land scanners part the fourth

You know, the more I think about it, the more it really seems like youre trying your best to make up escuses to cover for this. Escuses that have increasingly nothing to do with the point youre trying to make. It makes no difference weather or not the object is scripted or not. I can still return items at that height, so I obviously do have control over the airspace at that height. This object though intentionally gets around the land owners right to return unwanted objects on and even over thier land.

Also, "no outside scripts" does not prevent objects with scripts in them from crossing the border into someones land like a ban would. It just prevents the objects sctipt from running once inside. So, only difference here is that the scanner wouldnt be able to scan, defeating its purpose.

Like ive said, if these were just always flying around, and just passing over my land, I wouldnt have an issue. But in this case, there is almost always one there, dispite the tools I have been given. This is wrong, and I guess that ill have to be just as perisitent.

I stated the reasons why they are viruses, while you (nor no one else) still didnt managed to find one valid point that differentiate them from viruses.



What reasons? If you have reason state them.



What ways? If you know the ways state them.

Pathetic.

I would like to add some basic clarifications to my argument here:

1) the ideal case would be one where both grid wide computing, and land owner rights, were supported... in an instance such as this land owners would be able to return objects in an automated way over their land, but scripted objects would also be able to tell this (roughly like no script land now) and 'route' around it... i understand this is the most technically complex avenue to go down, but it would be the best of all worlds if both these systems could exist, and people wouldn't feel trampeled by them

2) the biggest problem is not that these objects use run tasks time, thats almost incidental for me, the biggest problem i have is that these objects in pete fats' case are using my land and airspace above it to do something i find ethically wrong, and doing it in a way that i have absolutely no control or means of opting out or unsubscribing, aka i am not *allowed* by the system to morally object, or to protect myself, my friends or guests on my land from a bot net, like i would be for a normal malicious object

3) My suggestion of the 5 simple best practices rules, was not an ultimatum for what must or must not be but rather a stepping stone, to further discussion of what guidelines these bot nets should be subject to. I think some very basic ones, like requiring self replicating/undeletable objects be *VISIBLE* and giving people abit more ability to see what these objects are *doing* (aka does it have an open listen to channel 0? is it calling sensors? is it calling land properties, does it have a timer, etc etc) stuff that does not reveal source code, just behavioral attributes, would be a good step forewards too...

What worries me and had me call for 'regulations' or 'bot licensing' from the lindens (and i understand the myriad of reasons LL would want to avoid this) is that we have heard absolutely *no* discussion from LL on the technical front as to how land owners could respond to this.. we have only heard 'we will make it use less runtasks' which again from my #1 here, is not solving the most pressing problems these systems are likely to introduce on a social or land-owner level. You could run each sim on a 500 processor cluster, with 8 billion sim fps, and i would still argue bot nets should be subject to some of these *BASIC* guidelines.

It sounds like the TOS needs to be clarified around the "virus" issue.

Speaking for myself, I don't think the creator should be "banned". That's rediculous. He hasn't broken any rules. What he's doing should be against the rules.

If the rules are changed, and then after the rules are changed he doesn't remove the objects, THEN appropriate action should be taken just like anyone else who knowingly breaks explicit rules.

Buster

Providing you don't attempt to define "virus" in terms of what the creator intends, and whether those intentions are "evil". You need a simple litmus test that can be objectively applied to the behavior of an object. "Being a virus" is an effect, not necessarily an intent.

Buster

This might help:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=computer%20virus

Maybe it does, but this doesn't change the fact that now LBv2 are a clear cut violation of both the letter and the spirit of the TOS, and have been for months.
This means that to the very least they have to be removed.

I really am beginning to wonder why are you defending and endorsing a virus spread in the whole grid to such an extent.
Also you seem to ignore the evident danger present in such a precedent and this definately makes me wonder.
On a side note I would honestly find ridiculous and even more damaging a change in the TOS to make LBv2 some form of "legal" or even "officially endorsed or forgivable" virus. This would equiparate to bending the rules to bow to the interests of a single, incredibly irresponsible and rude resident, and in itself would be an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent.

Thats the point Talen. Most avatars you CAN get rid of with security scripts but when you find people with ways around security they are doing so for a reason. And its not to bring you flowers. Not all people and scripts are bad, but you need to keep an eye on those that purposely go out of their way to be not detected and/or get around security/privacy features.

