Verification?

It does not compare the data LL have on us. Remember, they're not sharing information.

People have tested this, people have verified with false information. People have told LL this.

Ok, fair point.

Except no, because Integrity won't have our LL account details to match against, and LL won't have any of the information that we might supply to Integrity.
Integrity only get a matchcode from LL
LL only get an indication from Integrity that someone has provided data against that matchcode.

See other posts here and on blog re people verifying with false data.


Even *IF* LL shared our personal account information with a third party (Integrity), it would still be trivial to generate matching information.
Any minor wanting to access SL will have no problems with any level of information required to verify a parent. With a tiny bit of thought and/or coaching from friends/predators, they can use information for a John Doe.


This does not protect anyone.
I think what LL/Integrity have come up with is a theoretical defensive position. That position would have to be tested in court.
The verification process is no more effective than the existing protection of asking someone if they are 18+. Any half-baked lawyer would be able to demonstrate that.

The Verification system is a PR scam only.

As a UK citizen, I am officially asked not to provide my passport number to any authority that is non-government. (Yes, I know about job agencies wanting to see proof of entitlement to work in the UK, and there are alternative means for the cognoscenti). As a non-driver, driving license number is not an option.

Yet, it would appear I could in theory verify with my street address. I opt out of the publicly readable version of the electoral register, so it is unlikely anyone would find my name there, not to mention that I only very recently returned to the UK, so it is unlikely any public db would have my recent address.

As I have an unusual name, it is also very likely that they do not have my name written correctly in those databases they do have access to - I can easily spot the source of most paper-based junk mail by how my name is mispelt. If they have previously harvested my details using one of those sources, that will again make verification effectively impossibel for me.

Nonetheless, as a land owner, it seems I am required to do something that is both highly distasteful to me (provide private info to a known data reselling company) and quite likely impossible as my details are probably not on any public records.

Nonetheless, I have decided I will attempt to verify the day before I move house, which will instantly render that harvested data invalid.

from: http://integrity.aristotle.com/index.php_option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=46.html

"# Robust. US and UK coverage (152 nations total covering over 3.4 billion citizens). "


That'll better be way more than 3.4 billion citizens. We got like 9 billion worldwide xD. Ok most of them can't afford SL anyway.
152 out of >193 nations? hmmm. Is Japan in there?

From that page
"Insured.
Integrity insures transactions against fines imposed on the merchant for underage sales."

The whole verification thing is about
- protecting LL's financial ass if someone sues
- PR
Anyone who uses their brain will see immediately that this form of verification verifies nothing.

If a minor, verified as an adult by Integrity, buys adult content in SL and someones sues, the theory is that Integrity will pick up the tab for the legal costs.
From the above Integrity statement however, it seems that Integrity would only pay any fines imposed. There's nothing there about picking up legal costs. There's nothing there about paying the costs of awards in civil actions.

BUT!!
If a minor gets involved in SL adult content but does not buy anything, there is no sale transaction that Integrity insures.
Nothing has changed.

The minor is not protected.
LL is not protected.
We are not protected (from whatever it was that endangered us)




The real story is the last bullet point in that web page
"PR Friendly.
Merchants are able to show federal, state and local authorities, public interest groups and concerned parents that they are progressively preventing minors from accessing restricted products, advertising and marketing materials."

Like most PR, that's a blatant lie.
The minors in the Adult grid (did someone post a rumour of 20%?) lied to get on to the grid. They will find it extremely easy to lie in order to stay on the grid.

The whole thing is a farce.

You mean your Warda Kawabata in RL too?

My tax office always spells my name incorrectly, everyone important it seems, I can source most of the paper-based junk by the fact they spell my name correctly.

Yes it certainly does. Noone seems to be focused on this, perhaps because the Americans are asleep now and the rating system is not familiar to non-USA people.

The "R" rating is not something that covers explicit sex. That is the X rating. The R rating is much broader and covers things like full frontal nudity, kissing/making out while significant skin is exposed and the like. This is *very* broad indeed, and it's hard top imagine how the vast majority of parcels that have sexually active adults living on them would not flunk the R rating.

Actually, no. But I'm seriously thinking of changing my name to something simpler.

There are in fact a few databases that are physically incapable of handling my name at all. More than one bank has lost me as a customer over that one.

A lot of people are sleep-walking (sheep-walking?) into the Verification swamp.

We've had people posting here who were not aware that Integrity's process has no teeth - or even stiff gums.
The thing is running along on a woolly-thinking assumption that all that guff in LL-Speak about 'trust' and 'protection' has any basis in reality.


I have to admit that I wasn't focussed on the rating system. However, I'm not sure that it's really a killer point.
LL have always resisted defining Adult/Mature/Unacceptable. I'm sure they will cave in to the righteous on this when the ball gets really rolling. Do we really see AR staff making judgement calls (or even consistent calls), when LL have always stoutly resisted doing so.?


