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

Some seem to take this issue quite personally, but it's simply this: People approach life in 'the real world' differently. Why would they not approach life in 'the virtual world' differently?

There are 2 million registered users, or summat like that. Yes many are alts but there is still a sizeable pool of people coming in with wildly varying backgrounds, personalities and life experiences.

Why is the idea that people will want different things so odd?

Personally, I find it disheartening that people want to drag everything from RL into the virtual world, including their baggage and vulnerabilities as much as their aggression and resentment of anything they don't readily understand. If nothing else, I see virtual environments as an opportunity to test these things in a constructive fashion and perhaps take a little of that back into RL.

At the same time I understand that this perspective is not for everyone. The recent to-do about the Adult continent suggests to me that residents of SL, along with those of other virtual worlds, will become just as hog-tied by their hang-ups as they are in RL and, in time, in-world creativity will possibly amount to little more than flower arranging with prims.

I wish people would stop trying to take little smacks at others by trying to paint those who see things differently as having "hang ups," thinking people are "out to get them," claiming people who wish a place to relax uninterrupted in SL must fear "physical harm," and so on.

You stated that you can empathise with someone who dislikes small talk yet you cannot seem to empathise with those for whom unwanted home intrusions or unwanted sexual advances are upsetting to whatever degree.

Here is the thing. No one has to be in a PANIC about this, which is what some here imply. It is their land - they paid for it whether to a landlord or to LL - and if they dislike behavior even a LITTLE BIT, they are allowed by TOS to address it.

Period.

What more is there to it than that? Unless people try to begin with the passive-aggressive insults.

Lamb sakes, Clarissa, I'm not trying to take little smacks at anyone and it certainly isn't my attention to be insulting. I'm just putting my point-of-view. And others are welcome to disagree or chip in their two cents if they so desire.


I had an idea that some excessive small talk might be at the root of Mr Bungle's behaviour but that is all it was - an idea by way of an example that there could easily be more to this much-referenced story than meets the eye at first.


Or that they simply wish to discuss the matter?

*peeks back in* Wow.. this is getting waaayy too personal. I think I'm just going to umm.. sneak out back to my workshop and stay there until you've each managed to verbally beat yourselves senseless. Then I'll come back and claim victory.

I could actually see Shakespeare writing the lines, "To ban line or not to ban line?"

I chose to ban line. Others will chose to security orb. Still others will chose to build skyboxes and turn off flight. Those are a way to get some sense of privacy.. security, whatever.

But, yes, at this time it is delusional to think that we could have true privacy in SL. Thankfully, cameras are not tied to the avatars, though this means people can cam into our homes and watch us pixel bump if that is their wish. As long as they don't comment, we will never know they were watching. I think most people are okay with this.

It's when the peeping tom comments or "physically" invades a space that people are forcibly reminded of the lack of privacy. And yes, sudden intrusions are jolting, regardless of it being SL or RL.

So... why not pick an option that allows us each an individual level of privacy controls for our lands? Me, I want a "Pass through, but don't stop," option. Then I don't have to have the ban lines. Another person might want the "restrict chat to local area." Still another might want, "Don't let them click my balls!" Or all of the above.

Then ban lines might actually vanish... but knowing LL, they'll give us a barking rubber ducky and expect us to be happy with our new privacy controls.

I'm not OK with anything less than absolute you-don't-see-my-prims-unless-I-let-you privacy. Anything less than that is no privacy at all, and a complete waste of time and effort.

Wrong again.

Wrong again. Haven't you anything better to do?

I'd go with that without question. There's a playfulness about the idea that would make me fall in love with SL twice over. It isn't even a question of plain old privacy as far as I'm concerned. It's just about being there, at home, and not being there at the same time or having something there which isn't there for everybody and anybody to stiffarm under 'Inspect'.

So, it could be another toggle/checkmark. My list was just an example, I wouldn't see any reason why it couldn't be part of the package deal. Like..

