Anyone else see this? State of New York investigates Facebook re: young user safety.

Could this sort of thing be what is driving verification?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070924/wr_nm/facebook_subpoenas_dc

Between their chats with the FBI and Robin getting pounced off-guard by the German media, I'd say: yes, that sorta thing is very definitely driving age verification.

Yep

Which is why all the discussion and complaining in the world won't help. Some of those nearest and dearest to me refuse to entertain verification.

Doesn't matter in the long run because as a company Linden HAVE to be in full compliance with anything that avoids litigation. ANYONE saying 'Oh that's just Linden trying to cover their own asses' needs to seriously think about why that is, and why not expecting them to is ludicrous.

/me waits for the first stone to be thrown at me, but that changes nothing either.

You're right. I totally understand why LL need to age verify, and support the idea. I only wish they'd communicate with us better about it, so that the implementation doesn't break social structures in SL or prevent large numbers of people from participating. I especially wish LL would restrain themselves from the temptation to add anything to age verification, such as gender verification. It's not necessary and could break even more of the social bonds we have in SL.

I also believe that most of the carping and ill-will that has sprung up around verification could have been prevented by careful listening on the part of LL. It may well be that SL has gotten much more racy than LL had hoped for, but it's always bad business to diss your customers.

When the web first took off, it did so in large part on the existence of porn, so there's no reason for anyone to be much surprised when history repeats itself.

LL should encourage the content they want to see, instead of setting policies that make it look as if we're supposed to snitch on each other. That was a huge mistake, which did not need to be added to verification at all. It has seriously impacted morale among the customers, giving many people the impression that alternative and counter cultures are becoming unwelcome in SL. I know that's not true, but most people don't realize LL is liberal and so are afraid because of the ambiguous policies.

In short, verification is good. Arrogance and poor communication, on the other hand, truly suxxor.

The problem is that they blew smoke up our collective asses about this "trust" issue. It no longer was couched as simple Age Verification - it was IDENTITY verification, and the talk about shedding identity and "trust" rightfully raises hackles in a world where identity theft runs rampant and was not at all comforting, no matter how hard Robin tried.

I agree that verification and restriction will happen. Any sensible person should see that too.
I think that a lot of unnecessary heat has been generated by LL's usual abysmal standard of detail communication.

However the same sensible person should see that the Integrity non-verifying verification does not actually place any barrier between minors and restricted content.

LL: Are you 18+?
- Yes
Integrity: Give me the name, postcode, date of birth (and maybe all or bit of a national ID, of some adult.
- OK



Looking for good in everything:
IDV will go ahead.
Eventualy some Attorney General will write to LL pointing out that minors are freely roaming over all of the grid.
That may concentrate peoples' minds on the real issues.

Actually this is different - in this case (afaict) the complaint is that FaceBook claims to be safe for under 18s but does not have the controls in place to ensure that safety (the TOS for FaceBook allows over 13s to join).

However, LL makes no such claims for the SL maingrid - indeed it clearly states that the SL maingrid *is not* suitable for under 18s.

If LL were spooked by this particular case, they'd be checking their processes for keeping adults off the teengrid rather than their processes for keeping minors off the maingrid.

Matthew

The heat was inevitable - any system which involves revealing personal information such as SSN/Passport Number *will* generate heat. A large number of people are (rightly or wrongly) extremely suspicious of such things (not least of all given the growing awareness of identity theft). Recently, a UK government department guaged the opinion as to using our SSN equivalent to log onto a government website - the result was a resounding no!

The flaws in the system have been expounded already - but in essence this is not a verification system, it is a deterrent system. It doesn't prevent the underage registering it just places a few more barriers in the hope of discouraging them - unfortunately it will discourage some adults too. A credit card based system would work in the same way - discouraging the underage, rather than verifying anything, but discouraging some adults too (however, I'd argue that a credit card system would be a better deterrent system).

However, LL has tried to claim that this is a much strong verification system than it really is, and has also started throwing identity verification and trust into the pot (completely misunderstanding the social structures in SL, and the nature of trust in either SL or RL), thus heating up the discussions considerably.

