Age Verify Beta broken in world?

Just wondering, since i cant seem to find anyone else talking about it, but is Age Verify broken in world? Since the latest RC client, i can see in everyones profile "Not Age Verified" including myself. I cannot go into land marked as age verified required. The problem is, myself, and everyone I've talked to about it have the same problem. I age verified the day that the beta started, and if I go back to my account and click age verify, it tells me I'm already verified. Is anyone else that is age verified on the website, stuck in world as being non age verified?

yes

There are bugs in Jira for it. I don't care, personally, if they never fix it so I don't know their numbers. Look for "verification".

hey, i just tested more. If i log in to SL in the region with the Age Verify parcel, i can get in it fine, and it doesn't tell me that I am unverified. If i cross to another region and come back, it then starts saying again that i need to verify.... really odd, guess thats why its still called Beta

There's a jira issue on this, and also a blog post.

According to the FAQ on age verification "Other Residents will not be able to view your age verification status -- for example, within your profile"

In RC0, there was some text saying "Not Age Verified" in the profile but on Windows and Mac you could only read "Not".

In RC1, the release notes proudly announce one of the fixes is "Age verification status hard to read in the profile field"

Which has prompted a lot of questions why they should be making something easier to read which shouldn't be there in the first place.

At present, although the client is all set up to read and display the age verfication status, the server isn't actually returning it.

Which leave hanging the question - will the verification status display in the profile, as the client developers seem to think is the case, or will it not display as per the FAQ.

Distrubingly there has been not answer from any Linden to this either on the blog or in jira - it is a bit worrying that if there is confusion within LL over a stated policy of not sharing your verification status, can we trust any of the other stated policies of what information will be shared with others, particularly when third parties are involved.

Matthew

heh wonder if anyone pointed this bug out to them yet? if not shhh lol

@ mathew
assuming they do finally go through with this (literal) nonsense, I can't see why they wouldn't add that tidbit to the profiles...and make it accessable to scripting... why? because land categories are all or nothing, you can limit on kind of access but not another, so if you want group only and no unverified you're screwed, either or... and if you can't see their status you can't hand verify for group membership... one of a million bugs in this mess they have the nerve to call a 'feature'

I agree that having this information accessible would be useful (especially given some of the other issues - which suggests that there has been a communication breakdown between those designing and developing the software and the policy makers over whether verification status displays in the profile), but

The FAQ, quite clearly makes a number of statements about the privacy policies involved with age verification such as:



If LL aren't actually going to abide by the latter statement in their FAQ, why should anyone believe they will abide by the former?

Matthew

I wonder though which group is wrong in this case - the developers or the FAQ authors. I remember back in the Summer, Robin Linden said in a blog that this verification stuff was going to 'build trust' between residents, as if we would have more trust in someone who verified. That implies residents would be able to know who had verified and who hasn't, and the easiest place to put that info is in the profile.

Even if it isn't in the profile though, it would be easy enough to find out if someone is verified or not even if the info wasn't in the profile, just invite them to join you on some restricted land.

-Atashi

*nods* Which would make it a case of, "Why didn't they just put the word 'Verified' in the profile, since it's still easy to find out?"

This was probably the most poor implemented 'feature' Linden Labs has managed to put out.. to date. Sadly, there really isn't any way of testing this 'feature' on the beta grid, because not enough people go on there to do anything. And it requires that we give info to them that is account related.. yeah, the beta grid simply isn't going to work.

If you can't get into Verified Only land, go 51m above it.. that's how high the ban lines go. I don't know why they bothered with this whole crap, if this is all it's going to do.

my house is 67m above sea level...

As it stands right now, the indicator in the profile for everyone reads "Not Age Verified", regardless of whether you are verified or not.

Age-locking an estate or a sim does function, within some very limited constraints.

If you require age verification on an entire private sim, and someone who is not age verified tries to TP there, they can't get in at all.

If you are in a non-restricted area adjacent to a sim or parcel that is age-verification-required, and you are not age verified, you can't access the area 50M or less above the terrain surface. You are free to do what you please above that 50M ban height, just like a general ban on anyone who is not on an explicit 'allow' list for a parcel. Which means you can't use age verification to protect a skybox, or even the upper floors of a tall building or a building with a deep basement!

Age verification can not be used in conjunction with an estate-level or parcel level access group, or with a "Buy Pass" feature. The area has to be open to public access.

Placing someone on any sort of explicit allow list, or having them as a member of the same group that owns a parcel, trumps age verification, and they can get in regardless of status.

There is at this time no direct way to use a script to determine if someone is age verified or not, so a security script can't act on that status.

The only indirect way is to set up an "age check parcel", and require the person to enter the parcel and touch a prim while in the parcel. It is then technically possible to determine that their position at the time they touched it 'proves' that they were able to enter the parcel at an altiude less than 50M above the terrain. I suppose you could do that as a prerequisite for receiving a manualy issued invitation to join a group, but it's worthless in most cases.

The JIRA has a lot of other details on what is still not working in the age verification beta.

Probably the largest point of contention, other than wheher the verification process itself is valid or the IDV provider trustworthy, is whether or not the verification status should be visible in profiles or actionable with scripts. To my way of thinking, I can't see any choice but to have the status be visible, and scripts able to act on it. Otherwise, there is no way to use that data to prevent access to restricted content that doesn't happen to be within 50M of the ground in an othrwise unrestricted parcel.

Please remember that all we are talking about being accessible is a yes/no flag on whether or not the person has verified their age as an adult. Since LL opened the floodgates last year to completely unverified registration, the only way now to ensure that all residents are adults is to force a new verification process on them.

"Since LL opened the floodgates last year to completely unverified registration, the only way now to ensure that all residents are adults is to force a new verification process on them."

Except that it ensures nothing of the sort, heh.