Backdoor in Product - [edited]'s Force Elements

So, what do you all think about Backdoors in Products... Well heres one.. [edited] Force Elements. He has a backdoor in it that allows him to DISABLE a copy owned by anyone. He and members of his group the "Midichlorian Masters" have a gesture that makes them say "You do not want to use the force on me", while sending a command on a hidden chat channel that turns off the product that [edited] sells for 800L. Personally i think having this backdoor in a product (especially one that is sold) is against moral rules and the TOS itself. I leave it open to discussion.

Note, i have witnessed him using this before, he and other members of his group have attempted using it on me, he himself admits to it, and has shown many people that it exists.

Thats why I didn't buy that product. Master of the Force (v 2.3 something) is better-and cheaper -and has no backdoor

A surprising amount of vendors have backdoors in their products. Its not againt the ToS, and it's not much of a moral issue...

Until you start using them. THEN it gets a little greyer.

You mean Fraud isn't against the TOS?

The TOS, the Terms Of Service, basically says we have to pay if we have agreed to pay, we can't do anything that is detrimental to the service, we have to abide by the cmpany's rules in all respects, and that Linden Lab pretty much doesn't owe anyone anything in return for any money they receive.

Maybe we need firewalls/configuration options on our objects to allow or not allow any action, state change, etc from anyone in any form from anyone we don't allow?

Maybe a bad code checking system that matches paterns in the code (like code that performs an action when some abirtary person's username is found in the code)?

Maybe a code reporting system that list if a compiled script calls XML-RPC, email, does a listen, uses sensors, etc and report all that in a place before we buy....

How about a code verification commity in SL that gives an offical seal/stamp of good code from a third party group?

Hate to tell you this, but state and federal law's say differently.

Show the fraud.

Siggy: all you have to do is make one of the midichlorian masters not like you.... if they know you hav force elements, they'll disable it.

Maybe I'm being thick or missing something but even if they do disable it why don't you just use Tools -> Recompile Scripts in Selection or Tools -> Reset Scripts in Selection to re-enable it?

Ok now - how is that fraud?

Nearly every game I've ever played has a cheat or godmode or admin 'powers' built into it - how is it fraud?

I don't think he's talking about a game - he's talking about the ability to take money for a scripted object, then use a secret backdoor to shut down the script, thus keeping the money for nothing. I have seen some things on SLEx before that openly announced having them, but this sounds like it's actually a secret. I'd definately say, immoral.

Could this not come under the "making things that disrupt other user's experience" category (the "thing" being the backdoor part of the script?)

No - I don't think it does. I think thats a gross overreaction - I've had people tell me some of my builds 'disrupted their experience' because of their style (arabian). I've had folks say that my building on land unowned before and blocking their 'view' has been a disruption of their experience - but that is also bollocks.

I'll give it nasty - a piss off - maybe go so far as bad buisness... maybe unethical at the most.. but not fraud. Certainly not criminally fraudulent.

If I gave you a box called 'ubervendor' that drained your account of money when you rezzed it - THAT would be fraudulent.

I can see where this would be usefull. If you sell a product, and hand out updates, you can script it to check for the update, then when they click accept, it disables the original to prevent them from reselling it. But yea. if the items no transfer that defeats the purpose.

Nope.

State and federal law may, but they don't care.

No. Since they wouldn't have the experience but for you in the first place, no.

The ruling would only be applied to the back door in the script, which isn't the part of the script that provides the experience.

They are still not depriving you of anything you would have had without their involvement in the first place.

Most back doors exist for very good reasons. It's sad that some dips are misusing the concept, but it's hard to really say it violates the ToS when any other form of fraud doesn't.

Again, take the same script, comment out just the backdoor, and I've lost nothing. The objection is raised against the component, not the person.

(Plus, besides, if they hadn't made it maybe I could have done. Yes, I can make the object/script anyway but there's the community involvement angle too.)

There's a reason back doors aren't discussed much. They are the worst hidden secret in programming, but it's not something that discussion of is encouraged for this exact reason. People are happier not knowing. Most back doors in SL scripts that I know of exist for very good reasons; as I said, it sucks that some dip is abusing the concept.



"Might have" is not an arguement.

Well, I'm very concerned that people think there are such "good reasons" around. In the real world, lots of people dislike Product Activation, and even that doesn't allow the company to actively send a signal to disable products that have been usable before. I can understand the need for security in scripts, but surely it be managed by automated checks, rather than trusted to a person who might or might not be objective.



Um, I didn't say "might have"...

Most back doors are fairly harmless. They are debugging tools, as a rule.



No, you made the "might have" arguement, though. In debate, we are taught that "might have" is almost never a valid arguement.

Ah, that I can understand. (I thought you meant "shut down" type backdoors.)



So, we can't debate about anything that hasn't actually happened? That seems a tad restrictive!

The difference is kinda abstract. A well designed back door will let you do just about anything - it's just a question of what you ACTUALLY do with it.



Not if you're using it as a counter-arguement, generally. "Well, if you hadn't done X, I might have done Y instead!" isn't particularly relevent.