Please, clear guidelines on our privacy limits in SL; illusion or real?

Of course this is in regards to the Taco Rubio museum.

There's been much debate about this, some repartee, and some insults for good measure. At the end of it all, we are not in any way clearer about whether there was a violation, or what precisely the violation was. Taco is rumored to have been suspended, and then reprieved, the museum is no longer showing the photos, and the Lindens are, unfortunatelyl, silent on the issue of discipline and limits of behavior in Second Life. Assuming that Taco's actions were inappropriate, we still don't know what specifically the transgression was.

Personally, in the vacuum of information that has existed with regards to privacy, I'd previously assumed the following:

Camera angles can be adjusted in any number of ways, and photos taken at any time. Because of these abilities, there exists the possibility for photos to be taken, of objects, of avatars, events, even if they depict something that wasn't intentionally meant to be viewed by others. Goings-on in public places may be depicted at any time, and shared, and will still be considered permissable even if unflattering or "defamatory", as long as the photos are factual. That is, as long as, without retouching, they depict accurately what was going on in SL in a particular place, at a particular moment. This limit applies to public places, while there might be some enforcement against photographs that are snapped against the wishes of avatars, if they were taken in a place where some enforcement of privacy had been enacted. (i.e., on private land, inside of a structure that the photographer did not have permission to enter.)

Because of these assumptions, I've acted accordingly, making sure that my avatar is appropriately attired, from all viewable angles, and not being too concerned on the few occasions where something potentially embarrassing has occurred, like leaving a ghosted image if myself behind and getting pics sent to me of the ghost (my av) being dildo-raped by some chucklehead.

The furor, and Taco's apparent talking-to over this issue has left us with only a marginally clearer idea of Right and Wrong in this issue. Hiro has posted a proposal in the General Forum, but I'm not assuming that any particular policy is going to be adopted on-request. Can Linden give us even a general idea of the limits or extent of privacy and "ownership of avatar images" in SL?

Since this will only be an issue of dispute resolution in cases where one person does something that another considers inappropriate, I'm going to put forth some questions, situations, and in each case assume that the "offender" took action without consent of the "offended". Assuming in each case that the "offended" complains or files an abuse report, I'm interested in whether this would be considered a violation of Standards or TOS.

-Photographing an av in a public setting, fully clothed, from an "eye-level" angle, if the subject objects.

-Using the camera to look at an avatar from angles that they might not have intended, when they are in a public area. Upskirt, close-ups of "personal" body areas (chest, groin).

-Photographing these same body areas, but not altering the photos in any way.

-Notifying the "subject" that they have been viewed or photographed from a suggestive angle.

-Sharing the photographs with others in-world (giving copies to others, like inventory)

-Posting said photos in-world, assuming that the venue is appropriately rated. ("Mature-themed" photos in a Mature area).

-Posting the photos on a 3rd-party website, one not operated by Linden Labs.

-Taking photos that, while not sexual, and visually accurate, are considered unflattering or defamatory by the subject.

-Photographing the creations/objects/land/homes of people, without their consent. Displaying such photos, also without their consent. Difference between displaying photos in-world on on a 3rd-party website?

-Is there a difference between photographs taken on private land, and public areas?

-Are users responsible for monitoring the appearance of their avs, and any images that result from their shape/position/actions?

-If upskirt av images are considered sexually explicit, are users responsible for having avs in PG areas that wear skirts, and thus, present an up-skirt image? Or are the contents beneath the clothing considered inaccessible by community standards, even though the User Interface makes them visually accessible?

If the Lindens are reading the threads, and suggestions, could you please indicate even "Yes, we know that this area is vague, we'll have updated standards by the next client update"..... I understand that we probably won't get an answer on this in a day's time, but it would be nice to hear something along the lines of "We know that this area has been vaguely defined until now, and we're working on giving you some clearer ideas of what your expectations to privacy are in SL."

It has nothing to do with privacy. It is implied sexual harassment. If you constantly sent out public chat saying "I can see Jane Doe's Vagina", It would be considered harassment of Jane Doe. The images are persistent, thus achieving the same purpose. If Jane Doe recognizes her pic, there is no difference between this and Jane Doe being verbally abused. Regardless of the "pixel genitalia" world view, it has implied overtones of harassment. If the genitalia are "just pixels" then the typed verbal abuse is "just pixels" as well.

Keep up this type of thinking, and now you have accepted harassment on all levels with in a world comprised of "just pixels".

Great contribution, Pandastrong.

Is it harrassment to say, "Jane Doe, Your vagina is showing. Please cover it up because this is a PG area, else I will report you." ?

Is it harrassment to report her?

Is it harrassment to tell her what she's done that is inappropriate?

Is it harrassment to take a photo, as proof, and pass it along to the lindens?

Was it harrassment to even look?

Is it harrassment, of me, by her, if after being notified of her inappropriately Mature behavior, she refuses to correct her dress?

