Your Real-Life Personal Information

You sound like you're somewhat familiar with law and how it pertains to privacy.. could you elaborate on this?

They are the number one resource for case law, regardless the fact their security has been compromised. Maybe use a friend's account or register with a throwaway visa/mastercard.

Stop harshing my mellow, Cris. -grin-

Juro -- I am NOT a lawyer, however I have handled my own legal affairs for over thirteen years and can tell you with certainty that most people who trample your rights or violate your privacy expect you to be clueless as to what recourse is available to you.

I will say this much -- people believe what they will and trying to explain the profound difference between common language use and usage in law is doomed to failure in a venue like this... suffice to say that blanket statements regarding legality (this is legal, that is not, etc.) are generally the surest sign of ignorance of law and how it works -- something that is relied upon heavily by criminals of all manner.

In closing, it is important to understand that your rights as an individual exist regardless the TOS or what your friend thinks. Linden Labs has an obligation to act when you have suffered damage. Failure to act could place them into a position of liability. Generally speaking, companies are very sensitive to this reality and will take swift action when the question of liability arises. Look to the entry of Pathfinder in this thread for an example of that behavior in action.

At any rate, my initial point and reason for posting was simply to point out that people who engage in activites such as this latest by Mr. Nolan are taking some fairly big risks gambling on the 'safety' and 'anonymity' of the Internet working on their behalf. Most times, they are 'right' about being able to get away with it. But not always.

As with anything, education brings enlightenment and knowledge is power.

Is there any legally protected right to anonymity on the interenet in regards to your name, gender, or location? Making someone's credit card number available on line is one thing, and clearly criminal, but name, gender or location? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. If not then this is really all moot.

I don't think its illegal. I know that if I look under www.canada411.com, there I will find my name, number, gender, address, postal code.

I can't believe I've read so much of this long thread. Pathfinder's last post was excellent though. For instance, making it clear if you post your real life name and second life name in an article on a website you just gave away your anonymity. I interpret that to mean reading a page in plain text, not following .jpg links as Prokofy suggested. Otherwise, if someone has tried to protect their real life identity that needs to be respected. I think I'll trust LL to handle this fairly.
===========================

On the other hand, I just tried calling Schwanson at his 911 area code. That was a mistake. Got to meet Tom Waits but there are nasty sheep in this jail. I searched for Essence Lumin at whitepages.com and see there is a listing along with a background check I can pay for but I think I'll pass.

I called it too. I only person I met some big, forceful guy name Ben Dover after getting escorted to Ben's house.

*sighs*

mmmm...

I think saying "idiots" to people continually second-guessing and undemining me on this very clear-cut story is absolutely the right thing to do. And if they accuse me of being so stupid as to not understand Pathfinder's post was about the generic issues, and if they don't get that I was just trying to reiterate a very clear-cut interpretation again even as he was creating the conditions for many to spin it again, well, they rightly qualify for the rather mild epithet of "idiots".

You just never get it, do you Weedy, because you can't see through your fog of hostility because I don't share your views about your precious SL.

It's not "airing dirty laundry" to pre-empt a blackmailer on the forums, that's taking action in the face of LL inaction. And the facts in the case are not disputed, and the investigation is not about finding the veraciy of already-evident facts.

Let me go over the facts again. There's no need to dispute the obvious veracity of these facts, even as the investigation goes on -- indeed, the whole reason there *is* an investigation is that these incidents took place!

1. Nolan stalked me in the game for weeks.
2. He harassed me with conversations he turned into interviews on other websites with false claims.
3. He sent me messages constantly.
4. Finally he sent me 3 messages yesterday containing

a) my RL name, therefore making it possible to find me where I live
b) my RL job and publications and therefore my RL job location
c) my RL gender and therefore my RL sexual identity

Is there some part of that you didn't understand was a violation of the TOS, Weedy? That's a clear-cut invasion of my privacy because:

1. I did not post this information on my profile in the game.
2. I did not post anything but "New York" on my forum profile.
3. I did not place this information on my SL-related blog, which is linked in my profile.
4. I did not give my consent to release this RL information.
5. I contacted Pathfinder and abuse-manager yesterday and got no action. It was impossible to even fit all the numerous messages I've gotten from Nolan into the cramped AR spaces.

So all this specious speculation that I am liable because I myself put up a link somewhere is total tripe. I didn't. And I didn't give my consent.

The purpose of first threating me with the disclosure of this information by presenting it to me in IMs, and then putting it on the forum when I preempted him by publicizing his behaviour, was to silence me on the forums. That's blackmail.

You don't get to use methods like that to silence people.

