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

Well, I would actually agree with the legitimacy of the "rights" you are defending ... to some degree. I agree that you have the right to prevent access onto your property, for instance. Where these rights become much fuzzier is in terms of air space and water navigation. I think that in those instances, the rights are not nearly so well defined.

I guess my problem here is that people seem to be unwilling to budge BEYOND the point of establishing their "rights." It's as though it is enough to prove that one has these rights: once that is accomplished, debate or discussion ends.

So, ok. I grant that you have all the rights you say you do. What next? Is that the end of this for you?

What next?

A better solution to the problem than "YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT 'CUZ I THINK IT'S RUDE!" *grin*

That, I would love to hear.

We are a dysfunctional family, compromise is not on our agenda

What you're saying is a misconception about land settings. Just because mainlanders don't have as many or the same land settings an those owning an island, you contend there's some kind of sharing of access rights going on with the general public. You are flat wrong. The mere fact that a black list is available, public access is UNcheckable, and the owner is free to build and block you along ANY intended flight path over their own land PROVES you wrong.

You also take one meaning of "privacy" as it fits your argument, but not the other. Banlines do not provide privacy in that they don't prevent people from seeing inside.. obviously true, but also not a factor in a discussion about access. However, banlines DO provide privacy in that they prevent "unwanted people from entering".. which is exactly in context to the discussion. When discussing access rights, they DO indeed provide privacy.

There may be precedence about providing adaquate warning with security orbs, and I agree with that completely. However, there's nothing at all that says an auto black list device would be against ANY rule at all. It merely automates a land function already freely available to use on anyone, at anytime, for any reason, or no reason at all. I may attempt to build one just to prove how much access rights flyers really have over private land.



/me salutes Mickey for "getting it"

Irrelevant next to the fact that Linden Labs dropped the access zones from 100 meters, because they blocked flight. Irrelevant next to the fact fact that it is against the ToS to block someone off on all four sides, no matter that they can teleport out.

That reminds me of the people who used to use the term "ethical hacking" to mean "breaking into computers without damaging things", as if "just looking" wasn't an invasion of privacy.

There's not two kinds of privacy, there's one. If someone can see information that you don't want to release, you privacy has been invaded, even if they can't touch it, even if you can't tell they were there. If anything the fact that you can't tell they were there makes it worse, because you can't take action to protect your privacy further.

I have not at any point said anything to the effect that an auto-black-list-device would be against any rule. It would be stupid, and short sighted, and quickly fill the available slots in your access list, but you could make one.

I said it on what, page 1 or so way back when...

I'm -FOR- privacy which is WHY I am AGAINST banlines.

Its all about using an invader's psych against them. People who are curious are going to see a banline as a challenge.

"What's this then? What's it hiding? Why is it hiding it?"

Go visit my home plot sometime, in my sig. (well not today, today I'm playing with PIOF and Age verify access on one side of my plot just to see what it does to my visitor log - by tonight I'll be back to normal open).

My tactic is simple:

"Nothing to see here folks, move along..."

I keep a script that logs anyone who comes within a certain distance of it. In all the places where I care about privacy, no one ever does.

At ground where it counts, lots of people pass by - but that's all they do. They pass by.

They spend an hour standing around the banlines that are near my plot, but ignore me... Or come and sit quietly in one of my gazebos and behave themselves.


The moral high ground here is that yes - if I put up a line, they SHOULD leave me alone. But if people followed the moral high ground we'd all be sitting in the garden of eden right now having one big hippie orgy...

What people should do, how they should treat you, and how they will, are never the same thing. But, if your clever, you can find ways to get people to act morally, without hurting their desires, and without devaluing or compromising yourself and yours.

I guess its my Taoist side - don't fight the river, flow with it, and you'll be where you want to be.

Banlines are trying to stand there against the current... the fish might not get in, but they're sure going to spend a lot of time paying attention to you trying to figure out why...


If you -really- want privacy, you need to use their interests to your advantage.

Who is in this front?

Speaking for myself, I've never been blown up while trying to go on other people's land. It's never ever happened in two years plus of extensive wandering the Mainland.

I have been blown up many times while trying to go past other people's land and hit the edge of their boundary because it's just about impossible to see where the boundaries are -- and the ban lines show up too late to see them - or never show in the case of a ban line across a sim boundary.

I'm in the "WE DON'T ACTUALLY WANT TO GO ON YOUR BLOODY LAND. WE'RE NOT OUT TO GET YOU" front.

The disrespect happening here is from the "YOU CAN'T BE OVER EVEN A 0.01 SQ M CORNER OF MY PROPERTY FOR A FEW SECONDS BECAUSE IT'S MINE!" front.