Whereas the FaceBook case is somewhat different - fundamentally it is about FaceBook making claims about the safety of FaeBook which could not be substantiated by the actual controls in place. LL are in danger of placing themselves in the same situation by making claims about the IDV which go well beyond what the IDV can actually deliver. LL may try to argue that any liability fo failures in the system lie with Aristotle/Integrity but these flaws are both obvious and have been discussed in the media at length so LL cannot claim to be totally unware of these, and it *is* LL making these claims to its customers so they may find they can't duck all of the liability (even if they managed to get Aristotle to pick up all the legal costs if a court case ensued, there will still be the PR damage).

Matthew

It is by no means certain that SSN/Passport Number will be a mandatory field in the Integrity screen.
The Integrity website implies that such information is not mandatory, but only "Recommended".
One Concierge user reported in this forum that he verified solely on Name, DOB and postcode.
Another reported entering an ID field but of being unsure as to whether the field was mandatory or not.

It would be more accurate to say
"The heat was inevitable - any unclear blog posting or other communication by LL *will* generate heat.

Regardless of the fact that age verification is necessary----the current method handed to us is not going to work. It is no more an assurance of age verification then the existing system and in this method, requires giving up data to a data mining company, which is repugnant.

I agree with both of you on this. I'm not sure what is the cause of LL's blindness to the actual cultures in SL, since even if their creation has totally out scaled their ability to understand it, they could get people to sample and report. The "trust" blog post was downright creepy. I don't trust strangers, verified or not.

It does suggest that decisions are being made under the influence of people who don't use SL at all. SL can be killed. I didn't really believe it until I saw the dips in premium members and in the economy. SL is not a technology, it's a meme, and that meme is now connecting with RL and out of the genie bottle. But it's not self-perpetuating yet.

At first I thought the strongest argument for open source was that it would protect SL from busybody regulators and Acts of God against the server farms. Now I think the reason we need it the most is to free SL, the meme, from whatever uncomprehending pressures are driving decisions like "identity" verification.

Actually, I did carefully say *involves" rather than *requires* in my post - the system does *involve* revealing SSN etc. by virtue of the fact that (at least in the beta) it does ask for them. The fact that the verification takes place (at least for most of Europe) without actually entering this data only confirms people's suspicions!

Matthew

Yes.
People will be fooled by the entry screens into volunteering sensitive data that they do not actually need to.
This is the only way that Aristotle/Integrity can get that data. For most of the world, there is no other way for them to obtain it.
The data is very valuable to their business.

If they are asking for data that they do not actually require for the LL verification, then it immediately puts into grave question any assurances from LL or from them that the information will be recorded and locked in a vault *only* against the day that a subpoena arrives.

Especially as the assurances from Integrity (namely that the data will only be stored for legal purposes) are contradicted by the assurances from LL (namely that the data will not be stored at all).

Matthew

Unless it's just not possible to "age verify" in reverse: to determine with any credibility that an identity belongs to a minor. (Clearly, lack of proof that someone is of-age is not the same as proving they're not of-age.) If that's impossible, then LL's response to this very case could sensibly be to childproof the main grid, except for age-verified areas.

As usual, LL have posted conflicting claims on data storage by Integrity.

It's the Tao effect. Posting stuff about things that might happen is interesting, so do it. Getting the ducks in a row and checking detail is boring, so don't do it.


I don't believe anything they say other than that they intend to implement 'verification'.

Integrity have to store an audit trail. Otherwise even the most irredeemably stupid dog in the street will realise that the whole thing is completely farcical.

Slightly more intelligent dogs will understand that if Integrity request information that they can not verify against available databases, then they must intend to use it other than for audit trail purposes.
OR-
Integrity have an incredibly cavalier approach to Data Protection - which I would be prepared to accept could be closer to the truth.

Quoted for truth.

Yes, but so far, nobody has come up with a way to childproof any part the main grid - other than asking the children if they are adults and asking them to enter online some data related to an adult.

I am in agreement that Age verification is a necessity. However the way LL has handled it , with confusion, obfuscation, and disingenuousness, with such a disregard for it's customers that it really doesn't make me want to rush out and do it.

The complaint against FaceBook is that adults can use it to target minors. If the SL Teen Grid isn't "adult proof", LL could face the same accusation - namely that the SL Teen Grid can be used by adults to target minors. No amount of verification on the Main Grid is going to change that!

However, you are quite right, that the IDV process doesn't work in reverse (in the UK an under 16 is not going to have a driving license or a SSN equivalent, although they might have a passport). This is a very good reason why IDV even if it did work as Aristotle/LL claimed would not be sufficient if the rumours that LL wants to merge the teen grid and main grid are true. Unless there is a way a minor can genuinely verify the person they are interacting with is also a minor (which the Teen Grid currently, hopefully, provides), then any merged grid would open LL to the same case currently being applied to FaceBook.