I can accept that some actions might be considered harrassment, but I'm simply asking for a clearer perspective of what they were. Like I said, I'd previously been assuming that "Whatever is viewable is photographable, and in Public areas is fair game". Apparently this might not be so, but I'd rather not either abuse report someone in error in the future, or mistakenly "harrass" someone in the future with actions that I reasonably thought were permissible.

It might be harassment if you repeatedly tell her that her dress is inappropriate for a PG sim. I would think letting her know one or two times and then abuse reporting her if it didn't change within 5 or 10 min (time allowed for lag issues or afk).


*edited to say that I don't think it'd be sexual harassment unless of course you were saying something like 'yo momma, you gots some gorgeous lips, but you might find some sloot skirt to wear over them' (yes, my slang is bad).

I agree, it might be, but it might not be either. That's why I'm asking, and assuming with each question that my actions were objected-to, or non-consensual, or abuse-reported.

I posted my previous assumptions regarding images and snapshots, because, well, clearly I was incorrect about "what I can get slammed for and what isn't a big deal". If I abuse-report someone who's doing something inappropriate, either in public or with regards to "my" avatar, I would prefer that I not be doing so off of incorrect assumptions about what my "avatar rights" are; nor would I want to mistakenly subject others to actions of mine that I believe to be permissible, but in fact are not.

As strange as my interest in Taco's "project" might seem, it actually bears on something that I've been working on for some time, posing "AFK" avatars in funny ways, snapping photos, then deleting all the evidence and disappearing. The photos are non-sexual in nature, but clearly exploitative, performed obviously without the knowledge or consent of the avatars' owners. I was planning on eventually having an exhibit of these things, but part of the amusement, like with Taco's, has to do with the fact that the photos were uninvited, and perhaps unwanted. I'm trying to find out whether my own actions constitute abuse, and whether I can "legally" continue.

That is certainly a good question.
If it was done to me by friends, I would probably laugh it off and keep a copy for my amusement.
But if it was a stranger, or someone I hardly knew, then I would be more apt to be annoyed and possibly neg rate the person for behavior, depending on what exactly was done. Also it would depend on if the person just showed me the picture and IM'd me explaining - I'd be more apt to laugh it off - or if they showed it to everyone to my detriment.

It's a fine line between humor and humiliation.

In RL, there are shows like Candid Camera that also take images of unsuspecting people in potentialy embarising situations for entertainment. However (and correct me if I'm wrong), I believe that they are required to get permission from the person(s) being featured in order to air those videos without being liable for civil suits, etc. The process likely involves various release waivers and other documents being signed. Your sneeky AFK shots, which are fairly similar in nature to Candid Camera stuff, are probably fine as long as you also get the subject's permission before displaying them, even though you're seeking permission after the pictures were taken.

On the other hand, what Taco was doing dances the line of sexual harassment and vouyerism where the rules are different. If he upskirted people without asking permission *first*, in the real world he would be liable for concequences if caught.

That brings up another point: if someone is *not* caught, well...they might still be a sicko but if he keeps the photos to himself, no one is the wiser and it's harder to argue that anyone is hurt by it.

I'm not a lawyer all that is below is mere conjecture; be reading what is below you agree not to hold me labial for its use, miss use, or inaccurately stating of proposed facts. I have tried to represent the situation as clearly as possible.

I think a stop gap solution would be to add a land flag that would cause a warning to be popped up when a picture was being snapped; it wouldn't stop people from taking pictures but would warn them that the miss use of said pictures in that area could have consequences; this attribute would watermark the image and tag the photo as such. Since this would be an indication for the expectation of privacy it could be argued legally.

Consequently i do believe you are responsible for your av at all times.

The thing with hidden camera shows is that the wire tapping laws & surveillance laws are almost non existent here in the USA. This may sound strange but for a hidden camera show the video portion is covered by surveillance laws while the audio is covered by wire tapping laws (which is why many have no sound).

We have 3 issues that come into play with this topic:
Copyright, Liability & Privacy

It is generally accepted that if you walk down the street nude you should expect to have no privacy. Copyright in the case of SL is fuzzy; If there is any debate ultimately it is LL who decides. Liability is a never ending.

I believe intent is the deciding factor.

[rant]
Unlike real life where you good name can be damaged and you can't escape your image; SL you have a choice. You can change your looks, you can create a new account. You can escape your image.

Telling lies about someone as being bad, telling the truth about someone, even if they are damaging, is not bad.

I don't see a problem with a gallery of images of avatars in compromising situations as long as they are factually accurate, and the names are not connected to the pictures. In a world where plastic surgery costs nothing, be done at any time, as many times as you want; copyright is your only hold on your body.
[/rant]

In real life the laws are based around the assumption you can't escape your public image. SecondLife is based entirely around escaping your public image. The rules should reflect this and not the tendencies of real world laws.

i'm a simplistic fool that believes that there is no privacy in second life and live accordingly.