I am going to suppose that Andrew isn't familiar with the way viruses and worms work in RL, because perhaps he doesn't use Microsoft Windows and IE, and spends all his time worrying about the speed of hoochie hair rendering. (We WANT Linden to worry about the speed of rendering don't get me wrong.)

In RL, the vast majority of viruses and worms are the product of three different, unconnected people.

Clever Programmer A invents way to replicate, propagate and perhaps avoid detection and persevere. Clever programmer A has no bad intentions, they are just “experimenting” or doing “research”. (Or maybe they are writing a dangerous virus on purpose.)

Clever Programmer B discovers a vulnerability or exploit that causes damage. This may be a bug, a way to erase files, or some other way to cause damage.

Script Kiddie gets a hold of Programmer A’s work (i.e., the “chassis”) and Programmer B’s work (i.e. the “payload”) and combines them together and uleashes them on [enemy | victim | target | innocent bystander] for [ revenge | profit | attention | jollies].

And if you say, “it can’t happen here”, I’ll puke.

Buster

P.S. If you read my past posts, you will see that I am lobbying for the PREVENTION of BOTH programmer A and programmer B's type of work. You must actively prevent both kinds of objects from appearing, being experimented with, etc., as best you can so that Script Kiddies are not likely to find what they need lying around, and so that you can DETECT them if they do unleash. Security 101, get with the program.

So what we are being told so far is that as long as the object in question is not malicious in nature, then it's allowed to use up the sim's resources and spread around the grid? So that means that any other players can do the same, as long as their intent is not malicious. By giving the "green light" to these objects, LL has opened the doors for many players to do the same. Like I stated before, I understand how we don't like to deal with conflicts until they have gotten out of hand, but this is one situation that could quickly turn ugly (or even uglier) if it's not dealt with.

I am not a scripter, and I do not know whether the hypothetical I present is possible, but for the sake of discussion let us assume it is.

What if I were to create a house made of temp on rezz prims that were self duplicating. As soon as one floor or wall disappeared another would replace it. What if I decided to place this over land belonging to another, but above the current 20m no script zone, which seems to be the designated exclusive use air column area. Then, what if I stayed there and that was my home. Not to harass, but just because I liked it there.

If I do not have a nefarious intent, or I am not significantly affecting sim performance, then is this acceptable? Does it change things if i create my temp on rezz home at 400m?

I think most land owners would be upset to have me present overhead without their permission, whether I am present at 20m or 400m.

In my mind this scenario is conceptually similar to the land scanner issue. The issues are land ownership and harassment.

The current standards for determining what is significant impact on a sim are too vague to be useful. What is the threshold for deciding when an impact becomes significant. There is none, and how can there be in a fluid environment where change is the norm.

Robin stated:


Not true.

Item 6 of the Big 6 enumerated in the CS states the use of self-spawning items constitutes a disturbing the peace violation that will result in suspension, and with repeated violation, expulsion. We can recall the ants....

Disturbing the peace also includes activity that inhibits another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life. The land owners with self spawning land scanners overhead fall victim to a disruption of peace specifically enumerated in the CS and their ability to enjoy their second life is impaired as a result.

Robin stated that the Linden policy is to remove that which is built to specifically harass. What about push scripts, especially those existing in the what seems to be the above 20m wild west anything goes territory. If ever there was an example of something built to harass, it is an overkill security system that pushes when a simple ban would do.


This sums it up. An acknowledgement that the land scanners per se are not a good thing but they are acceptable now because we have a single user, or more accurately, abuser.

Once again we look to the issue of uneven enforcement. Are any rules enforceable above 20m and if so, then why should they all not be in effect, and more importantly, why would they not be applied to all members.

Katy summed it up perfectly i'd say.

katy perfectly summed up why i feel lb v2 should be removed from the grid *now*... now moving forewards, i DO want to see mass scale grid projects happen in SL, but in ways that are far, FAR more friendly to existing residents, and i don't think that from a making a rule or addition to the TOS/CS standpoint it would be that difficult to ensure

look to ice brodie's mapping project for a really good example of this (aka SEEKING permission of land owners, very visible scanners, open information about the project, and equal access to the data it produces, etc etc

Katy has summed it up (in a more eloquent way than I could have put it).

I have another example: how about instead of a house, I make a store with "temp on rezz" vendors and I placed it up in the air and all over the grid. This would mean that I would have shops all over the grid, without having to pay for land. As long as my intent is not malicious, it would just be a new way to advertise my products and make them available all over SL.