I have never been banned for what I have written in the forums.
I have never had a post cut or removed due to a personal attack.
Unlike some of you, I might add.

So the facts are out there. And what you don't seem to realize is that this kind of thing brings me days, weeks, months of ridule, harassment, even physical attacks, even hate signs, even mutes and freezes and expulsions. It starts when a vicious stalker like Nolan can get away with harassing you, have nobody do anything, and then stalk you in public by divulging your info on the forums, it continues when nobody does anything, letting it sit there for hours, then giving him a tiny wrist slap by saying "informal warning" and it continues as he taunts you after that wrist-slap, calling you "it".

I dont understand why someone like Buster Peel who is intelligent can say "the force went out" and "the sympathy dried up" merely because I called people couldn't see the obvious"idiots"? But they ARE idiots. And I shouldn't have to wait for the consensus of the forum harpies to decide it they "sympathize" or "don't sympathize" with me or if I have "gotten the community's sympathy" or "haen't gotten the community's sympathy". You can't see this is a clear-cut violation of the TOS? I have to repeat myself 10 times to get it across. I still have second guessing and mystification and parsing and what-ifs and Weedy Herbst saying I'm "unable to contain myself until the investigation is complete."

Huh? Somebody gets to threaten you with blackmail, when you refuse to give in, they publish your RL information you do not wish to disclose, and they they get an informal warning and everybody spends the next day downplaying the incident and trying to figure out if this is going to hurt *their* freedom of expression?

Did anybody think how it hurt mine?

I am not free to be who I wish to be in an online world where my privacy was supposed to be protected. Can you understand what it is like to have that kind of freedom removed from you in one fell swoop, forever?

No, I do not accept Nolan's half-assed apology. This is not about singing Kumbayah in a circle holding hands. It's about a stalker and blackmailer who should be banned, pronto. He made such an apology to forestall some putative lawsuit, and with players and Lindens urging him on. His game has often been to play "good cop/bad cop" in his intelligence-gathering act, and he is only doing that now, pretending to fall on his sword and begging the Lindens to ban him, like some wayward child with still a scrap of sense that his parents actually haven't done the right thing here.

Please be warned, everyone.

Anyone who disagrees with what you say on the forum can put anti-gay signs on your property urging you to GET OUT and get a 14-day suspension only and come back.

Anyone who hates you for the forums and their own personal baggage can stalk your customers and ruin your business reputation with false allegations.

Anyone who hates you can dig up your RL info and publish it with impunity.

Anyone who hates you from the forums can misuse the AR system to ban you.

A pervasive anti-business climinate ensures that if you attempt to engage in business you will face serious obstacles.

It's not such a fun game.

Ok I read all but pages 13-15 (I did read page 16).

Its easy to tell right off the bat when reading alot of the replies who's already got an ax to grind against Prok. And there's a huge microcosm (that sounds funny) of the forums at large in this one thread. Alot of it gets old, which is why I dont post on the forums that much because its the same old crap: FIC this, lynch mob that, etc. Funny thing is people joking about the forumites forming a lynchmob are the ones that already formed a lynchmob long ago against Prok. I dont agree with everything Prok has had to say in the past but this issue is clear cut. If Prok filed abuse reports against this Nolan then the chat log will speak for itself right? What bothers me more than the personal info being posted on the forums, is if Prok was stalked and hounded in game by this one person who gloated over knowing RL info about Prok and especially if it was phrased in a threatening/blackmailing manner, that LL did little to nothing about it (sorry for the huge sentence).

Damn. I'm glad I just sat out this thread for a day before posting.

Prok, I'm sorry this happened to you. It shouldn't happen to ANYONE. PERIOD.

Let's take Disco Duck, for an example, in another thread currently on the front page.

The way I see it, Disco's actions (not returning land someone accidently set for sale for $10) make him a royal *expletive deleted*. His/her actions are MUCH worse than ANYTHING I've seen Prok verbally pontificate on in the forums.

HOWEVER - if someone was so pissed at Disco that they went and hunted down his/her RL info and posted it on the forums - harrassed him/her inworld, repeatedly - then that someone is still wrong, and still in violation of the TOS. It doesn't matter HOW much of an ass Disco is.

The posters in this thread defending Nolan's actions with variations on the "Well, Prok asked for it" theme are short-sighted and either defending their friend or defending their own dislike of Prok. (And frankly, it makes you sound about 12 years old.) Prok has said stuff some people - myself included - didn't agree with. Prok might have verbally insulted people. Prok might have a persecution complex and eats too much dairy, who knows. The point is, it doesn't matter if you like the person, or if half of SL doesn't like the person. Nolan's actions were wrong, reprehensible, more fitting of a 5 year old with a bad attitude, and banning should be the start of what happens to him, because if he can get away with it because you and your friends don't like Prok's words, then it can happen to you or me for even less cause.

