another and suddenly be teleported home on the whim of someone, which may send you half way acrosss the grid. Banning someone from your land is one thing, being able to forceably send them home is abusive in its own right and should be against the TOS. You should be able to get them off of your land if you choose, but you should not be able to force them out of a sim that you do not own, much less force them home.

Very good points Cristiano. To me, that is a form of griefing and/or abuse in it of itself. If you knowingly put a script out that is going to prevent someone from entering a sim, any of the land surrounding yours etc. That shouldn't be allowed. I didn't mean to seem to imply that if I did. I was speaking more with the island sims in mind. While I do believe we should be able to decide who enters our land (no matter where it is) I do think that the method should be in accordance to what will NOT cause a problem for people passing by for one reason or another.

Ok had an encounter with some sort of security that really ticks me off. I was out riding my new wind board minding my own business and skirting the edge of this guys property I am suddently ejected from the land and my board keeps going. ends up going through a wall and is now no where to be found. I don't care if I am banned from a land, the red bars just bounce you off but whatever this is it ate a brand new windboard. and the owner is friggin clueless what he even has on his land.

While I agree its annoying if you're flying by, the truth remains that one set of features the Lindens have said they know needs improvement is privacy and land control. Now, if you don't know how to set up your security systems scan range and such... and if you run it on a llSensorRepeat 10 times per second...

For privacy it can be good. For avoiding stalker situations or griefers, it is also good. But if you have a 512 square meter plot, and set out your security system to scan at 96 meters (as I have seen happen from Live Help calls)... you should really know what you're doing before setting one of these up.

-Flip

Just as a note to anyone reading this... The present ban tools allow flight over the ban area for a good reason, and LL will never change this fact.

To get a good idea WHY they'll never change it, head to Magenta and fly around the sim for a bit. 43,000-ish m2 of land are all set to ban people, and the few others who own land in the area all have to deal with the bans on a daily basis.

Sorry I wasn't really accusing you, it was just an overall statement heh

In regards to Cristiano's point, perhaps the rule should be by plot size? if you own an entire sim you can do this, other wise must use the ban tools or the bouncer. Just a thought. Flip is right though and they are already working on better tools, so if that's true then perhaps a ban on such tools would be easily considered after the fix.

I will say that Maeve's point is my only true pet peeve about it heh. I wouldn't mind getting bounced around if my vehicles would always go with me.

Is it possible for people to code their security systems to give a warning and then wait 30 seconds before teleporting the person? That would give people a chance to fly elsewhere instead of getting ported home and having to fly all the way back to wherever it is they were trying to get to.

(emphasis mine)

'Tis a sad state of affairs when one has to say this but it seems like such are the times and I've not seen it put so well. And yes, when people bother to read that disclaimer would not have been needed at all. Sigh...

hehe Chip this is almost exactly what I just suggested to Moopf in an email. I suggested 10 seconds as the security system picks you up quickly with a warning at 5 seconds. This way it's long enough to leave the area but fast enough to disallow griefing.

Great minds think alike Higbee

Yes. It is one thing to punish someone -- and it is another thing, which can be combined with the first thing -- to explain to them why. Not saying that getting the punt like this would be a sort of cruel & unusual punishment, but it is helpful to be warned.

I don't think it should be left up to the scripter to implement this - I think the warning needs to be built into the function that allows this to occur in the first place.

That would be nice... but since it isn't then it's pretty much up to the scripter.

Well, I dunno, its sketchy, while it would be unbelieviably rude to eject/sendhome everyone who passed over your plot even for a second, its hard to tell if this would be a TOS/CS violation, as it is your land, however I imagine if enough people were caused issues by this, it would become more of a problem.

As for moral or niceness, I personaly would have a timer as Chip suggested, have it wait, maybe 5 minutes, warm, wait 5 more minutes, then warn and kick, or some sort.

I don't however think any timers should be placed on the functions themselves though, because imagine a situation where you need to use your land ejector on someone who you can't visibly see to use the built in eject, but need to eject them immediatly from your land with your script. Having to wait a minute or so, may be more criticle.

I think the key is the situation and how the tool is implemented.

Moleculor raises some valid concerns. Perhaps a distinction could be derived defining the difference between private land which only allow a group of people in, versus public land where someone is explicitly banned.

Regards,

-Flip

Yes, but it takes some thought, and I'm guessing some of these security systems are written by novices who can't wrap their heads around the logic necessary to do this. Therefore, they take the lazy way out, and just write their scripts to teleport the avatar home the moment they are detected over the owner's land. It seems to me that this is very irresponsible.

This is the right approach. If land access is limited to a certain height in order to preserve public overflight rights, llTeleportHome() and llEjectFromLand() should, at the very least, have an explicit warning and delay built in. Matter of fact, SL already has that logic. As I recall, if you change the access rules on your land such that avatar X is not allowed, avatar X will get a popup that says something like "You are no longer allowed on this land and have 10 seconds to leave."

I take exception to this Huns. The system I have does the teleport within a couple of seconds but it's done that way for a very good reason - I don't want people on the island that shouldn't there full stop to protect the privacy of the build in progress. I wanted to retain security as close as possible to the island being invisible and only having access to a group which, unfortuatnely, I can't do because of the problems I've already outlined.

Anyway, this will all be moot as, because of the contiuing grief I'm getting about this I'm going to have to stump up the cash to LL and get the island moved from Oceana. Then, at least, the Estate tools will work as advertised. I'm not happy about this, but then I'm not happy about the amount of grief I'm getting in world about this either.

And all because Linden Lab rushed the Estate tools as a cobbled fudge that they didn't think out properly.