land scanners part the fourth

to reiterate, this won't help. these are temp on rez objects that move themselves onto other people's property. so even if you get rid of them, a whole new batch will show up.

in order to prevent them from showing up on people's land they need to be stopped at the source.

unless objects (even temp on rez) can by banned from a lot based on owner and/or creator. and even then there will still be loopholes around this.

Perhaps we should focus the debate on the policy --

These are the basic ideas that would go into a policy regarding scanners, in my view:
-- objects that invade privacy shouldn't be allowed
-- objects that cause sim crashes shouldn't be allowed (Global Attack standard)
-- objects that significantly impact server performance should be abuse reported
-- landowners have the right to delete unwanted objects from their land
-- some scanners have value (e.g. mapping satellites), so a sweeping ban seems like the wrong thing to do

Let's take this debate to the
discussion forums.

I think the easiest case to make, Robin, would be that the selfsame features this broad scanning provides (ab)users should be added to the back end. That's the easiest win-win scenario for Residents (though not quite for Lindens) that I can think of.

For example, similar to what's been done with telehub coverage - why not add a Linden backed political map with a reasonable refresh rate? What about heightmaps? Such features are far easier to be done at the backend at LL than they are with LSL, as I see it - especially when the health of servers is at stake.

I would say the utility rule applies here:
Does the removal of "scanners" due to obsolescence favor the added load of adding more "features" to the LL backend? Does it warrant the added time for LL to attack such a feature?

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Robin, mapping satellites don't need to constantly scan the land, if they do once a week is already MUCH more than enough. So satellites that constantly roam sims in high numbers should be a NONONONONO, expecially if they force their presence even against the landowners' will.
In any case a landowner MUST be able to return and keep any kind of foreign objects out of his land without any particular effort.

Robin, I think I speak for just about everyone in saying that we continue to appreciate all your attention to this issue, and other Lindens as well.

What happens when 50 land scanners, all individually with little performance effect, grind SL to a halt? Isn't it much better to prevent this from happening, than deal with this down the road and have SL gradually slow down until it's totally down for a few days, disrupting everyone's playing time?

How about more than simply delete, how about prevent? If I don't want something on my land, it should never GET to mind land, right? Of course, I realize in the future a "ban all objects of player X" is planned, so this may be an effective solution.


I don't think anyone's debating this, Robin. We don't have a problem with scanners that do their job and leave. But Pete's scanners are persistant and continue to rez and take up server resources, all for (someone's) personal gain.

A summary of the things that have been suggested as policy for the scanners:
1. Ask permission first.
2. Include an opt-out. (the do-not-call list of SL)
3. Require they not be temp-on-rez, so they can be easily auto-returned.
4. Require that they, on touch, provide a notecard explaining their purpose.
5. Ban persistant scanning without landowner permission. (Persistant scanning as in - things keep coming, objects continually scan, rather than simply doing their job and passing through.)

i'm going to repeat the salient point i'm trying to make one more time:

these are temp on rez objects that move themselves onto other people's property. so even if you get rid of them, a whole new batch will show up.

consequences of this:
we can't get rid of this type of object once and for all. not without a linden policy, or without a tool to auto remove temp on rez, or without a tool to ban objects by person.

My guess, Stone, is that players aren't the only people who need to hear this more than once. Because when hearing exactly these scanners are doing, people are caught in a state of utter disbelief that anyone would have the gumption to do it and expect people not to be up in arms.

http://www.akamarketing.com/introduction-to-hacking.html
http://www.wordspy.com/words/whitehathacker.asp

also, white hat and grey hat hackers have been known to use an exploit to demonstrate the full extent of the potential problem.

* * *

several people are already mentioning writing "useful" scanners, since you seem to be saying they are allowed.

the principle is if one person is allowed, then everyone is allowed.

but if enough people do this... i suspect sl will grind to a halt.

but ll won't be able to punish anyone because they aren't breaking any sl rule.

My problem has never been about privacy, although I humbly respect others' wants for such. Rather, discussions on this topic bring up an old proverb that seems relevant to this discussion:

Political Correctness Warning: Original Proverb uses "Man" to convey "Male or Female." Synonyms detract from the actual quote's "flow." Anyway...

If every man took a leaf from the trees, the forests of the world would become barren. If every man took a grain of sand from the coasts, the endless beaches would wash asunder...

In other words, I'm talking about the Tragedy of the Commons. And, again, the best way I see to fix it is to render the problem obsolete.

be more specific what are land scanner what diffent types are there and their uses

if its just a monotering device then it should only be used in kill zones

Please refer to the 4 other threads in this forum dealing with this issue.

I dunno about the actual quote that followed, but I really like how you prefaced it!

Really? I always through Political correctness was treating adults like children.

- landowners have the right to ban objects by owner from their land

i understand that people need their vehicles; so the implementation can exempt attached objects. however, the unattached object ban needs to be effective at any height.

