Are some people really so stupid as to expect privacy in SL?

Isn't that suggestion sort of backwards, though? Wouldn't most people wanting privacy want it at normal ground level much more similar to RL?

Damn, I missed that. Would it not be possible to provide similar options on the ground level? Make avatars in private areas invisible, limit chat in that area?

As it stands it's just a refined version of the skybox thing, which I really do not like at all.

i agree with u Del . it has me pulling my hair out also. as for rock and roll here on the comment after u . i dont have this happen so often i think i need ban lines. and im not so unsociable that every now and then if someone tps to my place i go histerical, they are welcome. i think is what i have discovered is most are in second life cause they dont have a first life and the reason they dont have a first life for most," NOT ALL MIND U ". is they are anti social to begin with. I have did a study and found a majority are unsociable and rude . and im like why is this.. my conclusion is that 75% of the population in second life are anti socal in real life. not all are that way so i would just move if i were u . good luck

You have the positions backwards. Yssario put forth multiple entries from a dictionary, in an attempt to justify the multiple meanings. It was Brenda who was was arguing as if her definition were the only one that mattered. Though I think there's plenty of obtuseness to go around.

Yeah, I'm not voting for that one. That's a lot more privacy than I want or need.. ever, in SL. Now, if it had a "just passing through," flag, then I might go for it.

I'd love the compromise of being able to allow people IN, but not have them staying

I guess you're being consistent by drawing subtle distinctions between words, relying on neologisms and provincialisms when necessary. But it feels wrong to me to claim justification in evolving language while at the same time disapproving of a new application of existing words. For example, 'noob' started out as a leet spelling variant, with any distinction from 'newbie' evolving and still not widely accepted. If it's ok to allow it to develop the connotation you suggest, then it's also ok to allow 'stalker' to evolve to apply within virtual worlds.

The difference between 'griefer' and 'stalker' is that griefers pursue mayhem for its own sake, perhaps aimed at classes of people but not individuals, while stalkers take aim at specific people/avatars known to them.

IDGI, it only effects things in the skybox. Shouldn't stop people passing through.

It's something that can be implemented with minimal effort, and would actually work. It's intended to have as little impact on the servers and Linden Labs and existing builds and the client as possible.

EVERY proposal that allows privacy at the ground level was knocked back by Lindens, back when they were actually talking to us on the forums. This is the "OK, Lindens, if you're not going to do accept anything that breaks the illusion of a seamless world, how about this?" fallback position.

So the person who chooses to teleport into a private property where he doesn't belong is not rude, but I am because I expect people to pay attention and know that my private home is not a public place where they're welcome to teleport in anytime they like. Gotcha. I guess you also figure it's perfectly OK to demand entry to my RL private home anytime you like because to deny that is also rude. That is the level of privacy that I expect, and if that makes me rude and anti-social in your opinion, then so be it. Good luck trying to find anybody in either life who is not rude, you should all get along just fine in your communal living situation.

And this still doesn't address the problem of people who simply want to have a house on the ground where houses belong where people won't enter them anytime they feel like it when a simple five second think would remind them that this is a private home and therefore a place where they don't belong in the first place. That's why tech solutions like this are an epic fail if they do not include ground level.

Since it's obvious there will be no social solution to make people wake up and mind their own business, tech solutions are not only appropriate, but demanded. If the option to ban people from entering areas where they don't belong doesn't exist then we're once again facced with a stalemate. I'd love to see somebody come up with a real solution but since anything I've proposed has been shot down, where's the real answer to bring to the table? Security orbs don't cut it because some people expect you not to even enter the place to begin with, and no properly configured orb will stop that as they can only scan for a maximum of 90 meters. I can be inside your home when coming from 90 meters away in under 30 seconds, therefore if the goal is to keep somebody from entering the home in the first place, banning "everybody" from the property is the only effective means that exists.

Yes. I never really understood the point of paying real money for land, then having your home in the sky.

Every privacy solution involving ground level gets knocked back. Look at the responses to my latest ground-level privacy suggestion. One person complains that letting people hide their stuff would hurt photography in SL, another thinks people who want privacy should go to their own continent.

The current "solution" of just keeping visible avatars out but doing nothing about cameras is pathetic.

What's wrong with separate land for those who want to be isolated? You would all have your parcels blocked off from entry and view, and each could be comfortable in that, knowing that you are surrounded by people who do not want to see or communicate with you, any more than you want to see or communicate with them. Seems like a pretty good assurance that your world would not be interrupted.

Doesn't have to be a separate continent. Sounds like a niche for a land developer. Every single parcel is totally protected from those around it....guaranteed. Tools in place, as you suggested, so that no one can see any adjoining features of their neighbors' property and possessions.

Oh, but wait.....maybe some people like seeing the adjoining parcels and all their beauty that adds to the landscapes, courtesy of those who did not use the isolation features....as long as they are allowed to use the isolation features on their own property.

/me wipes off the sarcasm that's suddenly started dripping down his monitor and hastily exits the thread before it fries any circuits.

Mickey, did you actually read my proposal? The idea is that you can have a build with both public and private parts, so you can build a nice house but not let anyone see anything inside it.

