Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Account Verification for Accessing Adult Content

It would be interesting to hear why credit card verification is now considered valid for age, when it was deemed insufficient in 2007 when the Integrity/Aristotle plan was launched. What has changed?

And I do not think those who portray children would want this at all! The posters in the forums who portray children in SL, do so for totally non sexual reasons, they do not want to be around explicit content, usually. So - you're right, what about them.

I guess anyone on or near mature land who has adopted a child-av in SL would have to move? Or live alone. I'm not in the situation but adoption agencies are popular in SL so a lot of people probably must be, and I have heard of SL-married couples who want to adopt one day. But if they lived in PG land then under existing rules they could be AR'd for 'being together' (when the child wasn't there of course!) inside their own home, because that is only to happen on mature land in current rules even in one's SL home.

So a couple could live together platonically and have their SL adopted child av live there too or, they could visit 'adult island' together but not be together at home? Because they'd be living on PG land.

If I'm mistaken on any of it please correct me someone.

It does not protect us 100% but it does substantially reduce the risk, I'm yet to hear of a system that will work 100%. but anythings got to be more effective than the "tick the box if you are 18" system. What percentage of effectiveness does that have keeping under 18's out? 1% ?

Which are you going to use to prevent unwanted access to your home, a 1% effective sign or a 50% effective lock? Anyone can break a window so a lock is a waste of money.

We ask for ID before selling alcohol to young people in many countries, that system doesn't work 100% either so therefore we should stop bothering to do so and just sell any 12yo a bottle of bourbon.

Tegg, a teen and their ID card can be seen *in person* if they are trying to buy alcohol. Big difference.

The "over 18" statement is part of the current user/LL contract. If someone lies they are legally liable for that lie. Not LL and not anyone the person encounters in SL (to the best of my knowledge, but also, people visit SL from the entire globe, so local laws may take precedent, yes?).

Kids can use their parent's cards, can fudge this multiple ways. Maybe they can do this for teen grid already too (I have no idea, I am not a teen so I have not been there, and I don't know anyone who has). But the difference NOW is that on the teen grid they are not exposed to 'adult content.'

The only "lock" Tegg is to keep them out. See?

That is the lock LL are trying to put on the door, there is no lock on the door at the moment.

So if I was 18 but appeared to be 17, why shouldn't I be able to buy alcohol by just signing an "I am over 18" note without being forced to show my personal details to any business.

Because in person it's a lot easier to ask for id.

That's pretty much what a fake ID is.

If a teen presents a fake ID to the store clerk, the clerk checks it, and sells the booze to the kid anyway, he won't be held liable (that presumes the ID is "good enough" to pass casual inspection as "valid", according to the law).

When you produce ANY document that you offer as validation, and it is legally accepted, it absolves you of any crime related to acting on such a document.

The problem is that, online, all that exists which is considered "legally accepted" is a click-wrap EULA. Credit cards are not (because minors can legally get them). As such, laws like COPPA stipulate that, to absolve the online provider of liability for storing PII for a minor, they simply have to provide a click-through disclaimer that says "Yes, I understand and am 13+".

Until the government provides a legally-acceptable and widely-available way to verify online identity (arguably, they very well may never be able to), all that really can be done is to put the onus for exposing minors to inappropriate content back on their parents, which is where most sensible people argue it belongs in the first place.

Now, online services are free to provide their own protections for minors, but "mature" sites shouldn't have to do anything more than put up a big "KIDS KEEP OUT" sign on their front door, request a COPPA-like agreement and signup for access, and actively pursue any reports or complaints about minors walking through the door and hanging around, and kick them out. That's about the only fair and reasonable response to the problem.

I'm personally against having teens in the grid. I have tried to verify my age in the beta system, and it has FAILED. I'm 36 and yet can not prove that due to living in the UK. I'm not interested in providing false details which this policy would encourage me to do to have the same existence in SL as I currently have. Even worse is I can't have a bank account for the pure reason I have out standing debts and am insolvent.

I don't like the sex side of SL at all. I'd rather it was lob'd in a ghetto of mainland. However my service's in SL require me to script things of this nature from time to time. Would I then somehow be breaking the rules because of this new system (I cant go to said designated XXX area ergo I lose that client ?) It seems that I'm personally being restricted because some idiots can't control there teenagers for lack of time or interest. Then theres the violence side ... sometimes I like to kill zombies that someone has made with alts and created a nice area to do it. Now is that too going to be in this XXX region ? So my personal freedom is taken away as well as current /potential clients.

