"reasonable expectation of privacy"

QFT, before you decide to try to re-write history.

These words, that you have freely posted here, may not be absolutely definitive proof that you are the guilty party. But through these words, your actions, your responses, and your threats to other members here*, you have poisoned your own well, so to speak, and damaged any credibility you might have had here at one time.

*

i do see what is wrong with this.
what is wrong is that people expect privacy in a virtual world where privacy cannot be afforded.
thats where people expect RL ethics and laws to apply.
since when do you expect privacy in an AOL chatroom ?
it seems people have once before debated the issue about agents "camming" in on other agents while changing outfits or in the nude, they took a total fit about that happening, but what has been done about it ?
is that affordable privacy ?
what about the many other things going on in SL that dont afford you privacy ?
"chat spies", avatar stalkers, agents camming, etc.
its got me thinking that a majority of the people here must literally slice their minds in half.
one half for RL and the other half for SL.
if i was "trolling", i wouldnt be wasting my time responding to nearly every post.
i dont need "attention", i have enough friends in RL & SL that provide that for me.
thanks.

i havent had or expected any credibility in these forums.
after lurking here for quite awhile and posting only once when i first joined and getting flamed for it, i stopped expecting anything normal from here.
for the same reasons that newbies join SL and get flamed, then later turn out to be griefers, i now understand the reason why this happens, its because of the poor attitude and general "i rule this environment" stance that "big shots" like to give, the feeling of being "bossy" and "huge", the tenure of time is the excuse for these insubordinate actions of fellow SL members.
its far and few between are the good people who actually give a damn, but are stomped out like a small fire by the trolls and troublemakers, not just in the forums, but in SL as well.
if this forum were moderated well, i can gurantee you alot of the "troll" posts would be removed, but, just like its members, its apparent the moderators have been "moved up the ladder" from member to moderator, to, moderate absolutely nothing except what their counterparts and colleagues complain about.
its every man for himself in this forum as i see it, and it doesnt look like it will change anytime soon.
if you percieve what i wrote as a "threat" to your colleague, then you might need to observe the posters comment towards me before you come to that conclusion.

Please do your research first before you accuse me of being an Alt, I am not an Alt.
Must bother you huh

remember this, after all the name calling and flaming many of you have done to me, its not going to make me go away, but i wont forget it either.
the candle burn at both ends

You made my point about arguing like a teenager. And thanks for your business I guess since you won't be shopping at my store any more. On Loki that is lol. As far as SLX goes its only effected one of my business accounts. Overall business is still quite good.. All bills are still paid in RL. Thanks for your concern tho.

Continue the banter by all means your quite entertaining.

BTW you shop at my other alts stores too. ROFL.

Sounds to me like your now threatening people.

participating in this thread shows your exemplary position to troll, doesnt it ?
especially when you stated you werent going to "view/read" this thread or my replies after your first post.
i guess you cant resist can you, neither can anyone else resist fighting like little "karate kids"

i dont care about your "alts" stores.
its obvious something was wrong enough with you for you to get banned from SLX.
i guess alot can be told about you by the way you act, chat and present yourself to others as you have demonstrated a primary example here.
ive come to the conclusions i really dont want any part of this "chicken soup" of idiots that have nothing better to do but troll, make bad comments and generally step on others as a way to feel "power".
really, get a grip, a firm grip and then perhaps check out of the garbage pail before you post another "nice" comment without observing whats fact and whats fiction.
its really not necessary for you and others to post comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand

I would appreciate it... as I assume most other readers.. if you could please keep your own thread on topic as you were so passionate enough to start it from the beginning. Don't let little ole me distract you from your banter. I was having a hard time determining whether you were attacking the people posting or if you were defending your own arguments.

So where is your stand now on remotely monitoring conversations with your hack.

Well I would have to agree with comments that have absolutely nothing to do with your topic.. LMAO.... *coughs* LOL Kinda like your comment about my SLX account.. which has what to do with this topic.. LMAO.

So am I to interpret this all correctly that a Linden said it was ok to remotely monitor peoples conversations.

Just so you understand elite, I am not fighting with you

you started a thread, asking for opinions on a specific subject, and when those opinions did not go the same way as your own opinions, you suddenly get all uptight, back tracking, trying to make it appear as though you are not the party doing what the OP stated (remotely monitoring SL chat)

which by the way, IS against the community standards, which you agree to, when you log into SL (community standards are part of the TOS)

It is against the TOS/community standards to remotely monitor chat, be it public or private. It does not specify text chat, it states chat, which includes the voice chat as well.

The first linden had it right, the second, probably a friend of yours, let you off, when they should not have.

as for all the other remote listening devices out there, people need to AR them, so that the persons that handle this are aware of where they are.

(I doubt they can stop people from selling them, but they can be removed when found being used)

so spin it however you wish, THIS from the community standards speaks volumes for me...


remotely monitoring conversations.... (what does that mean to you?)

do they have to say something to the effect of ...

Remotely monitoring conversations that take place in SL, whether these conversations take place using presently known and unknown means of communicating, posting conversation logs, rebroadcasting live chat, recorded chat, or sharing conversation logs without consent are all prohibited in Second Life and on the Second Life Forums.