Phrases like this may seem clever, but they do not possess much depth of wisdom. The counter-point to this trite phrase is embodied in the story of Chicken Little.

BTW, this is a *worm*, not a virus.

I recommend this page of contradictory proverbs:

http://beebo.org/smackerels/contradictory-proverbs.html

For example:

Look before you leap.
He who hesitates is lost.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
Don't beat your head against a stone wall.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
Out of sight, out of mind.

which is yet another reason why I embrace contradictions so much.

Hi Buster and I believe an early historical precedent would be the wild slime drones... which are still showing up in the Police Blotter today. Other examples would be a certain firebomb effect that wasn't originally meant for greefer kin, and a mound of ants.

I agree it is a worm.

Most security sites define a worm as a type of virus.

Essentially the distinguishing characteristic of a worm over other kinds of viruses is that a worm spreads all by itself, whereas a typical virus piggybacks on other things that depend on user activity to spread it. (This is the definition that security experts use.) By that distinction lb v2 is a worm.

I would call those "hints of things to come". Allowing things to replicate widely is just plain stupid.

Buster

I stand corrected, it's a worm (i was using virus as a general definition that includes worms as well, but defining it a worm is undoubtly more precise). and being a worm it still falls under the article 5.1 paragraph V ofthe TOS and has to be removed

*feels that old broken record syndrome going on*

We have our land scanner tool on the website and the worm sats are still up. Obviously a win-win situation is not good enough for Pete.

I think it's time we take this to the WA.

Needed:
- Protest signs
- Explanation notecards that are Clear, concise, and civil
- Date / time to start

EDIT: Lindens, now that we have a released-land tool on the website, can we either get:
A. These satellites banned because they are superfluous (and all the other reasons)?
B. A clear statement of what these satellites over OUR land are doing?

You know, here's the annoying thing about this. I can't think of a single thing that a person would need a grid-wide satellite network that constantly self-rezzed, except for land-scanning or spying. As I've said a few times already, other legit uses for satellites would not need them continually rezzing themselves.

RRL = Really Redundant Loop

Is there any surprise why I'm a time traveller?

So basically you'll grief the welcome area and make the world all that much more confusing to the newbies porting in...Great plan

okay the things no longer seem to be active, but i promised i'd post this when i got home:

Well I'm sure by now you are more than aware of the controversy that has erupted over the late use (some would say abuse) of the SL grid, and other resident's land by one smart, and questionably ethical user of the system.

I would just like to share some basic observations over the matter, the response that has been given, and potential implications this may have on the future of SL not just from a resident, but a grid computing or 'grid wide project' platform.

Now I understand that much of what has gone on in this regard, specifically with the lb v2 objects owned by Pete Fats, is rather unprecedented... and as such the existing rules governing user conduct don't necessarily adequately cover this situation, or future situations like it. (and for better, or worse, i am sure there will be many).

LL would seem to be at a sort of cusp point here, in regards to the rights of someone to do what they can in SL... and the rights of the day to day land owners to have a say in who does what with the land that they are paying real world money every month to use themselves. The existing rules, do not allow land-owners to have much of any say or power over what sophisticated systems like lb v2 do, nor do they have any means to object, or unsubscribe from its use of their land as staging areas for its operations, should they object to the systems purposes, or its creator/user's ethics.

Now i understand that an across the board system wide power shift to allow land-owners full access rights to completely block their airspace would be detrimental to the future of SL as an experimental grid platform for interesting and possibly quite beneficial projects... which is something that neither LL or the users of SL want to see happen. This is why i see a policy decision or judgment on these matters as the best possible solution.

Let me preface what i will describe here with a brief over-view of Pete's system, compared to another budding use of SL grid-wide scripting, by Ice Brodie.

(an overview of ice's project, and how she is attempting to implement it, with the blessing of as many members of SL as she can, is found here:

/130/b5/38726/1.html

Pete's system is engineered from the ground up to be robust, pervasive, hard to detect, and impossible to remove. There is nothing any user can do to stop it from running on their land, no matter how much they object to Pete's individual ethics or the actions this program takes in its data-gathering efforts. It is self spawning, runs approximately half a million objects a day, and scans every sim on the grid, whether Pete Fats has obtained permission from the users within it, or not. (it is not *even* opt-out centric, you get those objects no matter what)

On the other side of the spectrum, Ice's system has been designed to be as unobtrusive and open as possible. The objects will not be automatically spawned, each sim will be manually seeded with an object that will run, once, and then remove itself once it has gathered the pertinent information. Individual land owners may opt *in* to allowing ice to use their land as a staging point for a given sim. (and many, many users have shown a great interest in doing so, to help out a project of this size)

A further point of difference between these two systems is that Pete's system is essentially a 'selfish' system... This system provides absolutely no public service, utility, or functionality... Whatever data Pete is gathering, is only furthering Pete's own agenda, or his wallet. Despite the fact he is using other people's land, those people get no access to the results nor stake in the proceeds.

