verifying age

So basically it doesn't actually verify anything more than requiring payment info would?

This is so-called verification in a nutshell.

--
Aes

Indeed, they were of the mind they didn't need to learn about the tech before bringing it into the house. As if MS and the ISP would babysit their kids the way the TV used to. Assuming that the corporate world would abridge them of the need to learn anything new...

Guess the simple rule of : it don't come into the house unless I can understand it applies.

Most of this is the same group screaming about game bans and ratings... never mind the games have had far better ratings in place for the last 8 or so years. Most if not all consoles have parental controls... and the parent still has the power to simply unplug the damn things.



Considering the history of the outsourced company... one more reason not to deal with it.

I entirely agree with your first two paragraphs. There is a lot of hysteria on SL surrounding this OMGTHECHILDRENZ!!!!111!! issue. Yeah, let's cover up the fake nipples on a pixel reproduction of a stone textured statue of female form or OMG, who knows what might happen?! No, the main grid, just like a lot of other RL and online places, is for over 18s only. End of.

Although I am strongly against having to supply detailed identity verification to some extremely questionable proven data-mining outfit in the US, which could be easily used to fake an online ID, I *do* think that it might be time to require CC or other payment info to be on file with LL after a trial period (note NOT a 3rd party info-collecting company), if only to stop the Grid being overwhelmed by bots and griefers.

I'm continually amazed that some parents will hand their youngster an expensive computer, internet access included, and leave them to it. However, they wouldn't think it was a great idea to abandon a child alone in the middle of a RL teeming city in a foreign land, would they. Why not? Because kids aren't old enough and savvy enough to know how to be safe among strangers and might encounter things they are too young to deal with? You'd think it wasn't -too- hard for parents to anticipate problems.

--
Aes

You got to remember you are talking about the same parents that buy the kids a $600 game machine w/ $300 tv to play it on, a $70 dollar game... and then scream cause little billy is playing GTA and how game companies shouldn't be selling such stuff to kids...

I still don't know who or where all these parents are. I still haven't heard any parents saying they want age verification or something like it to protect their children.

I sometimes see something on TV about police sting operations where they send underage kids in to buy games (or alcohol or cigarettes), so I know that these games can be bought by children in some shops, and in that case I think the parent has every right to kick up a stink about it with the shop concerned. But parents buying age restricted games FOR the child and then complaining? I have never come across that.

With age-restricted websites, I suppose it is possible that if the parents really don't understand the technology then they are not likely to be on the web complaining about it either.

Are there any parents out there who want age verification to protect THEIR child? Please speak up, because I am beginning to get tired of parents being blamed for the whole age verification thing.

There has to be another way to stop 'bots and griefers' than requiring credit cards/personal RL info of everyone who plays. Like, oh, monitoring those sims better?

I'd rather have things stay as they are, bots, griefers or no. Than take away everyone's reasonable freedom in LL's currently reasonable alt policy.

Well haven't hear much of a peep out of Ms. Proudhon lately. But if you go through threads I've posted in regarding verification you'll find her rants about it being LL's fault.

You will also find many places online that want the government to step in and control the internet and game content to protect the children from inappropriate content on the web so they don't have to.

OK, I found lots of posts, but can't find where she says she's a parent (mind you, I don't have time to go through every one with a fine toothed comb)



"the children", or "their child"? There's a difference. I am not saying that there are not any parents this stupid, but that we are being blamed as some kind of lumpen feckless mass for not wanting to take responsibility for our kids' behaviour.

I have yet to meet a parent who would trust LL's age verification system (or any age verification system) over their own parenting skills to keep their child safe.

Whoa, no one has said anything that harsh about parents or even BLAMED 'parents' as a whole.

But *those parents who demand every single player dance to their tune* because they refuse to install basic safetys on their home computer or monitor their children are the ones people are referring to. And they do exist in plenty. Maybe you haven't met any - doesn't mean they do not exist or that other people haven't (as seems obvious from the stories in the thread, here, that some have).

Those of us in America (not sure where you are from, I note the word feckless though, not really overused in America) remember Tipper Gore and there are still people like that. I don't see why some of us saying that parental monitoring does not replace anything else (which seems to be what *you* are saying too?) is a problem.

well, there's this ...



and then in older threads there's this ...



this ...



and this ...



just from a couple of the many, many threads on this subject. There are a lot of comments I have also heard inworld about how if parents took more responsibility we wouldn't need age verification. Please note the wording in these quotes - "parents", not "some parents" or "a few irresponsible parents".



I still haven't heard any parents asking for age verification to protect their child. Please, if you are out there, speak up. I also don't believe this is LL's motivation for bringing in this scheme (if it was, they might have come up with something that worked). I think their motivation is to cover their backs so that next time the gutter press decides to do a lurid expose article they can point to their age verification system and say they are doing all they can.



You are right, I am not in the US and had to look up Tipper Gore. From what I read, she campaigned for warning labels on music with explicit lyrics. I see nothing wrong with that. That's the sort of thing I welcome as a parent so that I can make informed decisions about what is appropriate for my children.



I am having difficulty understanding this sentence. I have no problem with people saying that parental monitoring of children's online behaviour is necessary - of course it is. I even have no problem with some form of age verification as a useful adjunct to this - if it works properly, if it is secure and if people don't have to keep resubmitting the info every time some griefer decides to make trouble (the current system fails on all these counts).

The only thing I have a problem with is when parents as a whole are blamed for LL bringing in the current stupid system.