Yes, Argent. But I'm reviewing the comments here....and have just a wee bit of an inclination to think that those who do not wish us to see the candles on their coffee tables....probably do not wish us to see the margarita sitting at poolside, or the beach blanket under the palms, or the gazebo in the backyard, or what they are cooking on the outdoor grill.

Just a hunch.

I have a hunch that the things that people are wanting to hide aren't the candles on the coffee table.

Perhaps.

Now, if you would please excuse me....but I need to go tend to my RL flower gardens, that the neighbors compliment me on every other day, and thank me for providing to the neighborhood landscape.

One neighbor was invited to come over and snip the zinnias today, to take home with them. I would have done that myself, and carried them over to their place along with some other beautiful flowers....but they have these huge security gates (as do the other neighbors) totally surrounding me. I'm not sure if they have flowers or not....I can't see much past the tall iron fences and gates.

Even that doesn't help...perhaps a *tad* more, but when we lived 600-800m in the sky, we had at least 1 person try to enter daily. I'm now at 1500m so I'll see how that goes.

Yes.

Ephraim, there has actually been a fair amount written -- in blogs and such, but also in scholarly articles -- on the prevalence and nature of virtual sexual violence, including both cyber rape and harassment. The particular case of virtual rape to which I was referring was played out in Belgium: to be honest, I've never followed accounts of this case through to determine exactly what transpired, but here is Benjamin Duranske's brief discussion of the case, which includes links to some other sources (Duranske is a lawyer who specializes in the law as it relates to virtual worlds):

Duranske, Benjamin. "Reader Roundtable: 'Virtual Rape' Claim Brings Belgian Police to Second Life" Virtually Blind (24 April, 200.
http://virtuallyblind.com/2007/04/24/open-roundtable-allegations-of-virtual-rape-bring-belgian-police-to-second-life/

Another excellent discussion (with which, however, I do not entirely agree) prompted by the Belgian case is by Regina Lynn, and was published online in WIRED in 2007:

Lynn, Regina. "Virtual Rape is Traumatic, but Is It a Crime?" Wired (May, 2007).
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0504


The first recorded virtual rape occurred in a text-based MUVE called "LamdaMOO," and was recorded, in a great deal of detail, by Julian Dibell in an account originally published in _The Village Voice_ in 1993:

Dibell, Julian. "A Rape in Cyberspace: How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database into a Society." Village Voice 38.51 (1993).
http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html

The whole notion of "virtual rape," given that it does NOT involve actual physical violence, of course shades over into the area of cyber harassment and stalking, so these areas tend to be discussed together. A good and very recent scholarly summation of the issue is:

Boyd, Cameron, "How Virtual Is Virtual Violence against Women?" ACSSA Aware Newsletter 21 (2009): 5-8.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/newsletter/n21pdf/n21c.pdf

A good discussion, from the perspective of an educator addressing the issue of students online, is this:

Bugeja, Michael J. "Second Thoughts about Second Life." Encyclopaedia Britannica (Orig. pub. in Education Digest, January 200.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/28755256/Second-Thoughts-About-Second-Life

Finally, a rather dated but nonetheless useful article, with relation in particular to MMORPGs, is this

Laurenson, Lydia. "The Inevitably-Named 'Rape in RPGs.'" GameGrene.com (22 March, 2005).
http://www.gamegrene.com/node/447

There is a great deal more in scholarly journals that are not available online, but I've limited myself to stuff that is easy to access. I imagine a really thorough literature search, particularly through international law journals, would probably provide more information on the Belgian case. But while I would certainly be interested in learning more about that particular case, I confess my focus is less upon the legal ramifications of virtual rape than upon the issue of "affect."

I'm not sure that I share your faith in the ability of the courts to bring out "all the facts" in a case: lawyers are, lets face it, much less interested in "the truth" or even "the facts," than in the practical application of existing law. And they are hardly objective. An additional problem, I think, is that laws are written for the "real world," and applications of such law to virtual environments have really not, from what I can see, begun to take into account the very different cultural realities of online environments.

What I think would frankly be more useful than a full account of a single legal case on this subject (the law being an ass, and all) is a full and broad ethnography on the subject in SL, employing scholarly standards of documentation and analysis. I think we WILL see something like that, eventually.

^^ This. And adding that those of us with property that we can *choose* to make public or private ARE paying for this. Let's do a study on if the rude people who just drop in uninvited are property owners. Like it or not, ownership *does* entail some rights and privileges. (I'm including renters of property as well.)

My house is open to visitors - I use it to showcase my work and everyone is welcome.

I did have a vistor last week who had a personal hover text set to "I cam in"! Nothing like giving warning, I suppose. I expect he was disappointed with my place - no need to cam.

I think it's a personal preference, Brenda. It provides a bit more privacy, is less laggy, and I just enjoy being up high, kind of like living in a skyscraper condo or something. Also, on mainland, the ground level builds can be such that I prefer not looking out my window at them.

I've expressed my preference for water sims. First, being a Florida girl, I just love water. Then I have the choice of setting a home or building on a platform and have the view of water (some of these builds are done elegantly), the one I want to do if I ever have more land some day - a unique underwater home or getaway, or the sky. When I've owned a larger chunk of land, I have my home in the sky and then something like a deck, fishing pier, Japanese tearoom, etc. on ground level.