Render prims invisible and phantom to others (maybe divide it up like the restrict object interaction to)
Allow passage only
Limit local chat to parcel
Restrict object interaction to owner only
Restrict object interaction to group
Restrict object interaction to friends

Keep in mind this is a sample list. Others could be added. We have restrict push, restrict flight, and other sorts.

On the workshop, I'd use "allow passage" so people could walk or fly through, but couldn't stop and get in my camera way. I might also use "Restrict object interaction to owner" or maybe to group. Depends on how LL would chose to handle the "allow passage" however. I could see even prims becoming phantom.

You might want "Render prims invisible and phantom to others," along with "limit local chat to parcel" and maybe restrict object interaction, if LL decided not to make it a part of the render prims invisible. And maybe "allow passage." Think about it.. someone is standing in your prim garden, but to them, it looks and feels like an empty lot.

Hmm.. might be cumbersome however, which might be the main reason LL hasn't done something like this already. But honestly, I wouldn't settle for anything less than a nice "Mix and match" so more people are content with it.

You gave your fair share of smacks, Clarissa....if that's what you want to call them. It was just a discussion. That's all.

Not when their security orb is bouncing me from my own shop (despite several IM's and notecard attempts to clue them in).

Didnt really give 2 shits either way. Like any other noob, they buy/rent, then are gone in a week.

Ephraim, thank you for your VERY full response to my posting. I appreciate your insights, even when I don't agree with them.

Before I respond to this more fully, I want to make one point clear, not for your benefit (because generally you do get the distinction I am about to make), but for some others who, from their comments, clearly don't.

When I talk about “virtual rape” here, I am NOT (with I think, one brief exception) talking about rape animations or simulations of the sort that ARE consensual in SL.

What I am talking about, and what these readings you are discussing are largely concerned with, is nonconsensual virtual rape or assault. By this I mean essentially a specialized form of griefing, which is deliberately and consciously sexual in nature. An example might be a clickable object in SL that disguises its true nature, and results in an unexpected sexual animation. Or the “voodoo doll” programme that Julian Dibble speaks about in his account of the LambdaMOO “virtual rape.” Or even, in some contexts, the “caging” of a female avatar.


Well, I am not tying them together in quite the way that you do here. Agreed, for instance, that women can be stalkers, and agreed, also, that the motives and impact of the stalker may be quite different from those associated with the rapist. When I associate these notions, I am really categorizing them together, in the context of SL, as a specialized form of griefing, because the mechanics are somewhat similar, as are, in the virtual context, the effects.


I think, on the whole, that I agree with this; as noted above, I myself am not speaking here about consensual simulations of rape (using pose balls, emoting, and the like), but rather involuntary nonconsensual griefing attacks of a sexual nature. That said, I would gesture towards the thread we had here some weeks ago(?) on the subject of the combination of an RLV viewer with scripted BDSM equipment that removed the element of consent from the avatar interactions. Yes, the woman needed to consent to this first, and, yes, there WERE means of escape, but it does seem to me the kind of equipment that might be open to abuse, and to a shift from a consensual to a nonconsensual scenario.


Well, the fact is that newbies ARE being targeted by griefers and sexual predators; I can affirm that from very direct experience. It seems rather hard to blame someone who probably has no idea what a griefer even IS for not being better prepared to meet them.

Agreed that LL needs to take more responsibility for this, though. This is why the SLLUFN have produced a Survival Kit for Newbie Women that focusses to a large extent upon safety in-world.


I don't entirely disagree with it myself. I think it is overall an excellent analysis. As I've said, I don't think that even nonconsensual virtual rape IS “rape” in the RL sense of that word; I do think, however, that in certain contexts it might be a crime. Not a crime of the importance of RL rape, of course, but one certainly in line with other forms of online harassment, stalking, or bullying.


