Privacy Mode (Make yourself invisible to scripts)

Exactly. You leave and don't go back for reasons that make perfect sense to you and shared by many. Other people though, like (or need) all that kind of attention and the shopkeepers have decided to cater for them. Its their shop so its their call. Its your call to leave and never shop there again. Its also your call to point out to the shopkeepers that those kinds of devices are really really really annoying.



Good call =)

Actually it's a bad call based on misinformation, this resolution would in no way break security devices, it would however negate mis configured security devices which is a good thing.

I think that my general feel for this is that there is an extraordinary solution, with far reaching implications to existing user experience and content, being offered to solve a problem that has not in any way been shown to be extraordinary. I think too much focus is placed on selling the solution, and too little on selling the problem. Until otherwise established, the "problem" will only ever be perceived by most as a "special interest", and not necessarily a "problem" at all.

z

No, actually, as written, it would break many security systems on group-owned land that use sensing objects that aren't deeded to group.

Sure, it's fixable by re-drafting the jira, or by trusting LL to not implement what the jira actually says but instead to do the right thing, or by picking up the pieces afterwards by forcing everybody to deed to the land group everything in which they've embedded intrusion detection scripts (which would be a Phenomenally Bad Idea).

Perhaps I should have been more clear. It was the correspondent's concern with privacy that I believe was a good call.

What concerns me about this proposal is that an avatar can choose to cloak themselves against scripts while retaining the right to use scripts against others. If this is indeed the proposal and if I am not misinformed, then the implications of this make me pause.

Snap, I've been thinking about that too. I mean, why not have it both ways?

Bring it up in the Jira. Hell, anything good you can add, add!

Both ways ??? Like you mean if I go into cloakmode then I can't use any scripts on anything or anyone else ???

Honestly I can't for the life of me think of any situation where I would find that useful. Others may though, I don't know. I'd probably find it simpler to just log out.

On the matter of privacy alone, I do see merit in enabling cloaking by parcel or part-parcel. I think many people who own, or use skyboxes, or who live in close proximity to others, would like a simple way to prevent people on neighbouring parcels from camming them and their guests at times.

Yeah, thats what i mean, like, why not?


Yes, parcel cloaking is an interesting idea, i think though that it might take more processing power than the current servers can provide, and there's no code already written to do it.

I'm sorta thinking that the god mode code can be used as a base for this extension.

..and as a landowner, I have just as much right to know you are there, and to operate my land and my venue accordingly. Seriously, anyone who says that I shouldn't have the ability to know you are present on my land for my own reasons undoubtedly has self-serving motivations behind trying to prevent such options. See how it looks when the shoe is on the other foot? Honestly, you have the solution to such a problem right there in your message:



There ya go. If you don't like what is being served to you at any specific venue, then leave. I would. There are many places to go in SL that may better suit your tastes. No need to create a whacked-out "privacy mode" which affects other peoples' SL experience negatively in such a gross way.

For total privacy, there is one sure fire method that works every time: LOG OUT. Unless you've given out your RL personal details or other RL contact info, NOBODY is going to be bothering you then.



The fact that it is only an imaginary problem which already has real solutions is the reason I can't support this. Well, that and the fact that it is a SERIOUSLY problematic solution that potentially abrogates the rights of others as well.

No thanks.

I didn't read through all the posts so someone may have mentioned it already, but I think this would only be good for the land owner while on their own land. In other words, if I'm in Privacy Mode, no one can see me while I'm on my own land. If I move onto public Linden land or anyone's privately owned land, then I'm visible.

I can see how someone would want to go into full privacy mode to avoid greifers, stalkers, etc..., but it would be abused way too much by the greifers.

--Hugsy

This proposal wouldn't change that though, instead of a script offering notecards/landmarks you'd have bots offering notecards/landmarks/group invitations.

Technical restrictions never influence behaviour, it'll just get worked around. Non-sollicited inventory offering of any kind (tp'ing to a store does not imply consent to get spammed; clicking a sign does not imply consent beyond that one single click unless explicitly noted, etc) should just be worded far more restrictive than it currently is so that tp'ing somewhere and being hit with notecard/landmarks/whatever is an AR'able offense.