Not a single soul said posting private information was "right". Not even Nolan. However, there's nothing wrong with defending a friend. In my case I don't know either Nolan or Prok, though my own post sounded as if it supported Nolan. It's purpose was pointing out to Prok and the like thinkers that all out attack may not be the healthiest way to relate to people who can retaliate. They've got the carry a big stick part down, now for the walk softly part. Bring on the next 100 posts .

Can we please try and keep some perspective here? Nolan revealed Prok's gender, state of residence, and occupation. That's it! None of that is legally protected information. Yes it's against the TOS, but c'mon! Having people know what state you live in, your real life gender, and what you do for a living is hardly some horrible tragedy, and revealing that information about another is hardly cause to draw and quarter someone. If anyone is so horrified at having that information known by others, what exactly are you up to here?

Nor is there anything wrong with pointing out that Prok has washed his hands of any accountability for his own behaviour and words. He behaves in a way that puts him at great personal risk and it was only a matter of time before someone who dislikes him took things a bit too far. SL isn't so far removed from reality that you can say and do whatever you want to people and not expect them to have normal human reactions. Is it right? No. Could everyone see this coming? Yes, absolutely.

Sorry to hear Prok, my mute list has 150 ppl on it. It's easier than trying to get LL to take an intrest.

(bolding is mine)

The question "what are you trying to hide?" isn't the point, and that type of question places people that have a right to privacy in this game under the TOS on the defensive for wanting to keep that information private. Would I be screaming bloody murder if someone dug up and posted my RL name, etc.etc.etc.? Sure I would. Why? A million reasons, but its no one's business but my own. Its mine to know, mine to share within the context of SL and its forums, and no one else's - and LL backs that up with its TOS we all signed to play this game.

Because honestly, that's what it comes down to. We were all given a promise by LL that we would be protected from having this information shared against our wishes, and we promised that we would not share this information about others against their wishes. How important anyone feels the information is in the great scheme of things isn't applicable in the least.

Should Nolan be "drawn and quartered"? No, and I don't think anyone is advocating that. Should he be banned, or at least suspended? The TOS gives LL that right to do so. My personal opinion is yes, because it sends an important message that privacy violations of the TOS will not be tolerated for any reason, no matter how little import you think it may or may not have, no matter how angry the poster made you because of something they wrote.



***********************




(again, the bolding is mine)

Oh, come now. Seriously? Posting on a forum, no matter how ridiculously off-the-wall it may get, is behaving in a way that puts him at "great personal risk?" Voicing opinions that others don't care for, making up groups that players supposedly do or don't belong to, being a blowhard is enough of an excuse for someone to repeatedly violate the TOS - because they were apparently provoked into this great righteous anger somehow?

I'd just like to reiterate something.

I DON'T AGREE WITH PROK ON JUST ABOUT ANY TOPIC HE'S EVER SPEWED AN OPINION ON.


We're all adults here. Saying someone "provoked" you, by words or actions, to retaliate in a way far more serious than the original provokation, is a very poor excuse for the fact that you were a victim of your own lack of self-control, maturity and good sense.

I had a friend in college who's roommate called him that famous "n" word. He smashed a coffee cup upside the guy's head, the guy needed stitches. Did the guy deserve it? My friend thought so. Would a better, more civilized course of action been to go to the appropriate campus supervisors and file a grievance and ask to be immediately moved? Absolutely, and my friend realized that about 2 seconds after the satisfaction of lashing back at the bigot wore off.

My friend didn't stop being my friend. I can absolutely see why he got so upset. But it doesn't make physical violence an acceptable reaction to verbal taunts.

Nolan isn't going to stop being your friend, and well he shouldn't. But his actions were not an acceptable reaction to Prok's verbal jousting, no matter how upset Nolan might have gotten.


******************

Chip and Ingrid, I've read a lot of posts by both of you, and my impression is that you are both reasonable, intellegent people with a good sense of what consititutes fairness. I sincerely hope that you both see my post not as a direct attack on you or your friend Nolan, but as support for the basic protection of privacy that the TOS affords all of us - no matter what our reason for wanting it, no matter what we might say when expressing our opinions that might piss others off - as I'm probably pissing off someone out there right now.