I agree entirely that there is a campy element to this incident. But I think your suggestion that Mr. Bungle is a well-defined figure of horror is entirely to the point: he is emblematic of a kind of narrative. And in manipulating the others, he in effect imposes his narrative upon them. They ceased to be active participants, and became reified puppets. Nonconsensual rape is many many things: one of those things IS precisely this: violently or forcibly imposing a fantasy narrative upon an unwilling victim, who becomes nothing more than a stage prop. It is the conflict between different narratives, and the way in which one triumphed over the others, that is the key to this account. And in a text-driven VW, narrative is all.


I'm not entirely sure why Moondreamer's apparent delayed response invalidates it. In my own experience, RL trauma often plays out this way; it progresses through stages, the first of which is often simply shock.


I'm having a hard time with this . . . Let's agree that there are people who can drive one mad in SL and RL with their banality, etc.; to equate the damage that THEY inflict unknowingly (surely they think they are being engaging?) with rape seems a bit over the top. As does the admittedly playful suggestion here that a form of virtual rape might be an appropriate response.


I think the dichotomy you are setting up here is a bit simplistic. Admittedly, discussions of media influence on behaviour are often, usually for polemical reasons, themselves pretty reductive. But to argue that individuals in one culture engage in violence for different reasons is not to invalidate the observation that, in another culture, the media might have a role. And the key here is “have a role”: I don't think anyone (and certainly not I) would argue that media, virtual worlds, pornography, or what-have-you are the only, or even the primary factors behind violence in society. They are contributors to a greater or lesser degree, in a manner that is obviously going to vary from culture to culture.

In general, I can only observe that if the media does NOT have an impact upon our behaviour, then an awful lot of businesses, political parties, ideological groups, etc., are wasting an awful lot of money on advertising, propaganda, PR, and the rest.

I would also suggest that the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. People “do” things, whatever those things are, in SL because those things provoke an emotional or intellectual response. If people are cybering here, it is because they get a charge out of it. If people are entering into virtual relationships here, it is because to do so is emotionally fulfilling in some way. In other words, we are all here, for our different reasons, because THIS medium DOES impact upon us in some way. The degree to which that impact lingers into RL is going to vary enormously from person to person, but if there were no “affect” here at all, there would be no point to the place. Does someone with a virtual partner or lover in SL cease to think of that person at all when they log out? Do they think of that lover as merely a part of a computerized game that ceases to have reality once the computer is turned off? Not in my experience.

The argument that we only carry away with us the “nice” emotions that SL produces, but that we leave behind the “nasty” ones when we log off, makes no sense. I may spend a day in RL feeling all warm and fuzzy because of a lovely conversation I had in SL the previous night. Why is it so hard to believe that I can't similarly spend my day under a cloud, or even excessively upset, because of an unpleasant experience here?


This surely depends on context. If I see a depiction of a black man being set upon by a group of white teenagers, it is surely not unreasonable to read that as a depiction of a racist attack, directed by implication against all blacks?

The additional factor here is power relations: an assault upon a woman by a man can easily (whether accurately or not) be read as an affirmation of the fact that men have a physical strength not possessed by most women (i.e., the woman is at a disadvantage, almost by definition), and that, historically, such assaults by men upon women have not been treated with the seriousness that other forms of assault are. It is, in other words, an enactment and a symbol of the underlying power structures of society.


Some people are much better at telling the difference than others; we all know people, often quite a few of them, who are essentially “lost” in the illusion of SL. That is, of course, foolishness. But it does make them more vulnerable to emotional abuse. And I don't think that mere “foolishness” merits or justifies abuse.

And again, I would point out that we are ALL here, to greater or lesser degrees, for the affect. To the extent that our intellectual and emotional responses to our experiences in SL do NOT simply evaporate when we log off, we are all vulnerable, and at least potentially willing victims.

I DO find Boyd's use of Waddington's idea that as “the line between real wrongs and simulated wrongs slowly erodes, so too does the very notion of wrongness itself” a bit tendentious. Nonetheless, I can see some validity to the argument that an environment that treats virtual rape as “fun” is capable of somewhat undermining our perceptions of real life rape. After all (and I know I've said this many times before), the woman who clicks “accept” on that rape animation is “demonstrating” that women “like” rape, and fantasize about it. Or so, at least, it is likely to be perceived by some.


