Discussion (shared accounts?)

/16/9b/82322/1.html

Just so happens i was looking for a post on this topic.... I am not disputing that as Jill says in her post that it is against TOS.. but this paragraph merely states we are liable for damages done with our account. NOT that we arent allowed to share them with anybody else?.. Am I the only one that is reading it that way? Or can somebody point out where it says that you are not allowed to share?

I do wonder if that means if you log in your account for someone, you can let them use it (though you are still liable for damages).

I actually had a little chat with Jill by phone in regards to sharing of accounts.

At this point at least, its pretty black & white.... if you share your password with someone other than yourself, its a TOS violation.

Now how its enforced is completely another matter. But apparently Linden views this as enough of a security risk that they don't want you to do it under any circumstance.

I did bring up what I thought was a justifyable case for sharing passwords (example: The Shelter "Bank Account" AV) - but, it is what it is.

It would be nice if Linden allowed us to designate "Shared" Avatars, however - for buisness purposes... maybe with some sort of disclaimer that absolves Linden of any responsibility for an account being compromised. In the current climate, its probably a little unlikely unfortunately.

I was gonna say, "call them up" but Travis already did the leg work for you.

I don't think it will benefit you to try to find interpretive leeway within the TOS. It is what it is, regardless if you find it to "read" differently than what LL intended. In the case of sharing passwords, it would seem apparent from all other LL comunication that said sharing is against the TOS. Trying to find a "letter of the law" interpretation to skirt what we all know LL intended will get you nothing but trouble.

If in doubt, they are available to answer your questions.

At the time your Account is opened, you must select a
password. *You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of
your password and are responsible for any harm resulting from your
disclosure, or authorizing the disclosure of your password *


Im not trying to start i flame war or anything here yal.. i honestly dont believe the paragraph above covers multiple ppl per account... it simply states that I would be responsible for damages that result in the misuse or that information. I still reads as an at your own risk..no to mention the indemnity clauses in the rest of the TOS.

PS thanks for yals point of view . Was just wondering if i was the only one thrown off by that wording especially with the short explanation in the post.

hehe - you're not being flamey, Oasis

I think you'd have a point if that section of the TOS ended there. Problem is, there's more to that section:



That last sentence makes it hard to interpret it any other way Believe me, I wish we could share accounts in certain cases as much as you do.

Hi all, good stuff to discuss.

The reason I posted this reminder is that it is easy to forget that your personal information is in your account. When you give someone your password you are essentially giving them access to all of your personal information in your "my account" page.

The main point is, protect your personal information. If your choose to not protect your personal information and another person misuses it, you chose to accept liability by sharing.

-Jill


edit for clarity

Thanks for the clarification, Jill .

I went to the TOS after i posted lastnight... must have missed that last line Travis pointed out ..unless its new rofl.

From Jills answer to this question, it seems that if I share my account, i am respondsible for what others do with it; as should be the case. My problem, is recently a couple in game friends lost their personal accounts, for accessing anothers account with permission. Now, they didn't greif with that account when they were on it, but that account was eventually banned for greif... leading to the loss of two unrelated accounts.
The official respondse is that there ips came up while trying to track down the true owner's info.

So while there is Statements from Jill saying you are respondsible for what happens when others use your account, it should also be stated that once you access another account, you are now respondsible for what the owner does with it.

i.e. Person A allows Person B to transfer objects while on vacation; person A gets
banned for later offenses, person B is also banned from touching person A's account.

Yes, they have tried to contact Linden with this, with results ranging from "your not welcome here", to we will look it over and get back to you. I hope they will speak up, but chances are that without their seperate accounts active they can't get here either.

my main concern here, is groups sometimes require a shared account, it's just the way it is. But Trickle down bannings are extremly upsetting to this setup. I'm more interested whether there is a way to fix their problem then to discuss whether we agree or disagree with it. I see it from both sides of the fence, but I'd like to help them if possible.

thanks, enough outta me

When does a group require a shared account?

Generally I consider some private estate issues, businesses, maybe even a household can benefit from a shared account. Whether it be that some objects that are used by the group are no trans so they can't be deeded, or because one person that is collecting rental fees aren't availble to pay out business costs 24/7. It's a first/second shift thing to me.

Again, I know there are probably better ways to do then sharing an account, but sometimes a job takes more than one person, and permissions only allow one avatar. The new estate tools coming out Wednesday is a good step in the right direction to reduce the need to share account info. I expect that when/if groups have a way to pay and recieve money, the need for a shared avatar will be reduced more. If a group could also have an inventory, the need for a shared account would be probably nil.

One of the Lindens in another thread made it VERY clear that allowing someone else to use your account is a violation of the TOS.

Just as allowing your underage teenager access to your password (auto-logon) to cruise the main grid is a violation of the TOS -- there's a TEEN GRID for a reason. I don't _care_ if you trust your kid in SL... the California state laws, where LL is located, get very nasty with people who allow "children" access to adult-themed materials, and there's alot of adult-themed stuff in SL.

One night back in Oct/Nov, I was at one of the popular dance clubs, and asked this guy to dance -- there was this girl standing behind him, but she was pretty much "zoned" -- not AWAY, but not moving or talking, I figured that she was IM'ing with someone, as she didn't appear to be with the guy I asked to dance. At one point, I asked her if she was okay, and had a very strange conversation -- the person who owned the account was a woman who was, in RL, in a relationship with the guy whose av I was dancing with, but she was drunk and passed out, so her teenage son had taken over her av to make sure Mom's RL boyfriend's av wasn't cheating on her in SL. First the kid went hysterical because my av was dancing with Mommy's bf's av, and then Mommy woke up and went into a raving, drunken rage. Interesting night. I don't think I've seen the guy online since then... and he was a pretty good DJ, so that's a shame.

Since Basic accounts are free, I see no reason why anyone should not just get their own account rather than use someone else's, but I gather there's a limit set by LL on the # of SL accounts per household, which includes "alts". If this has put a crimp in a roommate getting an account, maybe someone can transfer over one of the "alt" accounts to the person _without_ an account -- just change all the "billing info" and it's theirs, not yours, and no-one gets TOS'd by LL (which could happen, if someone who expects to be dealing with someone they think they know, behind a particular av, and suddenly discover themselves talking to a completely differnt person).

The only other semi-intelligent reason I can think of for allowing someone to use your account/avatar inworld would be if you seriously messed up your house or something and thought you'd let someone else use your av to fix it, so you wouldn't have to give them mod rights in your FRIENDS list. However, revoking mod rights is much easier than trying to fix all the probs that can be caused by someone else using your avatar in-world, for whatever reasons.

This is the big clue right here.

This sounds like just a bunch of greifer boys all sharing the same Dorm/House/IP's, and likely causing a lot of problems for all concerned. If it's true that the (normally polite) Lindens actually said you "weren't welcome" over the phone, I can only imagine the kind of juvenile stuff you must have been up to.

sharing your account == breaking your contract.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

Actually Dianne, the owner of the banned account eventually did juvenile stuff, and as such, I'm glad he's gone. The other accounts that did belong to totally different people that were unrelated, were eventually cleared up, and accounts were reactivated. Also, I am an outside party to any of it, so the juvenile stuff I was up to is nil. My initial thought was they deserved what they got; live and learn. After reading the TOS a couple times, and reading Jill's posts, seemed to me that something was amiss.

The deal with TOS, is directed at a person for sharing an account, fair enough. Shared account closed seems quite fair. Closing accounts with different owner, different credit card, different address, and that weren't shared seems a bit overkill. From my point of view, that's what I don't understand.

In the end, I bet they don't log on another account again, lol