Resident-run age "verification"

This system does not differentiate between an avatar who visited a XXX club, or shopped in a store selling skins, or simply dropped in on a neighbor who uses the system. The list is never shared with anyone, there is no way for anyone to know whether or not you are on the list, as no one can see whether or not you are receiving and answering the pop up warnings unless you personally tell someone.

Are we logging the names of avatars involved in adult activity? Actually no. We are logging the names of people who have accessed land which may contain adult content. In Second Life that could be anything, depending on whether the owner of that land considers what they display to be adult.

I imagine there will be people who place this system on their land simply because some display pictures in their store show some nudity. There may be people who place this system on their land simply because they want to make it clear that they don't wish to allow minors to visit.

If you shop for skins, technically you are viewing adult content ... but are you engaging in adult activity? No, you're just shopping.

Opinions on this are going to differ and that's fine of course. But it is my personal opinion that it is about as private as you can possibly get and the worst thing being on this list says about you, is that you have spent time wandering around Second Life.

This system has been in testing on our own land for awhile now, and it has been my experience that when people arrive and are addressed by the system, they tend to not mention it, they press the buttons and move on. Out of the thousand or so who have passed through our land and answered the warning, I've only personally witnessed half a dozen bothering to ask about it or mention it.

That's true, but it's a fairly easy piece of social engineering. Quietly rez an AgeLock and if somebody says "hey, whoa, why am I suddenly getting this verification prompt?" you know they were not on the database; otherwise you know they were. I suppose that you could help prevent this by including a message within the dialog box warning users not to discuss them with others, but I don't know if people would pay attention to that, especially since someone could easily pre-empt it by saying something like "oh, my neighbour is a pain, they have installed this age verification thing that keeps peeping through onto my parcel..."

Another possibility could be, for example, an employer insisting on a potential employee _colluding_ with them to use the system to prove they haven't accessed adult areas. For example: "At some point during this interview an agelock will be silently rezzed. When it is, you are to tell it that you are under 18 (even though you aren't) and to allow it to tp you home. That will prove you are not involved in adult activity on SL. If you are involved, you will be unable to give that answer and we will detect it. You can't just TP yourself home because without seeing the blue box, you will be unable to know when to do so."

And as for "not discriminating between XXX clubs and skin traders" - I honestly don't think that many ordinary skin traders, or private individuals, would use something like this. Certainly, someone determined to be prudish could argue that visiting those places is just as bad. (The argument would be "If there is nothing adult there, why would they need to verify? If you are not going to walk around with your av naked, why would you care what the skin you're about to buy looks like nude?"



That's because it's in context - when you arrive on a new parcel of land, you quickly learn to expect things like that to happen, especially in themed areas. But someone could easily make it "out of context" by stealthily rezzing one on a PG parcel where people have already been standing for 20 minutes.

At this point with this particular version (remember we're still in development) that's true someone could, but I really don't see the point or see why it would be useful in any way to do something like that. But yes, part of the beta testing process is that we are seeking people's input and suggestions and as Jamie mentioned above, we are looking into setting the system up so that it will only work on land owned by the individual or group that owns the unit.

That should be a priority -- I would have assumed that it already was set to only work on land that was owned by the unit (otherwise it can't teleport people away). It's really easy to check that the land it's on, is owned by the same UUID as whomever owns the object.

It also needs to be configured (if it isn't already) so that it will only confront people who are on the same parcel as the unit -- it can't be challenging people who are visiting the parcel next door, even if that's only 5 or 10 meters away.

-Atashi

Right now the way it's scripted, it will only teleport people away if it is deeded to the group that owns the land or is owned by the individual avatar who owns the land. It's an easy thing to also script it so that it doesn't even work at all if it's not owned by the same avatar or group that owns the land. It was a good suggestion and one of the reasons for the beta testing is to be able to make these kinds of modifications.

Your second paragraph is also something we looked at carefully in the beginning because we wanted to be as unobtrusive as possible. I personally hate scanners that go far beyond the borders and into neighboring lands. So we scripted AgeLock to not do that. The maximum scanner range is 96 meters. But lets say you own a piece of land that is smaller than 96 meters. Our scanner is also scripted to read your property lines, so even if it is set at it's highest range, it will stop itself at those property lines and not scan beyond them. This way it can not scan on your neighbors land and will ONLY impact those individual who actually cross into your property.