Bottom is:

You can cry, stomp your feet, throw forum tantrums and say whatever it is you want. Call it being rude, say they're unwarranted or cry you can't fly your wittle plane because of the lines. Tell heartbreaking stories of how you can't "explore" sl or how you can't get to the other side because of the lines and it still doesn't mean a thing.

Not-a-thing.

Bringing up how bad the lines are and trying to convince others about it is just an argument in futility. It's like taking one step forward and several backwards. No matter how hard they try or how many times they post, they still get nowhere.

Go figure.

So let's say that you own a parcel that extends into the water and adjoins a Linden waterway.
I pass along in a boat and pass over the corner of your parcel.
How much expense would my passing over your corner impose on you?

Let's say that I fly over your parcel on my way from A to B. How much expense would my passing over your parcel impose on you?


I don't claim to have a "right" to pass over your parcel. I just wonder what the real problem for you is.

I still chuckle over our former "neighbor" on Warbluster who went berserk when you nicely informed her part of her build was on your land and the ensuing ban lines she erected.

Love how you dealt with her. Mwuahahahahaha.

Yet, you made yourself at home when you came to mine.

Yes. *big heavy sigh*. You're absolutely right. It's completely futile.
It's exactly the same with ad farming and traffic bots. No matter how many times people bring up the subject and explain how the practices negatively impact on SL, LL will never move against ad farming or traffic bots.
People who had never considered the issues will never read the postings and learn something about them.


FUTILE!!
You got it in one Ricardo.

Spoken like a true Freedom Knight, Ricardo. How's Dave these days?

This is an older post, but I'm just trying to catch up on this thread. If someone already commented, sorry.The scripting isn't the challenge; the difficulty is that blacklist bans only go to 768m Above Ground Level (and therefore don't negate "travel at any height". This isn't particularly good for anybody but security orb makers, who sell the only game in town for controlling access to high altitude skybox airspace.

I'd also comment on the general debate over "rights": What we pay for is a service provided by a for-profit company. At any time, some analogies to RL "property rights" apply to our virtual land, and other analogies don't, and the mix of which do and which don't is completely dictated by their effect on the marketability of that service we're buying. If LL believed that banlines interfered with selling pixel property, they'd be gone tomorrow. Obviously they don't believe that, and rather think that customer's illusion of privacy makes the idea of owning SL "land" profitably more appealing than the cost in lost business due to the inconvenience it creates for some uses of the service, such as vehicles.

And that's probably an astute call, especially for vehicles, because they're so badly borked by other problems. But if they ever fixed the border-crossing problems, for example, there could be a huge demand for having in-world fun with vehicles--and buying land for "hangar space" instead of "houses"--and then the extent of "property rights" might change to accommodate that market shift.

I'm not saying that's ever likely to happen, but rather that "rights" and "wrongs" are completely relativistic here, and relate only to LL's bottom line.

(For the record, I don't use banlines and don't like banlines...)

Sling, it costs me nothing. But that's a moot point. It is nothing to do with it.

The problem, for me, is this:

"Who is in this front?

(Referring to my comment of "I WANT TO BANLINES DOWN BECAUSE THEY BLOW ME UP WHEN I TRY TO GO ON OTHER PEOPLE'S LAND" )

Speaking for myself, I've never been blown up while trying to go on other people's land. It's never ever happened in two years plus of extensive wandering the Mainland.

I have been blown up many times while trying to go past other people's land and hit the edge of their boundary because it's just about impossible to see where the boundaries are -- and the ban lines show up too late to see them - or never show in the case of a ban line across a sim boundary.

I'm in the "WE DON'T ACTUALLY WANT TO GO ON YOUR BLOODY LAND. WE'RE NOT OUT TO GET YOU" front.

The disrespect happening here is from the "YOU CAN'T BE OVER EVEN A 0.01 SQ M CORNER OF MY PROPERTY FOR A FEW SECONDS BECAUSE IT'S MINE!" front."

It amazes me that you say you're not part of the group I described, then say that you, in fact, ARE part of them. The difference between what you describe and what I said is semantics. You got blown up because your vehicle DID actually go somewhere it is, and you are, not allowed to go.
You DO, in fact, want to go on the land, even if it IS a 0.01 sq m corner of the property.
That's what I have a problem with.
The reason someone puts up a banline is none of your business. They're allowed to for any reason whatsoever.

And your final line... how is that disrespectful? Do landowners owe you something?

last time I checked a name ban goes to invinity and not just to 768m (the old build hight) or 4096m (the new build hight) haven't checked how far access passes go up, could be either 50 meter above ground level or invinit.

