Restricting adult content etc.

Huh?

How is it an assumption?

Linden Labs have said that Credit Cards are not an acceptable form of verification, haven't they?
So how is "If you thing that credit card verification is acceptable TO LINDEN LABS, you are wrong." an assumption?

I'm not saying that I agree with it, I'm just stating what's what.

I'm not supporting Linden Labs choice, but I realize that they've made a decision and no amount of arguing about whether passports are ok or not is going to change that.

Matthew's post of "But what people are arguing is that the same reasons that credit cards are not acceptable to Linden Lab, make pasports unacceptable!" is a demand on a company to change their policy... but it's directed at me!

Why do this here? If you disagree with the policy, make up a petition and get people that agree with you to sign it. Or boycott the company if you feel that strongly about it.
You can't just demand that they change policy as an argument against another user... that's ridiculous!

The OP posted this: "On the basis that only Premium Acct holders can purchase land and that their credit card info is reasonable age verification..."

That is an incorrect statement. To Linden Labs, credit card info is NOT reasonable age verification.

That's all I was saying.

Well, if that's all it needs for the UK . . that's a lot simpler than I had imagined (what with everyone talking about driving liences, social security numbers, and what not) and something I can't imagine anyone in the UK having a problem with.

Dave.

Where are they demanding it?
This is another bit of misinformation being thrown onto the fire. They're not demanding you give up ANY information at all.

THANK you, Dave. This is all I'm saying.

Good lord... the hype about this is insane!

This is the other concern over the system.

At least in beta, the verfication asks for the same information (name, address, postcode, country, date of birth and either a passport, driving license or social security number). However, it is clear that not all that information is actually needed for the verification to succeed.

In many countries (e.g. the UK), that means people are enticed to reveal more information than is being used to verify. Not only is that suspicious, and morally dubious it is also in some places illegal.

In some countries - like Morwen - people are being enticed to enter details which they are legally prohibited to reveal - i.e. being enticed to break their own laws!

Matthew

And add to that
"If you think that a completely unverifying verification system, infinitely less credible than a credit card verification is acceptable TO LINDEN LABS, you are right."

It was directed at you since you asked what had the passport disclaimer argument had to do with anything. Basically the passport disclaimer example is to demonstrate the poor logic of LL in rejecting one in favour of the other.

However, if all you are saying is

"If you thing that credit card verification is acceptable TO LINDEN LABS, you are wrong."

plus Sling's wonderful:

"If you think that a completely unverifying verification system, infinitely less credible than a credit card verification is acceptable TO LINDEN LABS, you are right"

than I agree!

Matthew

No they've said that Visa don't accept responsibility for a credit card being used to verify age. They haven't said that credit cards aren't an acceptable form of verification, they want someone else to take the responsibility and Visa won't do it. That's not to say that other forms of verification that involve a credit card aren't acceptable to Linden Lab.

The bottom line is they've gone for a solution that is inferior than the solution they already had in place in terms of verifying age. Replacing an imperfect solution with a weaker solution shouldn't be acceptable to any company.

If they really were concerned about minors accessing adult content and if they really were bothered about resident to resident trust, they wouldn't be going with this solution and that's where I don't like this process.

Mickey it's the way LL are selling it that's causing the hype. They've sold this on trust. They've sold this on protecting minors.

If the beta is anything to go by, kids will be able to get verified left, right and centre and crooks will easily be able to use false details. How is that beneficial to the users?

If I want to access "restricted" area.... where my very innocent gallery may be part off to the latest information, because there is some nudity to see.... they demand verification and as far known to me atm moment that means my passport information, which I may not give away just like that...

(And yes, I heard that age verification might be crapy that it will only ask for name, address and telephone... which makes it completely nothing meaning).

Morwen,

Where's Strife?

Getting Verified?

"No they've said that Visa don't accept responsibility for a credit card being used to verify age. They haven't said that credit cards aren't an acceptable form of verification..."

Um.. I think that by NOT having credit cards be a viable form of verification, they ARE, in fact saying that credit cards aren't acceptable. How else can you read it?

"If they really were concerned about minors accessing adult content and if they really were bothered about resident to resident trust, they wouldn't be going with this solution and that's where I don't like this process."

Then what process would you suggest? Allow credit cards as long as they're not Visa?

"How is that beneficial to the users?"

At the very least, it protects LL from lawsuits, to a point, thus allowing them to continue doing business, thus allowing us to access the grid. That's one point, no?

"If I want to access "restricted" area.... where my very innocent gallery may be part off to the latest information, because there is some nudity to see.... they demand verification..."

But.. but... that's YOUR choice, not theirs. You still have access to the grid, other than certain protected areas which you CHOOSE to go into or not. There's a stipulation that you have to verify in order to do this VOLUNTARY thing, but it's not... agh... all this entitlement... it makes me nuts.

Morwen, have you tried verifying? Are you 100% certain that you have to use your passport?

I can't believe I got into this again.

I give up.

I don't understand why we can't just agree that any argument saying that credit card information IS enough to verify with LL (a definitive statement that it is enough, not a question as to whether it should be or not) is incorrect...

I read it as credit cards alone are not enough. Which is a fair point although credit cards alone are a better form of verification than the system being implemented. If Integrity were asking for a credit card transaction and my name, address and date of birth that would be a better solution than credit card on file with LL and a much better solution than the system Integrity are offering now. At least with a credit card transaction there's an audit trail, I'll see it on my bill.




That is a point yes, but how is that beneficial to residents? It's beneficial to LL but a world where it looks like minors will be able to get verified is not beneficial to residents. If that's the reason for verification, then LL should be honest enough to say this, explain the pros to us but they've gone for a trust issue, tried to derail us with statements from Visa and completely ignored the flaws that have been pointed out in beta.




Because as Integrity are an ID verification company they should be able to check if the name and address of the person using the credit card belong to someone over 18. Of course people would complain about giving their credit card details to Integrity but that's a different story

They should, indeed.... but then again, I SHOULD have Padma Lakshmi cooking me breakfast every morning and Brad Pitt rubbing my feet every evening... but I don't.

The fact remains that any argument with that definitive statement is wrong.

Whether it should be or shouldn't be is moot.