Assumed Rights

I have been reading and participating in several different threads relating to the security scripts in world. Now before I get hammered with why didnt I respond to each one, this isnt a reponse to them persay.

In all the posts the topic gets twisted into a "I have the right to do this and to do that". mainly I have the right to explore the world without being "griefed" by these "illegal" security script.

When in fact the "RIGHT" is really a "OPPORTUNITY", to explore the world.

Please understand the opportunity to do something isnt a guarantee, it is an occasion or situation which makes it possible to do something that you want to do or have to do, or the possibility of doing something.

Linden Labs is giving you a situation in which you can explore and they also give the landowners the opportuntiy to keep you off and away from their personal space!

In a summory of the various threads, my interuptation is people want to be able to explore uninhibited unless there is a sign saying "STOP YOU ARE NOT WANTED". Correct me if I am wrong isnt that what the red fence lines and security messages are? Your sign that you arent wanted on this parcel.

The signs you put out in R/L arent always visible from 25 meters away. And yes I know in R/L you cant be ejected and sent home. But you can be shot on site in many states for tresspassing!

As for getting sent home and loosing your no copy vehicle, once you are tped home or even ejected to the edge of the sim in chat history it normally says what device did it. That is if it was a security script. And most of the time it says something to the effect of" ryan00 Odets home security orb has teleported you home" . Take that name and without gettng pissy Im the person and tell them "I accidently got into your security system and couldnt get out and lost my vihicle would you mind turning it off long enough for me to retrive it?"

I know I would chuckle and say sure, as would most people. If the person refuses contact a Linden in world and ask them if they can help you out. If they say anything besides sure i suggest sending a passionate message to live help stating you cant get a Lindens help and you need help. I have dont that before and seconds later three lindens Im'd me and tped to me to help me with the situation.

What I find interesting about your post is that you dispute that there is a right to travel but you implicitly presume property rights are absolute and are not debatable.

You can't have if both ways, if you want to dispute there is a right to travel, you have to equally acknowledge that that property rights can also be disputed.

Rights are not absolutes irrespective of what Jefferson implied with his 'inalienable rights'. Rights are just agreements in a society as to what should be the foundations of law and social interaction.

As such, a right to travel can be considered a right. Or it may be considered a non-right. The ability to control who travels in one's property might be a right or a non-right.

Certainly, in the real world these two foundations have hugely different strengths in different parts of the world. In the US property rights are strong but not absolute. I own a real life property that has a road crossing the middle of it. I do not have the right to stop people from using the road even though it is my property. In other countries, property rights are generally even weaker, and the rights of the individual to traverse property is even stronger. The point is, there is no where in the real world that property rights are absolute because it's not good for society as a whole. I don't see any major differences in Second Life that says that absolute property rights is necessary or a benefit to our second life society. If anything the need for absolute property rights is less because it's much more difficult to damage property, and as such, property rights should be proportionately weaker.

The problem is that many people see Second Life in a different context.
You compare it to real life land, and expect a similar sort of privacy as your RL home.
Others see land more like a website, and mainland land is like a page on a big community page.

Offcourse both comparisons aren't completly correct, but I think these difference are the core of the debate.

Which is appalling and thoroughly immoral in any situation outside of an actual war zone.

yeah definitely especially when than intruder is crawling through your window and about to turn you over and not be so nice...

Ah, yes, that would justify being able to legally kill anyone on your property just because they're on your property. No, hold on, it wouldn't.

your joking right... Do you have any idea how many bullets actually hit their targets from regular civlians? Seriously.. LOL

But you darn right, I have every right to shoot when someone invades my house and is about to do bodily harm to myself or my child.

Trespassing does not inherently mean "crawling through your window".

If I walk onto your lawn without asking, I am technically trespassing.

Very very true, from what I understand the law clearly says you have to feel threatened to shoot this person. They can't just be walkign across your yard and you decide to shoot them for the hell of it. Well they are trespassing but they are in no way a threat or a danger to your person. And that person that shot them will go to jail.