These are all good questions. I DO find fora such as this to be more aggressive and sometimes hostile than, for instance, in-world chat usually is. I am not sure that I, personally, would go so far as to suggest that that aggression is necessarily more “masculine.”

The reason why research on virtual harm has not kept up is, it seems to me, pretty straight-forward: this is still a very new phenomenon, and there is always a lag between developments such as this, and a critical analysis of them. As for the prevalence of sexualized virtual violence against males in SL ... well, I honestly don't know. I'd LIKE to know. I seriously doubt it is anywhere near as prevalent, but I am quite willing to be proven wrong on that score.

Is “online violence that much of a public health issue in any respect”? Well, not in the sense that cancer is a public health issue, or AIDS, or PTSD. And certainly not in the sense that REAL rape is a public health issue. I guess it is for society to judge its priorities in this regard: I think it IS an issue, but I am not about to suggest that we close RL rape clinics so as to redirect funding towards this.


I am not going to try to speculate on why you personally don't “get it.” I think that some men don't “get it” because, frankly, they are men, and have never felt what it is to be afraid, in quite the way that a woman is, walking down a dark street at night by yourself. Some, probably including many females, don't understand how experiences or images here can often be “triggering” for those who have experienced RL harassment, stalking, or rape, or even perhaps just the fear of those things. Part of the reason for having these discussions is, of course, to communicate the reality of these different perspectives to those who may not have had any conception of their existence.

Finally, though, I think it may come down to something that Clarissa has said in more than one of her posts: we all experience SL in our own individual ways. And, as in RL, I think we should try to accommodate, as much as possible, those different experiences. Your account of the encounter with the RL paraplegic is a case in point: you would not have said what you did had you known. If you knew that the woman you were speaking to might be frightened or upset by a particular turn in the conversation, role play, or whatever, would you go ahead and do it anyway? No, of course not. Well, I can assure that there ARE women – lots of them – in SL who will respond in that way. Surely civil behaviour demands that we be aware of and sensitive to that?


But it's NOT only pixels. It's ME, or it's Clarissa, or whoever . . . the pixels are merely the masks that we wear here: behind them lie all of the same complexities of character, intellect, and emotion that you would find in our RL selves. I am not an algorithm, and I reserve the right to be affected on a number of levels by my experiences here. Again, were I not affected, there would be no point in my being here in the first place. This is a virtual rather than a physical world, but my experience of it is no less “real” for all that.

No, it doesn't work both ways, unless YOU are paying the tier on the land you are exploring. If not, you have NO rights to enter, period (unless it is on a private sim and the covenant prohibits ban lines).

The OP is either immature (I can, so I will!) or creepy (voyeur).

Privacy is possibile in SL. If you willing to spend the money, buy a Home stead and switch landing off. No one except a Linden will be able to land. I know I did.

[/SARCASM ON]

The only reason I join the worlds largest online 3D community is to be by myself and have some privacy. That is why ban lans are instrumental to the Second Life Experience.

[/SARCASM OFF]

Very few people are after a solitary second life 24/7. However there are plenty of reasons why people may want some privacy even in SL.
-Building (it can get tiring to reply to "whatcha building" every 30 minutes, and it still happens at 4000 meters.)
-Sorting inventory (30k inventories take time to manage, and being interrupted doesn't make it any faster)
-Changing clothes (yes, it's only pixels when you're butt-naked, but not everybody isa naturist)
-Sex (usually done with only one, or a small selection of partners)
-As a place to get away from the community, while still being available for IM's.

Ofcourse, there's the thing that some people spend tons to make their own unique customized home, even if it's created using the most common freebies on the grid. They made it for themselves, not for some cheapskate who's too cheap to spend less money than what an evening out in RL to go clubbing would cost. The cheapskate is welcome to spend and enjoy his money as he pleases, but if there's nothing to share with the land owner, then why would he or she be entitled to benefit from the land owners' investment? If you have a house and land, then just for fun, place a tipjar and a visitor logger in your house. You won't *ever* see even a 1L$ tip, not even if the logger shows that people have spent as much as 5 hours on your land, and right next to the jar (which would be: on the bed when I tested this).