Rhaorth,I think you'll find that the CS refers to recording private chats not remote listening to them and as stated above by myself and I believe others using the general choice channel is not a private chat, using a person to person or limited conference on the other hand would be. You could argue that 4.2 of the TOS would be violated by this but I think that's a stretch.


Edit: It does say remote monitoring so my mistake, I still think it doesn't apply though as long as you aren't recording it since it's a public chat and your recording it at the source rather than redistributing it between an object and yourself to get it remotely. None of us are really in a place to say definitely though, it's really up to the Lindens to interpret and enforce or not as they see fit.

The CS refers to exactly what Rhaorth quoted from the community standards page about remotely monitoring conversations.

If people would like to manipulate what that means to fit into particular situations then I would suggest that you know its wrong as well.

Remotely monitoring a conversation is pretty straight foreward wording. If your monitoring a conversation from a remote location it looks like its a violation of the CS.

At the beginning of the TOS you'll see that it refers to members agreeing to the community standards as well which it then gives the appropriate link to the page. You can read on the community standards page which goes along with the TOS about remote monitoring of conversations.

it does apply, I asked a linden for their take on it, before I posted (the remote monitoring I mean, applies to public chat) I was told by the linden that it includes voice as well, then again, just as the OP experienced, another linden could tell me it doesn't

they need to clarify and get on the same track.

and they will be checking out this thread, and I guess deciding what to do (I hope they update the CS to reflect it more in depth. I also suggested they contact vivox about the flaw they have there as well. (if a public chat can be monitored who is to say a private one can't?) that is a nasty flaw they have

from the TOS, it appears it does not specify "voice" chat since what follows after "remotely monitoring conversations" is, "posting conversation logs", and "sharing conversations logs", that statement implies that specific part of the TOS regarding "chat", is relating to "text" chat and not "voice" chat.
it would be difficult to enforce a TOS regarding voice chat simply because its nearly impossible in a crowded area to tell which agent is listening and who is streaming the voice chat.
with an object "remotely monitoring chat", its easy to tell since the creator/owner of the object easily identifies it.
posting/sharing conversations logs would obviously include the names of those who conversed otherwise the conversation log would mean nothing.
conversation log >>> "yeah he robbed the bank" - "who?"
simply put:
the agent listens to general public voice chat (which agent out of 50 or more?)
the captured voice chat stream originates from a private server outside of SL's territory (not SL's problem)
the voice service is out sourced to vivox
this, in reality, is a problem with vivox, not SL.
its obvious, the "enable/disable" voice chat is there for a reason.
there is no "enable/disable" text chat, is there.

and using my direct connection feature of my nextel phone also warrants a cop to write me a ticket for not using a hands-free device - LOL
is using the direct connect of my nextel phone any different than if i had a HAM/CB radio ?
i still gotta hold it and speak into it.
oh yeah, i won that argument in court and won lost wages over it as well.

I doubt there's any conscious distinction between voice and text chat, I could be wrong but I don't think the TOS and the CS were changed because of voice chat coming into play in which case it's probably just out of date and needs to be clarified. Even if they do clarify it to explicitly talk about Vivox knowing the Lindens they'll probably still leave it vague and confusing since that's their style and it allows them to interpret it freely at their whim.

On the topic of why not private chat. I'd hope that it would be harder to get the necessary info to snoop in but without someone testing it who can be sure.

Another possibility that I'm not sure we've taken into account is that maybe this is intentional either to currently or in the future allow people to craft their own applications to do what Slim does now. In that case people would need access to the stream ip and port. The only difference is that for the time being only Slim has the access to the framework to report itself.

I hope they check it out too however I'm hoping that they realize how pointless it is to try to regulate how people deal with public chats. Logically, per my guy around the corner example, you shouldn't expect privacy if you decide to talk in public so for them to try to regulate the illogical (and impossible) is just a waste of resources, resources that could be better spent in my opinion. They should modify the posting chat logs provision to include posting voice recording but scrap the parts about remote monitoring. Incidentally I believe recording of text chat is accepted as long as you don't post it and only use it for personal use, otherwise they wouldn't even have a log chat option in the viewer.

not exactly.
wireshark can give you the details and google can be your best friend.
you cant intercept private communications on vivox.
its not possible.

Nothing is impossible but it's nice to know that it's at least improbable and very difficult to do.

then the same thing should apply to the use of voice chat.
how can anyone possibly tell that an agent is or isnt recording voice chat ?
other than being played back, there is no way to tell.
if i owned and operated a public tv station, how can i tell if and when you are going to record my program ?

lets put it this way.
its not possible because a direct/conference voice session cannot be joined once started.
the only way is to join/initiate a group call or spatial public voice.
and its not possible to join the group/conference call without the agents name showing in the list, even if the agent logs 2 sessions with the same name, it will just show up twice

Well you could intercept the packets, decode any encryption that Vivox puts on it (if any) and then reconstruct the conversation literally bit by bit but unless you're the NSA that's not going to happen, thus why I said very difficult and highly improbable.

That's to get the information going back and forth during a conversation, because of the protocols involved I'm sure it probably is impossible (or pretty damn close to it) to actually join in yourself to talk.

Well, Vivox API may not support it, I don't know. But the signaling protocol is SIP, and certainly it's possible to escalate a SIP call to a conference call. It would be an astonishing oversight if Vivox's server didn't handle that when it receives the 3rd invite.
.