I definitely understand where you're coming from Azazel, and I agree to an extent... however, I think my rhetorical question was a valid one and points to what I see as something that's going to become a larger issue as time goes on. We are cohabitating not just in a fantasy world, but in a real and thriving economy where large sums of real money are changing hands. If SL were just a game I'd be more fervent in my support for absolute privacy, but SL isn't just a game. It's also a marketplace. Can a right for business proprietors to remain anonymous coexist with a consumer's right for accountability from the people they're paying real money to, or a creator's right to retain control of their intellectual property? As commerce in SL grows I think we're going to find that anonymity will regularly be in conflict with accountability. How long will we be able to have it both ways?



No worries at all The situation between Prok and Nolan has raised interesting questions about an issue very worthy of discussion. I'm rarely inclined to view disagreement as attack... in fact people with an inability to distinguish between the two are one of my biggest forum peeves.

Chip, I'm 100% in your corner when it comes to the discussion of SL as RL marketplace, with RL funds trading hands, and everything else involved with this growing economy. The topic of privacy in regards to how dishonest merchants protect themselves from retribution is an important one. LL has already said that you can't name names on the forums - again, the privacy issue.

But the Prok vs. Nolan matter isn't about ripping someone off, or privacy for dishonest merchants, or someone trying to duck accountability. Prok and Nolan disagreed on any number of topics. Nolan took it a couple steps too far over the line, tracked down personal information about Prok (available online but not through SL channels), and not only harrassed Prok inworld but broadcasted it in the SL forums. Its a violation of the TOS - blatant, clear-cut, black and white. Nothing larger than some hurt feelings and ideological differences brought about this chain of circumstances - which makes it that much more important for LL to take a strong stand AGAINST this sort of TOS violation, now and in the future, because imagine what could have erupted if money WAS involved.







I find that one of the most important signs of civilized discourse is the ability to disagree passionately, argue intellegently, make your points effectively, and still be able to go have a beer with the other person after you're done. Chip, here's your virtual beer. *clicks glass*

I think you are missing the point, Chip. That information is all some unbalanced person needs to make 'no big deal' into a real tragedy.

People have a right to privacy. That is a given, and is one of the 'penumbra rights' granted precedent (Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 779, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)) and that is clearly and consistantly recognized by the courts.

There is a reason why privacy is protected and why so many of these types of instances have presented AND WON in civil courts across the country. Courts are regularly supporting the individual's right (not Right, there is a difference under law) to privacy.

If you want perspective, try researching the cases where people have been stalked, raped, brutally attacked, publicly humiliated and defamed, and in some cases, financially ruined as a result of 'innocent' things like this.

I don't care how much you dislike someone, I don't care how big an ass they are, I don't care how many times they said your friend X is a doody-head, you are crossing the line, you are wrong, and you need real help if you think invading their privacy and bringing their real world information into the spotlight is EVER a proper response.

Someone else's information is not yours to give. Period. Basic common sense.... guess it isn't that common after all.

Seriously -- take a moment to really contemplate how you would feel to log in and hit the forums and find your real name, address, and place of work posted for all to see. If that doesn't bother you, then contemplate further the very real possibility that someone decides to come pay you a little visit because you said something they didn't like about their friend, X. Now they know right where to find you.

With all due respect -- If that doesn't bother you, you're not thinking.

(Note: The use of 'you' in the above, indeed, at all, is not intended to be a reference to you in specific, instead, it is a generic reference to any 'you' who might be reading.)

Sure it does. Not everyone reading are level headed individuals. It's not smart to assume you are protected no matter what (not from my perspective anyways). LL can do what they can but ultimately, if someone wants to find you badly enough they will. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here when I say that.

And Azazel, I never said it was an excuse to violate the TOS. It absolutely isn't.

I once again have to step up to the plate on this one.

This information isn't "available on line" like some mouseclick away from here.

In order to put together someone's online footprint in the way Nolan has you have to FIRST have some tips by what is known in that intelligence biz as "HUMINT".

Nolan FIRST took some HUMINT, hearsay and stories from live human beings he trolled relentlessly to find, THEN he trolled around more to the SL Herald, and other venues.

In fact the SL Herald story "The Second Coming of Dyerbrook" is one of those lurid yellow journalism stories with legs that has not a whit of truth in it (except that Dyerbrook is my alt) and is filled with slandering innuendos and outright likes and fakeries, but then becomes "the gift that keeps on giving" because Nolan reads it, in his fevered obsession, and Nolan decides it must be true that I have been "suspended out of TSO and permanently banned" (not true, I had the same 24-hour suspension for the equivalent of swearing in a PG zone that virtually any intelligent being in TSO had there if they lasted more than 7 days -- and I might add, it was a misuse of the system when someone invading and trashing my lot through infiltration of roomies then AR's me for swearing).

