Age Verification - 6th Circuit says unconstitutional.

The idea is a good one but how can it be done? The systems simply aren't in place, they aren't available.

Well, this is the whole point. I would say that my age IS verified. It's not so much the concept of ANY age verification that people object to, it's the attempt to create a "strong" verification, which is intrusive, when a "weak" system (like credit card details) is all that is needed. It doesn't matter that credit card ownership is not perfect proof of age. The legal burden is on parents to keep their children safe, not on LL to take effective measures to absolutely prevent children from accessing SL.

Incidentally, when you posted:



I replied:



And you replied:



Make up your mind. Either LL "have to comply" or they "may decide to" - which is it?

simply put:
LL does not have the capacity to securely determine identity. = bad
LL chose (wisely) to outsource to a company that could. = good
Outsourcing it will require a financial cost, which LL intends to pass on to the residents = bad
IDV as implemented does no more to verify age of minors than the current system = bad
IDV via web CANNOT be implemented in a better way and still serve a global population = bad
IDV as proposed (and indeed possible) does no more to protect anyone legally or otherwise, than name billing info and address already does = bad
another avenue for security breach, theft of personal information, and identity theft = bad

a simple "over 18" checkbox combined with name and billing info provides legal protection for the company, because even though a minor may not enter into a contract, checking that box IS considered fraud and relieves the LL of responsibility for further criminal actions in nearly all countries law. if a country has differing laws they can (and do) limit access to domains with conflicting laws

essentially LL has proposed a non-solution which poses both an additional security risk to users, as well as an additional burden.

a BETTER (though highly unpopular) solution would be to restrict acces of unverified accounts to "mature" content areas. which would fall in line with every popular 'game' platform out there, simplify their coding tasks, and still cover their collective rear-ends

Burnman Bedlam: You basic reply to me was: You don't want to give you name? You must be doing something illegal. We already give our names. What you're excusing is demanding personally identifiable material so that they can see if we are lying or not.

Such opinions have been the justification for a lot of crap in our world of late. To claim anyone that questions your intrusiveness is a criminal, or, say, a terrorist, is basically fascist crap. It's a way of turning the spotlight from your own excesses and making the people who question them seem guilty.

So, no, I'm not a communist, Mr. McCarthy, but you don't really have to be one in order to dislike your hearings. The fact is there are many good reasons for people to wish to be anonymous on the Internet. SL has of late taken to bowing to nitpicky laws all over the world. Oh, the joy when they add China's propaganda laws to their VAT and Casino policies.

Mr Bedlam, I don't know if you've ever owned a business in RL, but I have. Your customers aren't your enemies, they are the people who feed you. The more you alienate them, the more you act as though that credit card transaction or purchase of a six pack is a Senate committee, the more apt they are to go elsewhere.

The same will be true here. When verification goes through, SL will be a virtual world with lots of problems, and lots of people ready to migrate elsewhere. Demand is followed by supply.

...Add to that that almost any kid with a brain can get the last four digits of their parents SS#... well, then you have not only a self destructive policy, but one that doesn't even accomplish what it sets out to do.

Since you replied to me directly, and apparently don't read *all* of my posts in this thread, I will state again that I have removed myself from this conversation. I am tired of repeating myself to people who refuse to actually read my entire posts.

I am simply going to take my opinion regarding the topic to the people who make the decisions, rather than attempt to discuss it with people who would rather argue.

Oh... and as for business... I do own a business in RL as well as SL (speparate ventures), and I understand my clients are not my enemies. I also understand that it is my responsibility to require ID for any products which are not suitable for children. That's MY responsibility as a business owner. What happens after the kid leaves my shop is up to his parents or the next place the kid shops.

But at least I did *MY* part.

Anyway... this thread has lost any value, as people are posting without reading what they are replying to first. I say we all move on and discuss something else. But, changes are, nobody will read this line, selectively choose something else from this post, and reply to that.

For the record, since so many people seem to miss the distinction.

There is a difference between refusing to agree and wanting to argue.

You are quite correct... but if you go back through the thread and read the responses I have received, many are rather argumentative, and selective in what is being replied to.

But thank you for arguing with me about it. You just proved my point. I think this thread is about due for a lock... this is going nowhere.

Since the forums are not a formal debate, many people choose to only reply with what they disagree with. There is no real requirement to concede those points to which you may agree formally.

Additionally reading comprehension is an imperfect thing. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to get every single point someone has addressed every time, especially when the post includes something they strongly disagree with.

Due to the way people read, some points will have the practical characteristic of "fine print".

-----------------------------

In this discussion the fact that you do not want the Aristotle IDV system as proposed but do want universal *Age* Verification done by LL has been missed by many people.

Myself I feel that its unrealistic to think LL will Universally Age Verify when they have already contracted a 3rd party to outsource the work.

I wasn't lumping you into the wanting the IDV system as proposed, but rather I see the only way LL is willing to Age Verify is through a third party. Which leads to the system as proposed.

True... though many use quotes out of context, or simply don't pay attention to what was actually said. That has happened plenty in this thread.

Again... this is going nowhere.