Verification is going to happen.
Restricted flagging of parcels with any non-Disney stuff on open display is going to happen.
Parcels with non-Disney stuff behind walls will be a war zone.
Non-Disney content behind walls in PG sims will be harassed/griefed to Hell and back.
More than enough people want SL to be "Your World, Our Rules"


The effect on me personally will be next to zero. The vast bulk of what I do in SL is Disney-friendly. I don't *really* have a problem in jumping one-time through a stupid brain-dead hoop just to 'get permission' to visit friends or to get occasional jollies.

Again, what makes my blood boil is being trapped in a second world controlled by the outcome of a blatantly dishonest and hypocritical PR scam.
Admittedly, the first world might be described in the same terms - however the nature of SL empowers the self-righteous to be infinitely more intrusive than they could ever dream to be in RL.
Will that power go to their heads? Yes!
Will hunting down 'filth' be like sex to them? Yes! Brilliant! You get to see all the naughty stuff, but you're not enjoying it. You're doing it for God and the children!
Will they have nothing better to do? No!
Will as many minors, now verified as adults, continue to play fornication, escort, stripper, prostitute, sex-slave, BDSM, ultra-violence with other minors and adults just as before? Yes!

]]
PR Friendly. Merchants are able to *pretend to* federal, state and local authorities, public interest groups and concerned parents that they are progressively preventing minors from accessing restricted products, advertising and marketing materials.
[[

This is definitely a concern. We all know that there are a number of prudish busybodies about (some of whom are now banned from these forums) who will be using this scheme effectively to grief alternative lifestyle residents. It's a shame, but I expect that is will be the reality.



Yes, it's the "well, we have this system ..." defence. It's a legal issue, really, and they've taken a pretty darned conservative view in terms of protecting themselves -- much more so than web pornographers, either because they have been leaned on by the authorities to do something or because, as they themselves say, they do not want to be classed with pornographers in terms of the schemes they use to exlude underage viewers. Nevetheless it's clear to anyone that the blog about trust was a collosal exercise in spin -- this is not about trust, it's about protecting LL's behind and passing the liability buck to SL's residents.

To me this is simply an admission that they know and tolerate kids being on the adult grid. Granted, identity verification will protect their virgin eyes from boobies, but it won't in any way protect them from sexual predators who are smart enough to cull the kids from the pack. They no doubt have some monetary reason for doing this and the whole age thing is just the normal distraction.

Those who are saying that this isn't a big deal need to think again. SL could weather the loss of gambling, because the average person in SL doesn't gamble. The average person in SL doesn't even have payment info registered, and they will most certainly not go through with verification. So, the average area in SL, i.e. places where people behave as they do, right now, on SL, will be closed off to the average user.

I don't think SL will weather this unless some means is made to subvert it. The only way it won't harm the world irrevocably is if it is completely and totally ineffectual. If the average user's personal life is policed in the land they buy, or 90% of their customers are barred from their businesses, they won't buy land. Given there is no SL without land sales, there will be no SL.

That is... unless this, along with the other insipid "grid" change, is meant to shift the end-user down to the status of visitor and make SL a big mall for "legitimate" commercial interests primarily. If that happens, then there will be nothing worth visiting SL for AT ALL, since the average big-commerce venture in SL is an utter waste of time for all parties concerned, and usually a tenth as imaginative and interesting as the average item the average person makes.

I think it is time to start setting ourselves on fire, as in the beginning. This is insipid, an insult to us, and frankly endangers the kids that they are inexplicably trying to make a "safe" place for. It won't be safe. There will still be shiny new avis approaching them naked with a huge penis wanting sex from them. Since LL isn't doing anything about that, I don't believe their reasons for doing this are what they claim.

The fine distinctions between 'R', 'X', and 'PG-13' ratings seem to come about by committee consensus, the result of multiple subjectivity, subject to change from case to case.

Does this mean Linden Labs is going to set up their own ratings board to judge resident conduct, or will they forward each instance to the MPAA for review?

It would more likely be the NSRB, but then that would be something concrete, and you can't cover your ass with concrete actions, and the NSRB isn't going to be able to police a moving target like SL, anyway.

That, at least I thought, was the point in branding the whole damn thing 18 and over. Now, evidently, it's disneyland, complete with the kids for scary guys to come trolling for. I'm sure it will be a lot more safe once the kids are lured in to specific areas, don't you think? Surely predators don't like their game corralled for them...

I dont think so. There's actually a "bright line rule" in most cases. Full frontal nudity = R. Any nudity that has sexual overtones = R. Explicit sex displaying genitalia = X. Etc. It's only a handlful of films that require any more scrutiny than the bright lines.

With regard to the whole PG, R, NC-17 issue...if you have the chance, see the documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated" (http://imdb.com/title/tt0493459/) to see just how broken the American film ratings system is. Good thing I already wasn't planning on verifying...

If we are having to verify our age the what is the use of including any age information or stated requirements in the TOS?

