Robin Linden Get Your Facts Straight !!!

*sigh* Yeah.. LL is way too worried about looking good to the more conservative press. Problem is that we're the ones paying for this, not LL.

What bothers me most is that we WARNED them when they opened the flood gates on 06/06/06 that stuff like this WOULD happen. We told them they'd need some form of verification, no matter how non-fool-proof it was. We held a protest for it, during the '06 B-day party and Phil's speech. We were pretty much told that it was happening and to just suck it up. So, we asked for the tools to handle the onslaught of griefers and kids that we knew would come. What did we get? Oh, right.. the big screw you, in the form of the payment verification system. Did I mention that this doesn't even WORK to weed out either the kids or the griefers and only hurts the businesses in SL?

Now, over a year later, with grossly inflated numbers on that idiotic front page, we're getting a verification system. Again, this feels rather half-assed, because LL still isn't listening. We want a verification system, just NOT this company! Frankly, I think the only reason they chose it was because the company will cover the costs of being sued if a minor DOES sneak past them. How is that going to stop them if it's not also a cross-board requirement? Most parents freak out if the kids see a HINT of a nipple, and we can cam anywhere in SL.

Somehow, LL has managed to make 1+1 = 9,000,000 and counting.

Mind you I wouldn't mind giving a company enough information to verify. Just NOT THIS COMPANY!

I hope not. Means less lollipops for everyone, even monkey faced girls!

What's scary is that the verification OK message came up quicker than a post reply on the forum.

Until someone can give a valid reason why LL cn't use the "I am over 18" checkbox like EVERY other Adult site I've ever seen, then this scheme is about more than verifying our age, in my opinion, and I want no part of it. They could even come up with an electronic affadavit, similiar to the one used when I electronically file my taxes that states by clicking, I am certifying I say who I am.

Door locks don't keep theives out either but we still keep using them.

The OP left out some important clarification of the Integrity spokesperson's statement. In fact, both are technically correct. The OP is only assuming that the data is stored "indefinately" on the Integrity side, as to my recollection, that word was never used by any Integrity representative. In an in-world discussion, here's what Daniel had to say on this specific subject:

[10:12] Daniel Linden: it’s vaulted to provided a government-required audit trail for two years, but neither Linden or Integrity can access that data unless an audit is initiated.

So if anyone thinks this data can be accessed casually by any old Joe Average Linden or Joe Average Integrity, (sorry Joe) contact me in-world for some shiny new tinfoil hats.

I have to agree with Raudf.

We begged them not to open the floodgates and offer totally unverified free accounts. We gave them examples and scenarios of why it was a horrible idea. But they did it anyway. Now to "protect the minors" (who shouldn't be here, who LL THEMSELVES let in) we have to give over far more personal information than any other website I have ever seen. And yes, I've been to websites that need this kind of protection

The fault is with LL. They created the problem. They had the tools to prevent the problem. It is not our fault that LL made a horrible, stupid, decision. It should not be us who has to pay for it.

Put the CC verification back on the account sign-up. Make them accept the EULA (which I believe we all have to do). Add a separate "I am over 18" form that they also have to accept if they are creating a MG account. Done. Now you can wash your hands of the matter, which is what this is all about anyway.

Minors on the main grid are not my (or our) problem. It is yours LL.

Well, the verification process is open to concierge users, so I tried it.

I left the box for passport number, SSN, etc. blank however and just gave name, address and DoB.

And it verified fine - I'm not surprised however, as in the UK passport numbers, driving license numbers, Social Security databases are the sort of things that even government departments can't access and use without an explicit license let alone commercial companies, so I doubted integrity/LL would have been able to verify that.

I'm regretting now, however, not trying to see how little information I could have verified with - for all I know a fake name and DoB and no address may have worked if I'd selected UK as the place of residence.

Matthew

ok laugh about it......

No, I don't believe that. It's what you call sarcasm. I fully support age verification as well as requiring all residents to pay.

Is that really that bad to use for verification?