Okay I tried to say that I didn't think anyone was actually *saying* what you are saying they said...Well in my opinion they weren't. I can really just speak for me. *I wasn't blaming parents for anything, only saying I - well I said it already. Please just see above.*



They already have that option - no need to *force it on everyone*.



We disagree on whether that happened in this thread. :/



People who have not seen 'other threads' or of course not heard what you have heard in world can hardly be taken to task for it. This thread is this thread. But anyway, who's to "blame" isn't the key issue here, for me, unless there is some group lobbying, which I don't know in specific.



Wasn't quite that simple, was part of a whole trend many found disturbing, and it's off topic a bit, but again it's a few deciding on change for all because of their own vested interest.

use of parents is much like the use of politicians in a discussion.

not all are included even when modifiers such as some or most are not used.

And Rebecca did state she was a parent in one of the threads. (prove you are not a minor iirc)


I think you miss the big point: there is absolutely no way for a company to determine who is at the computer and using an account. There is no way then for any age or identity verification to be done what so ever.

Any thing done is really more a feel good measure that might make some think twice, but then again... many more will not think twice and lie to gain access to the content.

The only way to protect or prevent children from accessing content online if for their parents to pay attention to the child and well... parent.


I live in what's called the bible belt of the US (the south east states), and let me tell ya... there are quite a few parents that want the government to crack down and legislate away items they don't want their kids exposed to...

I watched one lady throw a fit because her little son had been playing GTA... a game she bought him no less the day before. I was there when she let him pick it out and tossed it into the cart without looking at it, and was there the next day at the store to pick up a special order that came in when she ranted and raved about it. She didn't want to parent... she felt the store should only sell games that are E for everybody so she didn't have to parent.

Yes, part of the miscommunication in the last page or so, or misunderstandings, may be because spinster voom isn't in the US. This whole 'let the government/outside entity do my parental job' thing has been a hot divisive issue for some time now.

Basically here we have groups pushing/lobbying to get rid of things or label things to death, effectively denouncing them in so doing, and causing sometimes, stores to stop selling things, etc., or companies to drop the artist, or change lyrics or album covers, etc. All because "I don't want my kid seeing that." We're just sick of having things imposed on us because of someone else's kids, in this country.

There's a real simple way to do that. Don't buy the product, don't let them have that console, or actually sit and watch what they do like a parent should. I'm not saying *you*, spinster. I'm saying it to those it applies to. Who'd rather remove the entire thing from everyone's grasp than from within their own family's.

Period.

Yeah, this. I'm a parent, and SL is MY place to get away from MY kid, preferably after he's in bed or while at school. And he won't be allowed on the main grid until he's 18 and no, I don't expect LL to do the work. It's MY job.

And to think.. in one art history class my husband and I took, there was a woman who honestly and whole-heartedly thought that the government should tell us all how to raise our kids. I kid you not. >.<

Indeed, a very good example are those like Jack Thompson (is it wrong to be happy the dude got disbarred.... so you don't have to type attorney at law after his name anymore...) who helped co-write laws (since overturned) that would have outright banned certain types of media (his focus was video games)

OK, Clarissa and Mortvent ...

This is daft because I think we are all basically on the same side here. Can we agree that A FEW parents want to restrict everybody else's freedom so that they don't have to parent responsibly, but that MOST parents take their responsibilities seriously and work hard to ensure their children's safety, without wishing to restrict the freedom of anybody else (including themselves )?

It was perhaps unfair of me to have such a grumble in this thread about parents as a whole being scapegoated when it's an attitude I have come up against over and over again all over the place for the last 18 months. I am just tired of it, that's all, and I apologise.

However, I do think it's important to qualify when you are talking about just some members of a group - any group.

Indeed, but those few seem to carry more weight (they tend to be more vocal than the others) and are noticed (kinda the few speaking for the many syndrome of humanity).

But really the only way to protect the children is with good parenting and not feel good measures (like some people say it's wrong to spank or even yell at a child to dicipline them...)

Yes, some parents don't want to take care of their own kids and want to pawn responsibility off on either the government or the companies to do it. Not all of us do. I would rather just be left to my own devices, such as not allowing the kiddo to be on any site I don't think he should be on. He's only allowed to use the computer on specific sites and I have them bookmarked for him. He's not allowed to explore beyond those, unless I've checked the site out first.

Sadly, as I said, I want to be left to my own devices, which means those that want more government/company responsibility are screaming up a storm while I am ignoring them.

And everyone with half a braincell functioning can tell that LL's idea of age verification is only a CYA maneuver. I've heard tales of it taking fake information and I think I got some info wrong when I verified one of my alts. Simply put, it is a feel good measure as Mort said. I am sooo tempted to see if it will take my cat's info! Then I'll know which mailing list the 3rd party bought for their info!

I suppose as well as the US/European cultural differences (you're right, we don't have such a large or vocal group demanding the government bring up our kids over here) - The SL community is kind of self-selecting on this. What I mean is that if you're the sort of person who has big problems with a naked nipple here and there, you're probably not going to stick around SL for very long. That's why they're not all here demanding age verification I suppose. Just a thought.

OK, I'm off to see what my kids are doing so I can tell them to stop it

Umm... actually you do have a few. But then again as a gamer and reading game news I notice it a bit more.

For instance many games are refused a rating, which means stores can not carry them.

IIRC the various GTA games have been threatened with that, as was Fallout 3.

wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games