I remain a member in good standing in TSO. And his wild-eye believe that I "hounded Will Wright from the game" -- well...it's just as wild as ever LOL. I refuted all these lies in sluniverse.com, but Nolan wasn't satisfied then kept hunting.

THEN from these scraps and bits he went on a hunt, clicking and obsessing for days.

So no, this is not a trail that is some mouse click away, where I've been careless. This is the work of someone playing intelligence agent and then blackmailer. So see it for what it is.

Work it the other way, too. Now that they have your RL name, place of residence, workplace, they can then go to those RL family members and employers with tales of what they think you did in SL, to discredit you or even get you fired.

I'm not the slighest concerned that Nolan's feverish sleuthing is going to cause those problems for me, but I hold it out as a generic issue.

Damn it, Prof. STFU. Contrary to your obvious belief otherwise, this is NOT just ABOUT YOU.

The ISSUE is bigger than the PEOPLE.

Stop distracting people from the ISSUE trying to get them to look at YOU.

God. And you wonder why no one tends to give a shit when stuff like THIS happens to YOU.

Do you REALLY not get it?

Since I wasn't there to see what he actually went through to get your info, I'm not in a position to make statements about exactly what he went through to get your info. The pertainent part to the topic at hand still remains that the information was not available through SL channels, thus it is a violation of the TOS - not the lengths to which he went to get the information, beyond the fact that you did not share the information willingly within the scope of SL and SL-related and linked sites. He could have tracked down the information in 5 minutes from a WHOIS search, its still not his to share on SL.

As Cienna said, its not about you. I could care WHO it happened to, its the fact that it HAPPENED, PERIOD. In fact, I'm involved in defending you, generally, in SPITE of you, specifically.



I absolutely agree with you that if someone wants to find you badly enough, they will. Its something I've comptemplated before while watching those action-adventure flicks - if someone wants you dead badly enough, you're dead, and there's nothing you can do about it, because they want you dead more then they fear jail, loss of freedom, or loss of their own life. There are a lot of freaks out there.

But that doesn't mean we should live our lives - first OR second - forever in fear of tipping over some unstable individual. My personal viewpoint on matters such as that is there IS such a thing as being too PC, too worried about what others may think, too worried about offending someone.

Is Prok raising his chances of being targeted by someone with a grudge with his attitude? Sure. But I raise my chance of being in a car accident by driving to work everyday, and its not something I'm going to give up. Prok values his right to debate in a civilized matter within the boundaries of the TOS on the SL forums, and I doubt he's going to give it up no matter who might disagree. We all take chances when we exercise our rights, that we may clash with someone, and that someone may be a total wackjob - but you don't blame the person that was exercising their rights when a wackjob freaks out on them and breaks the rules, either of RL or SL.


I didn't want to bring this up in my earlier post, but I was reminded immediately of the "she asked for it" rape analogy. If I wear a short skirt, was I asking for it when I got raped? Of course not. I shouldn't be expected to live my life in fear that I may accidently turn on some unstable guy that rapes me because he thinks I was leading him on. I choose to take that risk and sue the guy into oblivion (and jail) if he does attack me, because its my right as a citizen of the U.S. to wear a short skirt if I want to, dammit. Prok should reasonably expect that his personal information won't be shared on the SL forums against the TOS, no matter what he said to make someone upset (as long as he himself is within the TOS), and should reasonably expect that LL suspends or bans the offender when they do violate the TOS.

Right. I think what we're seeing now is just a small hint at what will become a major issue. I'm not sure that anonymity is desirable or ultimately defendable in a marketplace.



I think the issue with Nolan and Prok is pretty cut and dried. He violated the TOS. End of story. What I don't think is cut and dried is how we should view the severity of it. If we consider the information vital to accountability in business to have some sacred right of secrecy what kind of precedent does it set for the future when the financial stakes might be much greater? So granted, Prok's situation has nothing to do with merchant accountability, but the issue it raises most definitely does. So how do we have a privacy policy that serves both needs? I'm not sure it's going to be possible, ultimately.



People have a right to privacy, not anonymity. They're not the same. We have legal rights that protect the privacy of sensitive information. I do not believe our name, gender, state of residence, or even our street address qualify as sensitive information and are not protected information.



That risk is not in any way unique to the internet.



With all due resepct - if you feel you need to keep common information you'd have to provide when ordering a pizza secret online out of fear of harm or injury, you have an irrational fear of the internet that I don't believe is justified by reality. Bad things happening to a tiny percentage of people online isn't inherently different than bad things happening to a tiny percentage of people offline. The medium doesn't in itself pose a greater risk than walking out the front door of your house... something we each do every day without expecting to keep our gender or name secret.