Read:
By accepting this agreement in connection with an Account outside the Teen Area, you represent that you are an adult 18 years of age or older.

By accepting this agreement in connection with an Account for use in the Teen Area, you represent that
(i) you are at least 13 years of age and less than 18 years of age;
(ii) you have read and accept this Agreement;
(iii) your parent or legal guardian has consented to you having an Account for use of the Teen Area and participating in the Service, and to providing your personal information for your Account; and
(iv) your parent or legal guardian has read and accepted this Agreement.

It has always been my understanding that if your in violation of the TOS your account can be terminated. So if a person complains that their child has accessed adult content and wants to cause a problem.........."What are they doing there in the first place" they are in violation of the Terms of Service there for they have engaged in a lie as well as falsifying given information therefore the account should be handled accordingly.

When I signed on to Second Life, I agreed to the terms of service and all applying rules and so forth. Has this changed that the TOS is worthless and we are not bound by the acceptance of such an agreement over the internet or other means of service?

If a complaint is made, (when a region is flagged as Mature) because someone was offended or otherwise and are of age as described in the TOS then that person should leave and not return. It is like cable TV if you cont like what you see there "Change the channel" as in SL if you don't like what your seeing or experiencing "Leave that Sim" its a choice no one is forced to view or experience these things. Its supposed to be our world created by us hosted by LL, but it seems that LL has lost a lil legal backbone in standing up for its own TOS in this issue.

Remember LL came up with the TOS,
"By accepting this agreement in connection with an Account outside the Teen Area, you represent that you are an adult 18 years of age or older. " Otherwise your in the wrong not Linden Labs.

Why dont you stand behind it, it is legally binding, or is it?

sorry rambling on now.......just my opinion


Have fun *hugs*

That may be true of governmental agencies but the local strip mall stores don't know my passport number.

The problem of course, is that every country tends to have their own definitions of these letter ratings...

Yes but LL is saying they are using the US one, the one they link to their blog.

Kay. So... basically the crux of the matter is that you can just lie, still be 18, still be doing the same thing you always have been? Kay.

Next question: What's in this for LL? There's no legal requirement for them to do this, and it's going to be costing them money, so... what do they gain?

If they're headed towards being labeled an ISP, doesn't that clear away legal responsibility for what its users do?

There's no risk of the government successfully passing a law requiring this sort of 'labeling' of adult content either... nine states so far have tried to do so, and nine states have had those laws very quickly shot down by the courts for being unconstitutional (free speech implies that you are free NOT to speak if you so choose, and therefore requiring you to speak about the content violates free speech), so it's not like the government will be kicking down LL's doors for its users not labeling adult content.

The Linden blog's just a bunch of bullcrap, btw. No one has a 'legal' obligation of any sort in this matter, and Linden Lies threatening you with the potential of 'legal' threats is just a bunch of posturing.

Also... where's the damn IN WORLD education about this matter? I see tons of ranting and raving on the forums, websites, etc, but I don't see anyone in the world educating people about how they shouldn't even bother with this system (it's not like LL's actually going to be ABLE to police this... huge world + tiny company == in your dreams!).

That's why they include th little gem:



Get the the residents to do the policing, thereby turning the witch hunting prudes in SL loose.

I'm sorry to say that my husband is a sim owner, has done the age verification thing with SL because they sent him an email asking him to, he gave them all his information.. they still could not verify him and he is 35 years old. Well....... this so called verification company that got his SS# gave his personal information out to other companies and we started received telephone calls at our home from telemarketers offering him credit cards, magazines etc. This all just started happening since he did this. WELL, last night was the last straw! He demanded from the person calling to tell him where they got his personal information from, and guess what? You got it! Good luck people, you will be dealing with telemarketers for the rest of your natural life if you give this out to them.

Whether or not they can police everyone isn't the issue. The problem is, as with the casinos, they are just inventing rules in order to manhandle the makeup of the world to their own ends. If they decide they want to make the world a little more whitebread, then make a new rule making it uncomfortable not to be whitebread.

It's really about redefining artificially the average SL user. Away with the people who want to remain anonymous, do nasty things with nasty people, and aren't interested in showing up with Coke or Nike has a new sim full of insipid crap and bad freebies. Bring in the era of a million mall rats who don't create anything and don't do anything worthwhile other than buy a few $L and decorate homes with crap items on property they'll just abandon in a week when they get bored.

The people who are dedicated to the venue are always the ones they seem to want to whittle off the whole in favor of people who will just abandon it next week. I'm not investing any more of my money and talent until that attitude changes. I'm not leaving, heck no, I'm just not going to feel obligated to "give back" to a world that doesn't appreciate my ideals and demands that I cover my shame.

If this is true, you should contact Robin.

But.. I sorta have a hard time believing your story.. Some monkey calling you on the phone to sell you a magazine subscription just has a list of names and numbers to call - they have no clue where the info came from.