land scanners part the fourth

I think he meant leaving them linden land. That way items scattered in the airspace wouldn't influence the lower sims performance.

200th post in this thread! what did i win?

A salute from me for sticking to your guns on something you believe in.

I'm sorry Buster, I thought we all knew what I was talking about when I said "tragedy of the commons ".

In SL we currently have a big commons. Script execution resources as well as temp-on-rez objects are are part of that commons.

A tragedy would ensue if one person were to use up a vast majority of the commons such that it affected other people's SL service.

At the moment we don't have very many good tools for preventing the tragedy so we use some lower quality tools*... in particular I'm referring to certain portions of the TOS and CS which are used to warn people to not instigate tragedy. For example, from the Conduct section of the TOS:

Please note that not all virii are forbidden in this clause -- only those "that are intended to damage," and so on.

Virii that operate within the commons are allowed... up to a point. From the Global Attacks section of the CS:

Please note that not all virii are forbidden under this clause... only those that "interfere with or disrupt the Second Life community, the Second Life servers or other systems related to Second Life".

In particular, the "lb v2" does not violate this clause. It does not interfere with or disrupt the service.

Some might argue that it disrupts the SL community, however I believe that it does not disrupt the community so much as it offends some individuals who either see it as the symbol of the aforementioned tragedy ("stop all virii now!", or who feel that they deserve control over the chunk of commons above their land ("I don't want scripted bots above my land, whether at 20 meters or 400".

I've already pointed out that not all virii are bad. At the moment we have the TOS and the CS to weild against any virii that violate them. Those that do no are welcome to populate the commons. I can only ask, "Please don't turn the commons into a true tragedy."

As to the landowners who covet the commons: at the moment land owners do not have rights over the commons even though some think they do or should. I've already presented my theory as to _why_ some land owners believe this. Although land owners do not currently have control over the commons, LL does plan on carving out portions of the commons and reserving those for land owners in the future, as I've already mentioned.

Actually Andrew, if my english doesn't betray me, that "or other computer programming routines that are intended to damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information;"
Seems a clause to broaden the spectrum further respect to the definitions mentioned before it (basically, you shall not insert a virus or any other thing that does this that and that), not to limit them.
The syntax used excludes ANY kind of virus/worm/blahblah OR other computer programming routines that are intended to damage, detrimentally interfere blahblah.

The key words are "or", "other" and the fact that there is a different subject in the second part of the sentence. The "intended to damage" is referred to "other computer programming routines" not to "virus" and "worm".
In the letter of the law that article of the TOS effectively forbids ANY kind of virus/worms AND any kind of other programs that (the "other computer programming routines" have a malicious intent.
Your interpretation of the letter of the TOS actually is the opposite of what it says.

Conclusion: due to the current TOS ANY kind of virus/worm is currently forbidden. If this is different from the spirit LL wanted to attain then LL needs a better lawyer to write their legal documents

In any case i would definately think twice (or more) before aserting that virii with a non malicios behavioir are accepted, because the definition of malicious behavioir is in itself one of the most extreme grey area you can find in the law system, and you can find yourself caught with your pants down basically by any malicious but clever virus programmer with an half decent attorney.

In summary of what other changes need to be made.. think the line between the commons and what is under the control of land owners should be made much clearer, hence my ideas on how to redesign the system. I don't think those suggestions will survive any redesign effort, but they are interesting to think about.

I think you should definately keep in mind that land owners pay LL a LOT of US dollars (125 from me this month, that's definately not 2 cents nor change money) a month for their land, and as such their investment NEEDS to be protected, wile scripters that can infect the grid with a virus like LBv2 don't need to pay a single penny for that.
If someone wants to use most of the grid's airspace for his own personal goals he can as well pay part of our tier fees. I would personally love to see PF having to pay 6 zeros monthly fees for his use of the WHOLE grid.

i know you are working on this, but it isn't so much that landowners covet the commons as 1) why are they forced into the commons, 2) where is the border between the commons and the private, and 3) the commons can utterly consume private resources.

examples:
1) security systems in air space is an example of people trying to withdraw from the commons.
2) these same security systems also illustrate that people don't know that ll is claiming air space as part of the commons
3) the numerous complaints about lag caused by neighbor's scripting, clubs, torture prims etc cycle through the forums endlessly. there are examples where one landholder or even non-landholder can use a disportionate amount of the commons.

btw there is a slight contradition between allowing airspace security systems that send flying people home and saying ll is trying to claim airspace is part of the commons.