Indeed and I play them, City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, probably Age of Conan when it's ready and the first two definitely don't require me to provide my passport number to play and if they did I wouldn't be playing them.

Age of Conan is going to be 18+, I wonder how they'll verify.

Oh and I've paid plenty to be here

It's a naughty nurse sucker hehe

This is a very interesting point. Let's say, for argument's sake, that you did put in incorrect information, and it did verify you, then you could only assume one thing - it is a data gathering exercise and not a verification process at all.

Also, if this result could be achieved just ONCE, then the whole verification system would HAVE to be withdrawn...

Just sayin....

As there is no written Guarantee regarding who will use my Information, or How, and we Apparently have Conflicting reports from LL and the third Party on what will be retained and why, I have No Confidence in this system, and will not be Using it either to verify my Own information, OR to Vet those persons wishing to use my property's Facilities.

They Talk about TRUST. Trust is Taking people AT THEIR WORD Until such time as they prove themselves Trustworthy. I've Gotten along perfectly well thank you very much over the Last Five years in Various on Line Communities using EXACTLY this standard, and No More.

This system isn't Trust. It's the Diametric Opposite of trust, But then it's the kind of Corporate doublespeak i've gotten used to.

Angel.

Indeed. What do you do when the very people calling for trust are not trustworthy themselves?

Guys cheating on their wives want to be able to trust that you are a verified woman.

I believe that Dan Linden miss-spoke here. There is NO GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENT to keep a 2 year audit trail.

I posted the following in another thread that discussed this issue

[ /327/aa/197656/1.html ]


"07-15-2007, 08:01 PM #20
LNDINI Lok
Registered User

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39

RE: [10:12] Daniel Linden: it’s vaulted to provided a government-required audit trail for two years, but neither Linden or Integrity can access that data unless an audit is initiated."


Ummm. It might be nice if LL or Aristattletale would tell us just where in the law this "government required audit trail" can be found.

A large part of my RL career has been serving as a front-line attorney for a US Federal Law Enforcement Agency. I know how to track-down regulations and rules like this purported requirement. Well, I can't find it anywhere (at least respecting US Citizens and Residents.) Even under the Privacy Act which establishes rules and procedures that apply to Federal Agencies that receive personal information about US residents, there is no such 2-year record retention requirement.

According to a January, 2007 Report by the US Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs, there is no current law that requires an ISP to store customer information such as their logs. There is no indication that such a retention requirement applies to data miners such as ArisIlltellanyoneaboutyou.

http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/nij_internet_technofile0407.pdf

In 2006, The Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and the Budget, sent a memorandum to department heads urging them to take action to safeguard personal information properly. The memo, which includes a security checklist created by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, recommended, among other things: verify that all sensitive data is purged within 90 days if no longer required.

http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/clay_omb_technofile1006.pdf

If our personal information is to be stored for 2 years I believe that we are entitled to a full explanation of this purported "Government Requirement."

This whole thing stinks IMHO. If LL needs a way to cover its legal-liability ass it should do so in the least intrusive way. As of now, I see no indication that LL is doing so.

FYI: According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, in 2006, there were in excess of 315 publicized breaches affecting nearly 20 million individuals. Based on ITRC’s categorization, the breaches break down as follows: 29% government/military agencies; 28% from educational institutions; 22% from general businesses; 13% from health care facilities / companies; and 8% from banking / credit / financial services entities.

Does that make you feel better about giving your Social Security information to a data miner who will make it available as a target for identity theives for 2 years so you can go to a skin store or dance club, or cyber with your partner?

http://www.idtheftcenter.org/artman2/publish/lib_survey/Press_Release_-_2007_Breach_List.shtml"

Hmm maybe this is why we won't be hearing from Daniel Linden anymore.

If we can only be that fortunate

That just verifies that the person filling in the form knows someone's name, date of birth and address.

I know these details for myself (obviously), my brothers, my parents, my boss, my staff, friends... I also know some Whos Who directories I can pick up in my local library to find this out about some random strangers too.

Matthew

we wont?


Pinch me, somebody!

We won't

Brenda pinch her.