Matthew

I am glad that we are starting to clear up this mis-information about the Driving License/Social Security thing - all concrete evidence (what little we have) shows that they are not necessary in order to verify for SL. The more awareness people have about this, the better. Check out the thread at /327/df/211830/1.html for the discussion.

The fact that Integrity makes it ambiguous on the form what is actually required for verification is poor and really needs to be addressed.

But I think that the main point is being missed - putting this process in place, where Integrity does the verification takes LL off the hook. When someone tries to sue them for allowing underage people onto the main grid, they in turn can claim that it is not them doing the identification, but Integrity. So I think that this does exactly what LL need to do - takes the pressure off them about who is on the grid. Doesn't matter if it has loopholes - that's Integrity's problem, not LL's.

The Problem is of scale.

Myspace and Face book have been very large online desitnations. Therefore they attract a corresponding amount of Media and Law Enforcement attention.

Anything they do that can be criticized will be criticized.

Parents dont want to have to monitor what their kid does and tells people online, therefore they want all kinds of regulations.

Remember the Myspace banning of everyone on the Sex Offenders List? And then being required to hand the list of their previous account holders they had banned for such.

Now its Facebook.

Second Life has gotten a little bit of attention, it will get more. When it was a small niche place for geeks online, it was below the radar. It isnt anymore.

With SL's business model it needed open registration (6/6/06) and to attract corporate and Media attention to keep running. Well this is the downside.

Ah, I think I get it now. I misunderstood FaceBook--I thought it professed to be minors-only.

I was thinking LL was hoping to shed liability by simply making no claim that any particular residents are underage, and banning any content or behavior that wouldn't be acceptable for a minor (outside age-restricted zones). But I guess if that didn't work for FaceBook, there's not much reason to think it should work for LL.

But, it all seems a bit hopeless, then. Unless there's some powerful magic in the vetting process for access to Teen Grid (no idea how that works now), LL can't ensure the Teen Grid is in fact minors-only, any more than FaceBook could substantiate the age claims of its members.

I hear many folk saying how they arnt going to do this or that.... Ive got to the point now... which is pretty strong for me..as I like a laugh like most people.

Linden Lab WILL ask you to verify, if you dont then tough... no argument... no complaints.

If they want to sell your data .. then they are NO obligation unless it is illeagal to do so (i.e the UK).

I somehow feel sometimes that due to the fact that many have seen SL grow from nothing to what it is today that you THINK that you have an opinion or some sort of vote...
SL is NOT a democrcy.. its a business that Linden Lab run in a server farm to make MONEY!!!!!!! not to provide you kinky bastards with a hideout. It wants you all to be premium members with at least 1024 of tier per month... LL want to make sure that if SOMEBODY comes and says "Kinky DooGood is an 11 year old girl and has been having a online "sexual" relationship with an AV in SL whos a 50 year old sex offender" they can say that due to age verification thety can make sure they have placed the systems in place within " reasonable doubt", and with IDV they can MAKE sure that illegal activities that put people at risk .. i.e cyber bullying etc is able to be tracked and quoshed ASAP.


You may complain .... you may INSIST or thro your toys out of your pram about your civil liberties .... sorry on SL you dont have any. You will either cough up your personal details or you will be restricted or leave the platform. The days of you happily tossing off to some RL fat ugly bloke dressed as a 6 foot blonde temptress are long gone.... SL has grown into a world wide platform for both business and pleasure/fun. Yes there will be porn ...as there should be, there will be naughtyness all over the grid ... at least i hope so. But if the liberty I have to give up is my anonymity to protect myself from 11 year olds.... if that anonymity is something that i have to give up in order for me to be free..... then I will give that up .... after all Liberty is based on Freedom .... you are who you ARE not what your RL Tag floating above your head SAYS you are.
If In SL you are gay ...... but Streight IRL ... then good for you ... it might give you that peace that you deserve and freedom to express that side of you . If you are a man who has a heavy feminine side ..... then in SL you want to know what it FEELS like to be a woman ... and visa versa ....Excellent. Linden Lab doesnt really care "who YOU want to be today" then do care abouth wether what you do can bring Second Life and Linden Lab into disrepute.