I don't have anything against providing details - but if the system doesn't work (as proven) please don't do it.

/me wants to make sure she understands this.

Only people who try to access mature content on the mainland will need to be RL age-verified?

Any chance these meetings will be at times that are doable by people living in the US and, as most adults are, working during the day?

Incredible! 18 pages of comments all boiling down to:

These people will benefit:
1. Minors who lied to get on the main grid but are too dumb to lie for verification.
2. Other residents who don't want to see US-defined 'adult' content but can't uncheck 'show mature results' or walk away from an area they don't like.

While most people seem to think:
3. LL's legal obligation is covered by an "I am over 18" declaration.

So no great problem that needs fixing, but if LL really want to be safe:
5. The obvious and simple answer is build, or declare, kiddy-continent where 'nothing' is allowed.

Instead:
6. All those with mainland sex stores/sites will have to move. At their own expense.
7. Anyone who wants to visit or work for them (I'm in the same position as electroRogue there) has to age-verify.
8. Using a system that won't work for a lot of people but is easy to cheat for others.
9. And has huge data-security holes.
10. Whether the residents like it or not.

Which is about the most awkward, disruptive, expensive and unpopular solution we can imagine.

So the questions that REALLY need to be asked are:
What's the REAL problem LL thinks it is addressing?
Why is the simple solution not applicable?
Anyone found anything that can compete with SL when it closes/goes corporate?

"Violence ... think R rated" - I have no idea what that means, so that really didn't help at all, lol.

Hi Indeterminate, your post is wonderfully succinct.

It disturbs me greatly that the holes in the current "verifying" system mean that SL's verification system is Classist and Discriminatory. The verification system fails more often for Europeans than it does for U.S.A. The verification system fails more often for working class than it does for upper class. The verification system fails more for the disadvantaged than the previously advantaged, etc.

Even more troubling is that they've been offering this Verification thing for a while now and it's still failing for so many legitimate users who try to Verify. This is the best they can come up with? /me wrings hands.

so people that have already verified have basically been conned into giving their info to integrity/aristotle for absolutely no reason then?

True, but - if someone breaks into your home, are you going to go to prison for aiding in the criminal act?You're missing the point. If the shopkeeper sold alcohol to a minor based on a false ID and there was no reason to believe the buyer was a minor, the shopkeeper is usually not held liable.

The shopkeeper in this instance is Linden Labs. But what of all of us in-world who may do "business" with minors based on the assumption that LL's age-verification policy ensures that the people we are dealing with are adults? Are we protected? Currently, we are, to a point. If we suspect someone interacting with us is a minor, we hit the AR button and the little twerp goes away. Even if you don't AR the kid because you had no reason to believe that person was a kid (because SL *is* an adult-only environment), you're still protected because the kid had no business being there in the first place.

Now, open up the grid to kids and teens. Will you still have the same protection based on the same assumptions?

That's not a rhetorical question. I really want to know!

I had an issue with a 15 year old who had her own credit cards and had "Payment Info Used" in her profile...based on that I hired her as a dancer/escort. When I found out her real age, I reported her and she is now out of SL...however, this illustrates that using credit cards or paypal accounts to verify over 18 doesn't always work.

As to your not-rhetorical question, I too want to know the answer to that. If I inadvertantly hire another underaged girl, will I as the club owner be protected against prosecution since the kid lied to get the job?

How about an account verification system that works for ALL residents? Just ask if they’re at least 18. As you admit and many have already mentioned: any system you implement will be able to be bypassed. Don’t punish the people that cannot or are unwilling to verify. If you say you’re at least 18, then you can deal with the consequences.

What are you referring to. Currently NO one under 18 should be in the regular SL, and as I understand things, only a few carefully screened adults are on the teen grid, as employees of Linden or something. Tell me how ANY age verification is going to protect anyone - including as someone said, adults from false AR reports - once the kids come flooding into the main grid with LL's permission. There is no way to protect them. For sure. Period. (Have you read the reasons given in very well thought out posts like Matthew Dowd's?)

Right now there IS a lock in place Tegg, a PADLOCK, it's called no admittance.

The ONLY real difference is that now they will be there with LL's permission.