Not unless they changed it recently, there is a JIRA which I can't find for some reason asking to change the behavior to keep up to date with the the lifting of the max build height when havok was updated.

It's not irrelevant because they put it back, and that fact validates my statement about the dropping of it in the first place being an oops. It's proof that they heard the complaints, and they WERE a concern, yes.. but then thought better of it and corrected the error.

It's against the TOS for ONE entity to block someone off from all sides, yes. Several different land owners box somone in and LL may ask one to drop a banline, sure.. but that's not a TOS violation. That's proof of LL's stance on 4-sided barriers and ensuring landowners have at least one non-banlined side to their parcel, not of guaranteed access over other people's land.

I explained the privacy views very clearly. In the context of many, many replies here there is obviously referrences to BOTH aspects I mentioned throughout this thread. Privacy as pertaining to remaining unseen or hidden, and privacy as pertaining to freedom from being invaded upon... the end result of security. Only the latter is relevant to what we were discussing.

Very true. I should have said 'negating travel at any meaningful height'.. as in close enough to view the nice builds and whatnot, which is what I'd think most people passing through are looking at.

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-2546 in case anybody wants to vote, or to read Andrew's comments. I haven't tested it since a year ago when I figured out it was AGL not an absolute altitude number, but I'd be kinda surprised if it got fixed in the interim. That's not really tragic; it just makes a market for high-altitude security orbs, and makes them slightly more complex because they can't just add to the parcel banlist but rather have to do themselves the llEjectFromLand() or llTeleportHome() or whatever.

Nope! I very definitely DO NOT want to go on that land. It is NOT my intention to enter the parcel.

This is not an exercise in semantics. It's at the root of security/privacy.
What threat does my accidentally passing over 0.01 sq m corner of the property pose to the property owner?
If there is a threat, is that threat so serious that it warrants the outcome?

"Because I can" is never a justification for anything.



Yes. They owe respect to other people in SL, no less than other people owe respect to them.
It is extremely disrespectful to treat a boater passing passing over 0.01 sq m corner of the property for a second or two as if they were some griefer harassing the occupants of the parcel.

Um, you have it backwards. Raising it was the oops. Dropping it was putting it back.

Then what's the problem? If you have no intention of going in, then you should never crash, never have your plane/boat/whatever explode. Or, you should accept that Oops, even though you had no intention to enter the parcel, you DID, and thus the consequences.
If your plane/car/ornithopter crashes because you're hit a banline, then you've entered the parcel, intention or not. To say that you want this to stop is saying "I want to be able to use a small part of your property", isn't it?

How about "Because it's none of your business"?
The landowner doesn't have to justify their choices to you. Period.

First off, that's bullshit. On their property, they've earned respect by paying for it (elsewhere, they've gotta earn it like the rest of us. No-one is OWED respect.).
Secondly, that second bit? Are you talking about banlines or orbs? If it's banlines, they're not treating anyone like anything. They've got their property, they've set the rules. End of story.
Try to twist it however you want, but they're not actively doing anything TO you. It's the boater that's actively trying to do something, that something being trying to use the property of another, and is having troubles because of this.

Ok, so you feel that crossing a 0.01 sq m corner of the property should not be imposing. So then ban lines would be ok if they encompassed all but that corner? What percentage of a property is 'ok to cross' and on what are you basing the distinction other than your own need?

Again this sounds more like a need for LL to code in designated travel lanes for land, sea and air rather than property owners doing anything wrong.

It simply isn't.
It appears that you have absolutely no understanding of the issues of controlling a vehicle in restricted routes when the parcel boundary lines are not visible, and any walls of ban lines are invisible before it's too late.

Before you come back with "Well don't go into those particular Linden areas.", remember that we had Jack Linden posting encouragement for such use in another thread.

The idea that someone unintentionally and momentarily straying over a boundary constitutes some sort of abuse or threat that warrants the effect of ban lines is insane.





I think you have crystallised an issue there.
You appear to think that respect can be purchased. That's pathetic. You appear to think that the mere purchase of a parcel somehow buys some special form of respect that trumps any mean-spirited and anti-social behaviour by the parcel owner.



I've got parcels all over Mainland. They are not restricted.
I expect people to behave respectfully towards those parcels and anyone in them. I don't in any way expect this because I'm the landowner. I simply expect that people should not abuse things.
*If* I find that someone is behaving abusively on any of my parcels I'll deal with it case by case and not set things up such that every unknown avatar is presumed to be an abuser.


"Owed"
Everyone is due respect by default.
If they do something to lose respect, they have to earn it back via their behaviour towards others.
They can never buy any of it it in the first place, and they can never buy any of it back if they lose it.