UK folks, take care: new laws

People forget that Linden Labs doesn't want to be WoW ..

They want to be the 3D equivalent of Geo-cities, or some other web hosting service. (hopefully with a nice Microsoft-era quasi monopoly in the bargain)

Thank God, I don't want them to be WoW either.

I don't care what its currently considered. I care about what it should be.

My online IM conversations should be covered by the same rules my phone conversations are.

People forget we used to have rights.

ahaha thats so true

Well for the most part courts are not going to accept pure unverifiable chat logs or screenshots

Plus linden labs is a private company, they have information in the terms of service that cover them in discharging information to authorities in cases of illegal activities under US and California state laws

Again you are discussing how things are.

I'm saying things are not the way they should be.

The Phone company is a private company too. I still use their service. The authorities still have rules they have to follow to tap my phone.

The reasons they do should apply everywhere.

Its not a *what I signed up to* thing.

Its a *should the government really have access to my private conversations?* thing.

Right now if the FBI said I want all of Mort's IM correspondence with no warrant or anything, LL would go - "Sure thing Mr. FBI, you want that in Word or .RTF?"

Did you read the terms of service before hitting next? I did. And weighted my using the service based on those terms.

when i played wow i was the only person protesting that rl kids and adult were allowed to play together. i think i got bashed severely for speaking up too.

There is a distinct difference between how things *ARE*

and how they really should be.



I am discussing the latter. In my opinion all of my email and snail mail should be the same legally.

My IMs and my Phone calls should be the same legally.

I am aware that its not this way. I am aware that Linden Labs made me agree to all that junk to use the service. In the long run I see this as an issue.


Freedom and Liberty shouldn't just be buzzwords that politicos throw out at election time.

It's the same as a private club, you have a choice not to use the facilities knowing the owners can record and monitor your activities and report them to the authorities if you do something in their opinion warrants it.

It's why there are privacy policies in the terms of service for private institutions and services.

You have the choice not to use them.

And I look at it like the guy at the park that catches something on camera. If it was someone being mugged, does he turn the tape over to the police. Or respect their privacy till a cop knocks on the door and asks if he was at the park on such and such date.. and if he say such and such occur.

Yes a physical world crime example, but crimes exist in the digital world too.

Look, you are not following me.

I understand how things *are*.

I am expressing my opinion of how they *should be*


I am not saying thats what LL should be doing according to some authority. I'm saying that the whole authority is botched up.


Why the heck should we not be entitled to the same level of privacy in IM's that we have in our phone conversations?

Be it Second Life, Yahoo IM, MSN, whatever.

Is there some magical less deserving of privacy land that exists because instead of phone lines the conversations take place over teh internets?

I think I know what it is. People cared more about their liberty when the laws for Phone Calls were put into place, and these days people are more complacent.

LOL

Because you clicked yes or I agree

There is a reason my email service is with a company that will not release personal information or emails without a court order. Rather than with a company that has a disclosure clause in the terms of service.

If things were the way they should be - It wouldn't matter what you "Agreed to", your rights would supercede all that nonsense.

In the US the constitution exists to LIMIT the powers of the government,

Not the other way around.

There is not enough limiting going on.

--------

Sounds like from the OP they have the same problem in the UK.

Does agreeing to let someone deduct X from your account mean you can get them arrested for theft? No because you gave permission for your account to be debited.

If you agree to something, you give permission for it to happen. Does not matter if it is to release chat logs to authorities or deduct money from your accounts. You clicked the button and agreed to it.

Idealism is dead.


The old country relatives of the American Colonials legally voted for all those taxes too.

And you can revolt too by not using services provided by companies with such clauses in the terms of services.

You have to make the choice to do so. Just like they made the choice to revolt.

It's not the government you're arguing about. But a company you can choose not to do business with.

Much like you can choose not to eat a certain brand of tuna because the company uses the wrong type of nets.

Am I?

Maybe you should go back and read my posts.

I never said LL isn't allowed to do as they do.


See.

In reality I am arguing about the government.

I tried to explain that over and over.

Do phone companies exist that ask you to agree to allow your conversations to be monitored whenever they choose?

Nope, because none would use them. Because they would not agree to the terms.

But by choosing (there is that word again) to use a service that has that clause in the terms of service, you give them permission. It's up to you to say "Hey, I would like to use your service but this clause I don't agree with so I'm not going to do business with you."

There are many businesses that record your conversations (And warn you beforehand) for various reasons. Most commonly seen with support lines.

There is no issue with it.

Blizzard is not LL.

Is it really so simple as that?

Consider a moment the limits law enforcement has when performing wire-taps.

The Phone company isn't ALLOWED to ask you to agree to give up your rights and be monitored in such a way.

And even if they did ask - your rights would still be guaranteed. The court isn't going to go "OHHHH this would be an illegal wiretap but this person has XYZ phone service, so its okay."



----------

So why does it have to be different for internet communications?

I say it should not be different. It should all be the same.