How is this relevant to anything? It's a bit ridiculous. But fwiw a lot of poeple did object to mandatory state ID when they first came into being. In current society everyone has a SS# and later if they wish, a driver's license. It is pretty hard to get around it. But you keep confusing real life with a video game. The benefits of having proper ID in real life outweigh whatever privacy was long-ago lost in past generations.

Anyway, flashing your driver's license in front of an actual person, over the CHOICE to buy alcohol FOR YOURSELF is a lot different than *everyone* being required to give private information to a faceless internet agency which has HAD leaks in the past, with which their ID could be stolen and lives ruined, to protect someone *else's* children in a video world they don't belong in, in the first place!

*this isn't real life and this level of loss of privacy is not necessary*

The current protection does not protect you at all so yes the same lack of protection will prevail. Will the "tick if you are 18" make you feel just as safe in mature areas when the grid is opened to kids & teens?
You may very well believe that the fact that a minor lied to get access will protect a persons RL good name after it is dragged through the papers and courts for 12 months, because they refuse to pay $10,000L to a minor trying to blackmail them after cybersex.

By the same token, this isn't real life and this level of privacy is not necessary.

A "No Admittance" sign is not a padlock.

I really don't understand why there is a need for such a system.
According to LL, residents requested such a system so that said residents could control their second life experiences better.
Well....how about instead of making a hugely complex system which is most likely to have more holes and leaks than a colander, make a simple check box at the account verification page which says something like "I am 18 years or older and I want to be able to access adult content and sims". That way users can effectively control wether they want to be able to teleport into the "SL redlight district" or not and LL is covered in terms of the law.

I live in europe and currently don't have a steady income, hence I don't have a cedit card. In addition to that EU laws prohibit me to send out my personal ID to third parties.
Now I don't visit adult sims, but I am a custom request scripter and sometimes my job implies that I make scripts for store owners in that area. Since I won't have any possibility to verify my age I'd lose potential customers for my service, so I am 100% against this idea.

Make it a trial account say a month where you can only access PG area's once your time is up then you either add credit card details and tick the I declare I'm over the age of 18 box. or the account is frozen until it is cleared.

Put filters on the search engines, until its verified. that way you can't find the 'adult' material..by this method..

do NOT merge the teen grid with the mature grid..

LL are then covered legally, and it is while not perfect, is going to be just as or more effective than this clumpsy, insulting, and in some cases due to national laws illegal, method than they are pushing on us..

Your 'alts' can be verified through the same credit card ..so the but but I'm a roleplayer, dosn't wash..

most
Teens ,and quite a few adults will not endlessly recreate an AV month after month and the malcontents will also be put off as there is then a way to tracing them through card details.
Yes they ..could..steal beg borrow anothers card..but unless the person asked is foolish they won't agree without knowing what for..and they would soon investigate the problem if they were informed of dubious practices attached to their credit card..

That sounds like us/uk law style thinking. Yes, it is more effective, but no it doesn't help a bit to decrease risk of criminal investigations or fines because you didn't follow the explicit laws.

E.g. in germany courts shot down nearly any age verification system offered by X-rated sites as invalid and not good enough, only walking up to a post office flashing your ID card in person and doing a bunch of paperwork and spending some euros on the process was accepted as barely sufficient. They shot down ID-Card numbers, Credit Cards and various other schemes. Even if you used those to keep out minors you have zero reduction in risk of criminal prosecution for pornography or giving minors access. And typically those lawsuits don't care if your site is in a foreign country if you obviously target the people of the country in question (e.g. by providing german web pages and support).

So from a cover your ass point of view its not much different, from a real 'protect the minors' pov its a bit more valid, but actually not the point of this discussion, as the Lindens explicitly stated its NOT for protecting minors as those should be on the Teen Grid and they don't intend a merger. Its intended as coverup for an enforced zoneing instrument to fix the mess they created on the mainland by not governing what can be done where upfront.

No, this is exactly the point, it is our RL privacy that is at stake.

Let us say that you approach a building site with a No Admittance sign, or an electrical substation with a No Admittance sign or a fast flowing river with a No Swimming sign etc.

If you ignore the sign and get hit by falling debris, electrocuted, drown etc. most if not all will say that is was your own fault for ignoring the sign.

If on the other hand the building site, electrical substation, river, had a sign saying "Please Come In", and you subsequently got hit by debris, electrocuted, drowned etc. then most, if not all, would blame the person who put up the sign.

Matthew