Shiryu, you may be right -- IANAL, which is why I consider leagalese a blunt and unwieldy instrument.

If you are right, then it sounds like our TOS needs clarification.

Actually the SL tos is not written in hardcore legalese... that's probably why it's so easy to find and punch holes into it

Anyway, if PF wants to use the airspace over my land (and over the entire grid) to such a CONSTANT and EXTENDED (note the keywords please) effect i at least ask that he has to pay part of my tier fees.

I won't pay LL 125 dollars this monday to have any casual virus programmer do what he wants over my shop/office/home, so if he wants, he might as well pay 5 dollars of it himself (to me and to all other land owners over wich his virus is isntalled). I would love to see how many zeroes that bill would have.

me too.

I suppose the biggest problem was honestly the purpose of the network though andrew, at least for people i talked to. People aren't so much upset that a bot network was allowed to run 'unchecked' but rather, that a bot network was being run by a 'foreigner' (aka someone who has not contributed to the commons of this 'country' or sim.. and using 'our' commons via a clever script system to then basically screw us (aka take public land, buy it before a normal resident nearby would see it, and then set it for sale for a profit)

It is generally agreed upon with commons tho (such as coastal water rights, radio frequency licensing, and other modern commons pertinent today) that part of the principle of their use is for the *good* of the people sharing those commons... The united states lets foreign merchant vessels use the coastal waters around our country for shipping and trade because this trade is part of what helps america stay viable as a nation.

The united states would be much less apt to share coastal waters with say a russian nuclear submarine... now you could argue that it has as much right to navigate through waters as a russian freighter does... after all the US has granted russia the provision to use those waters... but the degree to which russia can use them is somewhat constrained...

People aren't angry that there was a grid wide network, people are angry that there was a grid wide network constantly scanning for land that would then be sold back to them at inflated prices, and having their 'commons' used against them is honestly i think the source of most of the anger and frustration in this case.


now in regards to this clause:

"surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information"

now this is interesting... because its somewhat vague.. and at least serveral possible meanings of it would actually label lb v2 as a bannable item.

It was definately surreptitious, the extremely rapid movement, extremely small size, temp on res status, un-named main scripts, and invisible texture peg that without a doubt.. this was an item that was not *supposed* to be seen by the people whos land it flew over.

now, is it intercepting this next part, specifically the following two words:

(via dictionary.com)
Intercept:
2 a : to stop, seize, or interrupt in progress or course or before arrival b : to receive (a communication or signal directed elsewhere) usually secretly

Expropriate:
1 : to deprive of possession or proprietary rights
2 : to transfer (the property of another) to one's own possession

Interception, would probably deal more along the lines of chat listening, which obviously this turned out not to do (tho there is no way for a land-owner to see this innately)

Expropriate however has a much more interesting take on what these scanners were doing... specifically to deprive of posession or proprietary rights...

Public land, could be seen to construe one of these 'proprietary rights'... something that everyone in SL should have equal access to.... This network was designed to deprive the commons, the SL population at large, of public land, instead giving its owner a much greater likliehood of acquiring it...

So in that sense at least... many people (myself included) did feel justified in classifying this as something hostile, or in violation of the TOS.



now semantics aside... honestly this particular situation has boiled over, the system seems to be now MIA, and for the meantime calm should be restored here. I really do want to see potential good uses of technology similar to this though...

imagine a similar network, but with no public land sinfle owner notification, and in its place, a system for creating publically available property maps (something very difficult to get out of SL now, for printing/planning projects etc) with that one change, i would honestly be okay, with the system as it is now... as its design is no longer to take public land away from at least equally deserving people and line one person's pocket, but to actually provide a service for SL... thus mitigating the specific TOS clause, and honestly enhancing the overall featureset SL has to offer its residents.