There's really no reason why anyone *needs* an automatic giver/inviter. If someone can figure out how to get around in SL, they're intelligent enough to figure out "Click here for information" or to create a landmark on their own.

You can even sell it as "database relief" by reducing the number of inventory transactions as well as end the hypocrisy of store owners who complain about ending up muted when it's the fact that they're spamming their potential customers the moment they hit their store that's the direct cause.

I don't agree with that assertion, Kitty. It's their land; if they wish to give you stuff for coming onto their land, that's their right. You don't have to be there, and you certainly don't have to come back if it offends your sensibilities. We don't need to make such a thing a ToS violation any more than we need to have an over-arching "privacy" mechanism to combat it.

I agree that "every time you visit" spam objects are annoying, and the store/venue owner who chooses to use such things runs the risk of alienating customers. However, a one-time giver I don't have a problem with; it's just that those are difficult for most folks to do because they would have to use an outside back-end to keep track.

Even still, I would be against both technical AND policy restrictions over what someone can do on their own land for those who come onto said land. I mean, unless it is some serious kind of grief. Most often, it is simply a matter of leaving and never going back, which I think is the best solution to even that problem.

So basically, if it does not affect anything while a visitor is on the object owners land you're ok with it.

Just trying to see your argument here, because thats exactly what the proposal says. The proposal is basically going to defeat objects which are worn, like weapons, spammers with notecard givers, lm givers etc.

Do you have any objection to that?

I wish there would be an end to that too, however this proposal wont affect it.

In theory, I do have one objection to it: It can just as easily be used by griefers as those trying to evade grief. IE, let's say someone uses a radar. If he is trying to avoid a certain person whom he knows regularly griefs him, I think he would like to know if the griefer is around, so he can leave without a confrontation.

In practice, I have lots of objections to it. Mainly how do you distinguish between scripts that are worn versus simply rezzed in-world, or worn, but by the landowner, or over land owned by one of the groups he is in, etc?

Many weapons used by griefers don't use sensors, they use collisions and/or are aimed via mouselook. Unless you are petitioning to have your avatar to be immune to physics, or for a total invisibility cloak when in "privacy mode", I don't think it will help much here.

I think it goes back to what has been said before by others; is the problem REALLY worth such a complex solution, and all the collateral issues it brings? Is it REALLY that much of a problem to begin with? Someone's bracelet gives you something, discard it. It gives you something else, mute it. Problem solved.

I agree entirely with this. It's also telling that the "objective" of this insanity keeps shifting, first it was to prevent griefing (which as has already been pointed out, won't work and will be used by griefers themselves), then it was "hiding my online status from people isn't enough", now it's part of a whacked out "DO NOT CALL, OMG LM givers and such are annoying" screed that I actually do agree with. They are annoying but not nearly enough that I believe LSL should be changed just to prevent me from clicking Decline and then Mute. Then again, I don't have the stunning sense of entitlement that makes me believe that LL should cater to me so I never experience any annoyance at all in SL at the expense of everyone else's functionality.

If "someone" is seeking to avoid a griefer without a confrontation, wouldn't it make more sense to use this proposed feature? If the griefer is using it as well, the situation would become stalemate, which is a win from the abused persons POV.

What would make the feature really interesting is a whitelist. So you can exclude your friends from the effects, this could be an inclusion in the friendslist, and the grouplist.

Determining ownership of scripts is done at the server.

The world tried deleting spam to appease spammers with email, it does not scale. Giving free reign to abusers of the system only encourages them. Just hit delete is not a valid response.

The solution is not complex by programming standards, it may seem complex to the casual onlooker, that does not make it so.

What is complex is weeding out things that are not possible, FUD, and flames The rest is just typing, compiling, and testing.

Good point about collisions, that needs some thought. Any suggestions?

At the expense of everyone else's functionality? That's a sweeping statement, glad you brought it up. What exactly gives you or anyone the right to intrude on everyones privacy?

Poorly thought out server settings? The fact that you have been able to do so since day zero?