If you refer to scripted menus they talk for you on channels.

Birthdates aren't personal information?
Aristotle and LL are also both accountable for what they do with the supplied information, you are not.

ID numbers turned out to be optional when it comes to Aristotle, leaving them blank doesn't stop people from getting verified.

https://secondlife.com/join/
"Please provide an accurate birthdate for your own protection. We ask your birthdate to verify your account if you ever forget your Second Life name or password."

You're not asking for anything that LL doesn't already have on file for every single one of us. You're starting a database with personal information (it doesn't matter that it's "just a birthdate", Aristotle doesn't ask for anything particularly revealing either if you're already payment verified) on residents that doesn't really serve any useful purpose other than to collect data and store it.

Birthdates are personal information yes, but are they useful information? There isn't anything anyone can do with it, unlike an address or phone number or real life name.



Exactly. So basically Aristotle can't really "verify" anyone's identity either. It's no more protection than what LL already has now.



You're right, were not asking for anything that LL hasn't already asked for, that's the point. What we're doing is providing the user with a very clear warning of content and asking they declare themselves legally permitted to view it, the same thing that is done on adult websites all over the internet.

What LL asks users for protects LL from liability. What Integrity asks for also protects LL from liability presumably. Neither of these (just as easy to bypass) systems protect content creators and land holders. We chose to develop this as a layer of protection for ourselves and thought perhaps others might wish to use it as well.

Ideally, we'd love it if LL said that the whole id verification thing was a mistake and they're shelving it completely. This would make AgeLock useless and put us out of business too. That would be great. I actually don't think the users need any more protections than are in place now but if LL has decided that we do need added protection then I think they should stick to what Philip has stated in the past ....



.... and allow us to choose for ourselves which systems to use and not force us to accept only one option.

Thankies for the clarification, Allana .

That doesn't matter. Even if I'm on someone's land, I don't mind them knowing that I am over 18, but I _do_ mind them being able to find out that I have been on other validated land areas.

Each unit talks directly to external database. No internal communication. There is no typing. So unless you can hack the SL servers and listen in on what it sends out in http traffic I can't see a way.


I have slept on this issue for a night and given it deep though. I just can't see a way to ensure that can't happen. It would be the same if guy doing interview asked potential employee to walk with them and just happen to cross into land that is set to "Adult".

We have tried to think around every possibility where the system could be abused. The chances of it happening are oh so so so remote. But I recognise that it could happen. A user is allowed to do what they want to a degree on their own land.

They don't even need the device. Just ask? "We have AgeLock operating here (in truth it is not there) and I notice that it didn't ask you to declare your age, why are you in the system?"

The last dilaog could have the text added "Please do not let people know that you filled in this so that it can't be used against you." That would freak people out.

As expressed by allana, AgeLock is not about walking into porn but declaring that you are over 18. Declaring that you accept that there might be adult materials in a location covered by AgeLock.

If anyone can think of a way of making it safer I am all ears. We want to make this as safe, sane as possible. As it is right now the user is as protected as I would want my self, friends and family protected.

One advantage of this AgeLock thing is that it could be used to more pro-actively report people you believe are not over 18 as they claim. LL can be very slow to move on an avatar, and there aren't many good ways to report them definitely, since chat-logs can be forged. I cant' image simulators retaining chat-logs for reporting purposes, far too much traffic.

Haravikk,

I'm sorry to disapoint you, but this system does not make any record of individuals who do not give their birthdates. There is no way for us or a land owner to know when someone has chosen to not be put in the database unless you're standing on your land watching to see who is leaving right away, and even that only indicates they've decided not to stay, it doesn't indicate they are under 18.

AgeLock isn't meant to "out" minors. If you believe someone on your land is underage, we advise you report that individual to Linden Lab and let the Lab take responsibility for any action or inaction.

Again, if someone teleports to your land, sees the pop up window, decides NOT to acknowledge their age, and just leaves .. the system will make no record of that person as that person has not given us permission (by answering the pop ups) to make a record of them.