Assuming the objects did not unduly lag simulators... and the person at least tried to make an effort to let people know what was going on... contacting some land owners to host it, making the objects visible so people could see what was going on... and the 'reproductive' lifetime was shortened to a more only what was necessary interval (say once an hour, for example, or even alterable at a given simulator owner's request, if they felt the object was still too persistant... that would be a very very different beast... and it would be one designed by Ice Brodie, which would be honestly the *EXACT* opposite of lbv2,

Same basic methodology, same basic technology, *COMPLETELY* different social impact and overall world-acceptance (people are *ASKING* ice to include their sims in her data project)

Sounds like Andrew's saying "buyer beware" to me. As a company which depends on the tier fees from landowners as a large part of their revenue, I'm surprised LL doesnt have a tighter policy on what can be put over a players land and not. Although I'm not concerned about what Pete has put in the sky, if everyone decided to do the same, especially with laggier scripts, it would be mayhem. And I think LL should prepare for this scenario, since I think some people will try to prove their point by doing this.

And if I lived in a sim that was lagged to heck because of it, I wouldn't hesitate to tier right down. Bye bye tier fees.

I was just having a little trouble relating the "Commons" to the debate here. The problem I have is that you are putting yourself in the position of having to ascertain the intent of an object in order to enforce your rules. I don't see how you can do that fairly.

I'm making a different argument than many of the others here. I am voicing a concern that allowing widely repicating objects is inherently dangerous, becuase the technique will be misused in unforseeable ways. I think that your policy is rather like saying that everyone has a right to have a nuclear bomb, but as soon as you explode one you lose that right. This has little to do with "Commons" -- its just Common Sense.

If you read my posts, you will see that I don't see this purely as a resource allocation issue, or as a "property rights" issue. So I have trouble with how your "Commons" analogy relates to the issues that I'm raising.

Buster

buster: it was not self-replicating, it was spawning, from a network of emitters that were scattered throughout SL... self replicating code *is* far more dangerous, but thats not specifically what was going on this time.

This is one of my main concerns regarding this. I have mentioned before how giving this situation a "green light" sets precedent to others that this type of behavior is ok as long as the player's intents are not malicious. So what's to stop 20 or so players from deciding to run their own bots throughtout the grid, meanwhile lagging the actual owners of the land below?

When I say "self replicating", I mean a system of replication. A replicating system can have more than one part -- it could have parts that replicate and other parts that don't. It could have a "mothership" that spawns emitters that in turn spawn satellites. It would still be a worm.

If the emitters are manually and legally placed one by one, and satellites are only created by emitters, then that would be completely different. That would not be a virus or a worm at all. I would STILL object, but I would certainly stop running around waving my arms and screaming. That would be good, its starting to bother my co-workers.

Buster

There is currently nothing to stop them. That is the aforementioned looming tragedy that has not yet arrived, and that we are going to gaurd against someday in the future.

Well, i hate to be a broken disk, but there is the TOS stopping them, and would stop even the one we have now if it was properly enforced following it's letter

BTW Andrew: if you want to change the TOS to cover only viruses with a malicious intent, be prepared to face a very strong opposition from any lawier that works for you and reviews your legal documents. With that clause you open the doors to infection from any half clever virus programmer with an half decent attorney backing him. Malicious intent is in fact probably the most difficult thing to proof in a law court. If you have the LL lawier handy ask him, he-ll probably confirm this.
I don-t know if you noticed, but you are screaming to the world: "hey, if you wanna try you virus programming come here! it-s part of the amazing and endless possibilities of second life!"
Might as well advertize it on the homepage under the create section... or maybe you could make a "grief" section, since griefing seems to be treated in such a lax way that is almost becoming one of the endless and almost officially endorsed possibilities of second life...
*sighs*