While I think an object ban list would be great, I think an object allow list by name would be even better. Most of the time land is setup with the idea of a group of people being able to build on it. Whether it's a mall, a large group project, or just friends pooling resources. With this in mind, I think being able to sepcify that objects are allowed from certain avs and/or groups, you don't have to play the keep an eye on the alts game when it comes to banning unwanted objects from offenders. Again the same exception regarding attached objects would exists, allowing for vehicles, and other attachments. There could even be a designated grace period for vehicles. We all know that sometimes you just have to stand up and sit back down on them, no reason they should get returned immediately. At any rate, I think it would be a lot easier to just specify a group and some friends in an allow list, than trying to constantly keep up to date on who has scanners set up, or is trying to grief the land currently. While I realize this is somewhat like what we have currently. It would go that extra step by not allowing temp on rez objects, and auto returning objects that move onto the land. While this is all being looked at, it would be nice if the create objects option was fixed for group owned land.

McW

I think the solution is limiting mass replication and the rezzing ability of objects that cross sim borders.

As for privacy, what does that mean? You'd have to define the term before we debate it.

As for scanning / mapping, create a way so we can query all the sims without having to build sim destroying query mechanisms.

An XML query interface or something that can be easily throttled, monitored and controlled.

One of my main concerns is the impact that these objects have on a sim's performance. In an older sim like Gualala (where the fps is around 325) which is mostly home to the library, there shouldn't be that much instability. But with all these objects flying by every 15-30 seconds, I believe that they could be partly responsible for the lag that occurs.

What is disheartening, is that the owner of the objects has placed them on land that he doesn't own and is therefore using resources that belong to the players that are paying to maintain the land. Even with the new features that will be available in 1.6, a player would have to spend all their time trying to catch these objects to delete them and wait another 15-30 seconds for another one to pass by.

Another point is if this player is allowed to do this without any repercussions, then that sets a precedent to all players that these kinds of objects are allowed. If more players start doing this, then it will surely bring a sim to a halt and would have to be dealt with. And while this sort of thing would have to happen in order to get a response from LL, many residents of these sims do not want this to reach this point in order to have it taken care of.

what's really amazing about all this is that the community seems on the verge of mass panic. people are talking about it inworld and handing out free emulations to bring down the grid in protest.

yet the lindens, for all their talk of fostering community growth are still talking about policy and 1.6 features as though we were studying a hypothetical virtual community scenario and discussing the probablilty of various outcomes. i understand not wanting to knee jerk everytime a few forumites scream. but several days, threads and the beginnings of formal protests later...i don't even know what to say.

if y'all aren't really gonna take all this fluffy community fiefdom stuff seriously, that's fine with me; just start treating us like adults and be the host. that of course means putting your rulers aside and staying out of our way while we maintain our own community order.

When developing policy, we try hard to work from the basic principles that underly our thinking about Second Life, and also to think ahead to whether the policy might be obviated by future developments and plans. However, you have to recognize that sometimes all is not as it appears, and so policy making becomes a difficult task full of nuance and gray areas.

So far we have seen no evidence that these objects have any nefarious intent, nor do they degrade server performance (although I realize you may not agree with this assessment). Existing policies would allow us to remove objects that are built to specifically harass, that cause performance issues, or are in some way broadly offensive. Again, these objects don't seem to meet any of these criteria.

The primary area where there is some justification for removing these objects lies in the privileges of land ownership. A landowner should not have to have objects on her land that are unwanted. The 1.6 tools will address this problem to a large extent, but not for temp-on-rez objects. So my suggestion is that we review the policies in place with respect to temp-on-rez objects and landowner privilege.

Hiro provided a list of some suggestions which might help us think through these policies:



While I'm not sure at this point whether these suggestions can be implemented, I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether they would ease your minds if we could put them in place.

Robin, i have to say that i am extremely deluded about this kind of response. The vast majority of the community is strongly against this kind of things, yet you seem to sidestep the various points brought by respected and veteran residents and not to notice that all of the points brought by the meager few defenders of such scanners (some of wich are sadly included in your posts) have been completely demolished several times. Defending the interests of one against the interests of many, that are, by the way, the OWNERS of the land this one uses without paying a SINGLE penny for it.
You talk about future policy changes, that you are not even sure will ever be made.

Since the matter seems not being taken seriously let's get serious once and for all.

Here are the OBJECTIVE characteristics of LBv2: i doubt anyone can deny them.

1: it sneakily insert itself in a system, exactly like a virus
2: it uses to some degree (high or low, it doesnt matter, and denying the server load, i'm afraid, shows little knowkedge of how LSL commands work) the system resources, exactly like a virus
3: it is specifically designed to avoid detection and any possible countermeasures by the system's owner, exactly like a virus
4: if you manage to get rid of it (and its extremely difficult, you need to manually hunt the thingies one by one) but cant get rid of the root (completely cleaning the system) it will return immediately, exactly like a virus
5: it self replicates and spreads, exactly like a virus

ALL it's elements and characteristics fit perfectly in the definition of Virus, while i can't find even one element that doesn't fit the definition of virus (because there is none, it IS a virus):

A legitimate utility satellite does NOT need all of the above points, the same exact difference between a computer virus and an utility program. Here is the line to be drawn.