EDIT: as an addition to your statement: why the hell do people play an international game, like WoW, and then create a Danish, Dutch, Swedish, Spanish, Italian or Greek ONLY guild? These all existed on the same realm that I used to play on.

The answer is pretty simple: they are interrested in the GAME, not in the international part of it, however sad I may find that.
NOT everybody joins SL for its community. For some people, the building tools are a reason to join, others join SL to see art, or to explore.

It's the only one that matters. It's not "render prims invisible and phantom to others", mind you, it's the ability to create a private place that you can go into and completely close off from any interaction with the rest of the sim. It's not even worth bringing up anything less because nothing less provides any privacy at all.

A LOOOONG time ago I owned about half a sim. Half of that land was private residence. At the time the height of banlines was much lower and was measure from the center of the world. So if you live on the top of a hill it might only extend 10M or less above ground. I had family members that preferred to work without interruptions. Yes we put up banlines which interestingly enough only went as high as the roof of our building (the residential part).

Not long after security orbs were invented. We switched to those. Then the big hooplah over those hit. So we finally bought a PI so no one could report us for the orbs at 400M that only covered our sim size residential area HIGH above the businesses on the ground.

eventually sold the PI

Gave up on being undisturbed

But still do try to achieve a SENSE of privacy.

I think that is more what most people really are after. A feeling of being private. The real thing wont happen without some serious LL intervention and coding. But folks sometimes just want to be left to do thier thing without interruption whatever that thing is.

I see a false sense of privacy as a bad thing. That's possibly because I work in computer security, and I've seen what happens to people who depend on a false sense of privacy or security... for anything.

You're better off with nothing than something that doesn't work.

Politeness and consideration are pretty much fail proof. If people would just think for a second when traveling about in SL before they do something, so much "griefing" would be avoided.

I think you might have missed some thoughts I gave on how we could be considerate of each others' adventures and grow from them. But yes....I do understand that some people who have their lives plastered on the Internet, for the whole world to see...would like to keep those private.

Many people leave their properties open for exploration, as I described. I'm not going to stop walking across property lines because a few people think thay have Rights in a virtual world, which encourages exploration.

I see you live in Caledon, where I once enjoyed exploring. I suppose that I should mark it off my list out of consideration for your "rights".....just so there will be no confusion or awkward situations or invasions of "privacy." People can see your profile, by the way....might want to hide that to further ensure your "privacy."

Oh, griefers think for a good deal more than a second. Griefing is what they enjoy doing in their second life. It's what they're here for. They can behave like the folks in Pranknet without any possibility of suffering any significant punishment. The worst that can happen to them is they have to wait for a new version of Shooped Life to show up and get around Linden Labs blocks.

Pranknet: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0803091pranknet1.html#

If people are prepared to do stuff like that in RL, what makes you think anything less than a real technical solution providing complete "you can't even see my prims let alone what I'm doing" privacy is worth pursuing?

But the sort of privacy you see in computer security is very different from the sort of privacy we're talking about here. We're not talking about medical records, communications between lawyers and clients, unannounced products, or hostile takeovers.

For some people in SL, privacy just means not being interrupted by strangers. For that, a 95% solution really is better than a 0% solution.

For others, there really is stuff they don't want others to see, e.g. a "should I break up with my SL partner" conversation. A real 100% solution would require communicating outside of SL (because who knows, the SL partner might actually be a LL employee with access to logs). While I agree that the people involved should really understand the risks, I'm not convinced that a 90% solution has no value in such cases.

No, I'm talking about 100% of the privacy you get in your house or your bedroom. Currently the best you can get short of owning a whole private sim is closer to 5% than 95%.

With griefer groups actively engaged in crossreferencing people's IP addresses and accounts, using media streams, anything less than 100% (let alone the 5% solution we get from LL) is derisory.