Ice's system is very much the opposite, it is a public mapping project, that will be acquiring data that will be accessible to everyone in second life, showing both political (land ownership) and geographical (terrain based) maps of the SL world. This provides a direct tangible benefit to the SL community, as it allows all people to get equal access to data that they can then use to do any number of interesting things, from large map printouts of their regions of SL, to using this data set as an import into interesting artistic or experimental other 3D packages, for instance allowing someone to import their own sim as a height-map into a terrain package like Bryce, and then model offline a potential sim re-design that they are planning, without damaging their existing build.

I could go on but i think I have made my basic case for the following argument:

Linden labs should allow, nigh, encourage users to develop interesting and beneficial applications using the combined power of the world grid for the benefit of SL as a whole, or even for systems that will provide tangible benefit to people in an equal, and impartial fashion (such as a communication system mentioned earlier by Robin/Ben as a comparison).

At the same time, Due to the massive abuse potential of grid wide, fully automated, un-monitored and un-moderated systems, such systems should probably be monitored by Lindens to make sure they accede to the following general codes of conduct (or similar such created by LL): (EDIT) obviously this would be ideal, but potentially not technically or personell wise terribly feasable)

1) There must be a public benefit for each allowed system. These systems are using public resources, and their use should be predicated by a communal benefit (things such as mapping tools, communication tools, potential future taxi or teleport services, etc, more than qualify)

2) Each sim that is to be included in the scope of a project should have at least one property owner within that simulator signed onto that project either via a special grid wide project forum, or potential down the line in-world GUI etc. This ensures that the resources that a project uses, are resources granted willingly by someone who does have an actual stake in the health of the simulator. Ice Brodie's project has more than shown the massive popular support for projects of this nature and how willing people are to sign on and allow open, and beneficial projects, to use their land

3) The objects for these projects must be visible, and descriptive. for example, containing a touch event that delivers a note-card with the project 'mission statement' or the like. So that someone who does find one of these objects above their land, can better understand what its purpose is, how it works, and what potential impact it is having on their sim. (is it using listens, is it using timers, is it calling land owner properties, or land height properties, where is the website where this information will be made available as the project progresses, etc)

4) Objects within these projects should adhere to a best practices rate of spawning, aka should not spawn more often or more numerously than necessary to ensure the success of a project. While it might be nice to have a message delivery service that runs with a 0.1 second latency, and 1,000,000 active objects relaying... it may be better to run a service that runs with a 1 second latency if it could be done with only 1,000 objects across the entire grid, etc

5) These objects must include a means of termination. As coding methodologies and knowledge of LSL's potential continues to increase, the potential for projects to run amok, and escape their creators rises as well... any project approved for general SL wide grid use must have a simple, centralized way for the creator, or linden labs, to shut it down, if problems arise.


These are fairly simple rules, and i don't think any of them fails to make good, sound, sense, for projects of this scale and magnitude. Though obviously LL should have the final say in these matters obviously, i think this might make a good starting off point.

We are sort of at a cusp here, there is a huge potential here, just starting to be realized, and we have two EXTREMELY different methods of going about it being followed, at the same time. On one hand, you have an open 'public works' style project, which people are gathering behind and building support for, and on the other hand, you have a build so massively over-zealous at spawning (literally half a million individual scanners per day) it is hard not to find comparisons between it and a virus, albeit one that is for now at least, contained to some degree by its creator. This project has been launched in secret, is using resources without asking for them, or providing any usable service to the people of SL who are in a very real sense 'paying' for it.

If the latter style of project is accepted, it also unfortunately may doom the former. Ice has spent many many months slowly building up her code base, and public support for this project, so that it will be useful, and not burden any sims that are not volunteered by their own residents. Needless to say the 'success' of the latter style of project, has come at the price of a rather marked blow to her confidence that her efforts were necessary to ensure the success, both technically, and socially, of her mapping.

Once more Philip, thank you for your time, and your continuing support of the SL community

-eltee Statosky