I saw you eyeing my lawn! Watch your step in Caledon Tamrannoch, Aquataine, or you'll find yourself orbited!

Too late. I hope you didn't step in it.

Did you even *read* his post? Because from your reply, it looks a lot like you pretty much breezed past it, and went on to restate exactly the things that he pointed out in his post that the other threads have been missing.

If people don't have the automatic right to access to your land, you don't have the automatic right to defend your virtual property with virtual weapons (security scripts).

And if such scripts really are illegal (against the TOS), then you don't have the opportunity either.

"yeah definitely especially when than intruder is crawling through your window and about to turn you over and not be so nice..."

Have you ever, EVER had anyone do this to you, or anyone you know, EVER? I mean...EVER?

Pro-gunners amuse me. They always seem to assume that there are armies of criminals ready to murder them and rape their pets the moment they put their shotgun away. Maybe there is, I don't know. I do know that living with such constant suspicion of everyone around you, and doing it with lethal force at hand, isn't going to make people any less likely to want to harm you.

Musuko.

Push is violation of TOS. Eject is not.

I think that it's also a mater of changing expectations over time.

When SL was smaller, people did tend to be more social. When I was new, people generally said "Hi" when they just saw someone walking down the road, or when you were both in a shop or whatever. That doesn't happen anymore. Now when you're in a shop, people usually just ignore each-other.

As time has passed, and SL's gotten bigger and with more people, people are less likely to view everyone in SL as part of their social group. Which means that houses and other builds have become less and less show places, and more and more what they acutally represent IRL. Private places to gather with a chosen group of friends.

The fact that land is actually purchased (And is no longer even close to going for the old standard of $L1 per meter.) and that a monthly rent in the form of tier is paid for it goes even farther in the direction of causing people to feel that it is indeed *their* land, and *not* public land that they are simply permitted to build on.

This is IMO a natural evolution as SL grows. It's unfortunate for those who are either used to SL as it was, or for those who are used to playing games where there is no privately owned land, and that everything is a company owned part of the gaming enviroment, but it is I feel, a natural stage in the progress of SL as it attracts more people.

Two things that I think are greatly contributing to this is the elimination of Dwell, and the uncontroled growth of new accounts, particularly the ones used as alts for griefing.

The second explains itself, the first was a downside that was pretty much ignored when dwell was eliminated.

(And yes, I know that I argued for dwell to be eliminated, but mostly because I didn't fancy dealing with huge inflation to support events and clubs and the like that I didn't have an interest in going to myself. Or in supporting camping chairs and dance pads.)

Everyone was so busy complaining about how the loss of dwell was going to kill big events and clubs and the like, that no one looked at it's effect on the average user who made maybe $L5 or $L25 a day from letting people wander onto their land and look around. In my opinion, a better way of cutting back Dwell would have been capping it at $L100 a day per parcel or user.

This would have again left events to support themselves, rather than asking everyone to support events that not everyone was actually interested in, but would have given the average user some incentive to keep the ban lines down, and throttle back the security orbs.

(This isn't just completely idle speculation btw, I have had some success in the past getting neighbors who had the ban lines up and were saying, "Hey, they're there becaue this is just land for me and my friends!" to lower them.)

Anyway, I honestly don't see the situation of people wanting to lock others off of their property as being likely to get any better until LL gives people some better, *much* better thought out tools to *manage* their privacy. And I also don't wee things ever going back to when homes were more showplaces rather than private space for people to be alone with their chosen circle of friends.

Actually, I own a gun, and I don't have this particular fantasy.

I have a rifle because we live in an area where there have been large predators, and as a mother of small children - well, I'd rather have the solution to one of the black bears we have around here, rather than wringing my hands, utterly helpless.

Yes I have.. which is why I am now a proud owner of a pistol and a license to carry.