Oh good, you're finally dropping the smiley face act and showing the true personality you've been using to trash people on JIRA all along. Too bad your insinuation utterly fails as I've never violated anyone's privacy. Indeed, the fact that someone could use your ill-conceived "privacy mode" to evade my personal radar and get within chat range of me to listen to my, or anyone else's, discussions without notice is a perfect example of who truly is interested in violating privacy here.

Ever hear of instant messages? Totally private. Sorta makes chat range irrelevant. Sorta negates your point too.

Evading your radar is exactly the point of this proposal, if however you are on your land, your radar will work perfectly, so there's no issue. Fine example of the kind of FUD tossed around.

Please offer something constructive, or I'll just get some more popcorn

there is no such thing as privacy in sl. Beside, you know we have a restrict push function in the landowner menu.

If there is an override for this function in the landowner menu, peoples will override it by default.
In most cases you are always on someone else's land, so where will it ever work beside on your own little plot and , maybe linden owned land?

Typical example of a badly thought system, adding a new feature shouldn't require redefinition of every damn existing rules in the system.

No, actually, it wouldn't. If the griefer can still physically "see" the victim, he can ply his odious actions before the victim is even aware he was anywhere nearby, since the griefer will SURELY use this ability to cloak himself.

I have already been in a situation with a friend who was being griefed by a stalker. She did everything she could to get this person to stop following her around. The stalker never did much more than surreptitiously watch her from a distance and constantly creep her out. She bought a radar HUD so she would know when this person was nearby so she could be somewhere else. With this proposal, she wouldn't be able to do that, and no, having the ability herself wouldn't have helped one bit, because the stalker knew a lot about where she generally liked to go, and could try to sneak around looking for her visually at a distance with the camera.



Great! More complexity to lag the sim. Cost/benefit?



The "world" is not run by one organization who controls the clients and the servers, either, so that analogy is full of FAIL. Hitting Discard or MUTE *IS* a valid and useful response in this case.



I assure you, I am no casual onlooker. I've been through the guts of the client, and seen enough of the OpenSim code as well as written my own client/server software to know pretty much what LL has to go through to make things work. The solution you are proposing is significantly more complex than the land permissions system, which has been described as "a mess" by at least one Linden.

I have found that casual onlookers (read: users) have a propensity for describing highly complex (and even some nearly impossible) tasks as "simple" because they have no clue what it takes to really make something work without breaking 1000 other things in the process. This solution, as proposed, is NON-TRIVIAL. That's my professional opinion on the matter, though; take it or leave it.



The only FUD I have seen here is trying to legitimize a need for something which has a REALLY poor cost/benefit ratio. However, if you feel it is so trivial to do, I am sure the Lindens would consider the contribution of code to make it work. You can use OpenSim to model it, and then submit the baseline code for the changes to LL to see if they can make it work. I still wouldn't hold out much hope of it ever happening, myself, but hey, give it a shot! At the very least, you will have your own sim code for your own private world where your residents that feel the same as you will feel at home.



None that would be feasible outside of just leaving things be and letting it go. But that is only a suggestion.

I love when i see someone that isn't completely blind when it comes to the technical implications of this so called "feature" .

Of course I've heard of IMs. I use them every day. I just wanted to use an example befitting the type of nonsensical examples you've been using in favor of this system. All of which can be negated by:

1. Sitting down. "Oh no a griefer shot me...but I am sitting and whatever nefarious weapon he used has been rendered useless!"
2. Turning on busy mode. "Oh no, I'm trying to work but people are IMing me and getting an "I'm busy" response...just as was intended." Alternatively," oh no, everywhere I go I know there are LM and notecard givers but they are being autodeclined since I am in busy mode...just as was intended."
3. Declining. "Oh no I turned busy mode off for a minute and someone or something is trying to give me something! Whatever shall I do! Oh, I can just click decline."
4. Muting. "Oh no that same thing I just declined something from sent something else! What will I do now!? Oh, I can click mute to stop it."

But hey, keep it up for another 7 pages, you just might actually stumble across a valid point in favor of this, eventually.