Conclusion: to what concerns the TOS and the community LBv2 IS a virus.

In consequence to the above statement Article 5.1 paragraph V of the TOS HAS been objectively violated both in it's spirit and in it's letter and the virus MUST be eradicated exactly in the same way as a normal virus.
In addition to this the ones spreading it must be found and punished like they were trying to spread any kind of virus/worm.

Since in SL we don't have McAfee or Norton Antiviruses I officially ask that LL protects the system i PAY for from the virus and it's creators. That's all, simple as it is

Robin: While it IS time to review the policy, the rules to fight this kind of threat ARE already there, just a simple interpretation (that happens every day in every court of the world) is needed. Isn't it time to interpret the TOS to protect honest residents instead of constantly trying to find escape routes to avoid banning griefers at ALL costs?
What do we have to do to be taken seriously?

Our vision is now of applications that utilize the entire grid. I had no idea this was possible because I assumed it would mean getting banned. Wrong again.

Oh my what will we think up now that this is pretty much aok. Land tools to keep objects out? We'll see I guess.

I think that forbidding temp-on-rez for such things might be shooting ourselves in the foot, if it is true that temp-on-rez objects create less lag.

I would prefer to have rules that are based on the behavior of such objects, rather than their purpose or who owns them. (In other words, don't use labels like "land scanner".)

I don't see how any of us could ever provide "evidence" that such an object is causing "harm", and I don't see how Linden could afford to investigate every time one appears.

Perhaps you could introduce a rule that unmanned scripted objects traveling or appearing systematically in sims where the object owner does not own land require "a permit". The "applicant" would describe the purpose, behavior and life cycle of the object. Linden would approve or disapprove the application. Linden would NOT evaluate the actual object to see whether it does or doesn't do what the owner said -- but given that information, users could report cases where it appears that the objects are behaving badly or not doing what the owner said they do. Basically, all proposals to do things that are not TOS violations would be automatically approved, providing the applicant supplies enough information.

I, for one, would be satisfied with that. (And I would NOT go on any opt-out list because for me, it isn't about land use. Its about the secrecy and detection avoidance, and possibility of malicious use of similar techniques in the future.)

The DO-NOT-CALL list is just a list of phone numbers of people who are aware of the DO-NOT-CALL list. I think that may placate some of the paranoid, but it doesn't really address the legitimate grievance that these things are so elusive, secretive, and ubiquitous, and that it is hard to prove or disprove anything about them because of that.

We don't own a square of dirt, we own a share of the resources of a sim. The resources are allocated by analogy to the real world, but the analogy falls down when you start to consider processor time and bandwidth. So an opt-out list won't be very satisfying to people who are concerned about those things.

I fully believe that less government is better government, but "protection of property rights" is a government function that even libertarians endorse. Many libertarians consider this the only legitimate government function.

Buster

oh dear... i don't think you're going to like the way people are planning to show you are wrong...

shiryu, if you want to get real world about this then YES ll have thier favourites and will blatently ignore any outcry, policy, and damage they cause the community or the grid to protect them.

and YES others will be suspended or banned without a second thought if you commit the same types of offenses.

of course these things are true in second life. they're true everywhere. what world do you live in dude?

you indignant people posturing with your weapons of mass destruction and exhaustive lists of definitions seem just as silly and blind to reality as the lindens do when they quote 1.6 features, explain nonexistant policy considerations, and claim that hundreds of scripted objects have no impact on a sim's performance.

the lot of you, ll included, are dragging the community to it's knees for your own blind, selfish considerations. good job. cheers all around.

Okay, Shiryu, you know where I stand on this issue, but I need to play devil's advocate here.

This is what freedom is about - not just protecting the whole, but the individual's rights. Be it artistic expression, copyright, land ownership, or due process ... respecting it is the only way a truly rights-based society works.

That's why, while I personally think what Pete has done is rude, I wouldn't want anyone to be punished on something if the adjudicating body wasn't sure exactly about the rules. It's clear that this whole issue raised a legit conflict of rights that the Lindens didn't foresee.



Even if she knew something, I'm pretty sure I've read that all future features are secret until preview. Look at how suddenly they popped the ratings change on us - we'd been discussing it for months, and LL gave no indication that a change was coming until it happened.

I'm not making a judgement call of whether the fog of features is a good or bad thing; that's a whole different topic.


I agree totally - it's what I've been saying from the first abuse report.

What a Linden rep told me on the phone last Friday was that the TOS covers stuff generally outside of the world, while CS covered stuff inside.

Now if you read tech news, you might have heard crackers are writing viruses for Blue Tooth phones - an example of how the definition of a virus expands when presented with new mediums of transport. Where our focus might be best made would be to convince LL that SL is just such a medium, and the TOS anti-virus policy should extend to the CS as well, in world, and to cover replicators as such.