So yeah....privacy more or less an impossible dream?

This is one area where TSO had it right.

I always wonder about the people who keep telling others to "get a private island." Who keep saying that's the only conceivable solution. Makes me wonder.

coco

To be honest....

...If you're so attached to SL that, if need be, you can't separate it from RL, or even just click "x" when it annoys you......


....you have much more important issues to handle than privacy.

From: Joannah Cramer

I mentioned one of possible ways earlier in this very thread. Just because you personally 'cannot see it' doesn't mean a solution doesn't exist. .

Hmmm the privacy problem is a lot harder than restricting camera movement. As someone pointed out the function is on the client side. What you are seeking is the illusion of privacy. You want to be able to think you are secure.

From: Joannah Cramer

http://secondlife.com/badgeo/wakka.php?wakka=HomePage

Feel free to educate yourself on what's actually possible with LSL. Then you'll realize your FUD is exactly that. .



You are the trusting sort it seems. What makes you think that security script does not send it onward to a web page? It would be too easy to place it in there. To be sure a Linden would have to inspect every script for sale. So this is a web page on how to script? You remember those watches? They send their data to a web page. It is not a question of it being possible. Perhaps some paranoid content provider might put this into her/his objects to track a stolen whatever. It is possible and it has happened.

From: Joannah Cramer

You are right, we still have to put up with people abusing the push for griefing despite people complaining about it-

oh, wait. .



The Lindens might do something to make it appear that the problem is solved. You can make all of the rules you want but unless they can be enforced it does not matter. I love politicians! They think laws make a real difference. In Oklahoma you can not even get a decent beer without a lot of effort because the sale of 3.2 beer. This is the solution to public drunkenness! Yea sure, dream on like IDing all sales of alcohol keeps it out of the hands of minors.

From: Joannah Cramer

And? Every piece of functionality put into SL requires LL attention. Do you have any good reason why this particular issue should *not* get their attention?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Https .



hey, secure connections over unsecured network. go figure. ..



Sure, dream on.........That is why the governments and large corporations of the world have their own secure nets that do not connect at all with the regular internet? If it is a Micro$oft product or any well know server it has been hacked.

From: Joannah Cramer

No, you will have to come up with some actual argument to support your point of view why there should be no privacy in SL, than "get over it". Repeating the cliche phrase just doesn't provide any rationale, am afraid.

Well you want to be able to feel good without solving a problem that is really hard to solve. I just don’t worry about it and live my life as if being watched 24/7. I have no privacy in so many ways and I know it. I think it is better to be realists and not to drink the "kool aid" and believe everything is all right. I just pointing out that Linden Labs "restricting" camera function will not give you any more "privacy".

"Privacy" isn't just about sex. Those who think it is must have a fixation or something. Certainly they are dead wrong, because business people need privacy too.

As a builder, I think I'll like that tool... while I am building. Certainly it will be convenient not to have to move around while I am trying to multi-select parts of a large build that are on the edge of normal camera range.

Yet I'll also hate it, because now anything that I build can be stolen from me before I even get a chance to get it to market.

If you can get your camera into range of a prim, you can click on it and view it in edit mode. Depending on it's permissions at the time, you can do a hell of a lot to it, or with it. If you couldn't, then this would be worthless to Builders.

So... let's say I am designing a nifty new vehicle, like a flying motorcycle. I hop onto my building platform 700 M in the air, inside an enclosed skybox, and ensure no one else is nearby. I start building my new product. At the same time, some thief with camera constraints disabled is sitting two sims away, watching my every move, clicking on my prims in edit mode and getting the exact specs on every prim I build, and is duplicating my product as I make it. While I am getting my textures just right, he slaps on a crappy set of simple textures and gets to market first.

This kind of theft has already happened, before the camera changes, to people trying to make new stuff in public sandboxes. Such as a person making a full suit of armor, who found some jerk on the other side of the sandbox was copying his work, prim for prim. Now, it can happen from several sims away.

If I'm not careful, and if I am working with a full-permissions copy that I haven't yet locked down for resale, they might even steal a complete full-permissions copy of my original item, with all the textures and scripts intact. Watch the build in progress, and 'take a copy' as the person is finishing the work.

That could easily happen to any content creator that makes anything out of prims, and something similar could happen to any clothing designer, as the designs for their not-yet-released new lines of clothing could be stolen and reproduced before they even get a chance to sell their first copy themselves.

Now I am a comparatively small-time builder and designer. No one is that likely to watch me and steal my designs. But why do you think you don't see any of the big-name vehicle or home or clothing designers standing in a public sandbox, making their newest creations? They all do their building far from the public eye. If I were an innovative builder like Cubey Terra, or some high-end clothing designer, I'd be having fits over this.

And my suggestion had nothing to do with restricting camera movement. Seriously, is it really *so* hard to read the content of thread you reply to before you hit that 'quote' button? --;;


And you entirely miss my point. No one can make a script 'record and send images' etc because this functionality is *not* implemented in the first place. So you are basically talking about something you have no idea of, in attempt to create panic and divert attention from the issue at hand, which is if privacy should be provided in SL and if not then *why* not.


Or they can implement a working solution. Like you know, the aforementioned push block that actually does what it was intended to do. Because it's not a 'rule' that 'must be enforced' but simple functionality put in the software.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vpn

why do you insist on talking about something you have no clue about?


No, i want to have the functionality which is perfectly possible to implement, and which could make SL much more enticing place for people to visit than a group of people yapping 'no privacy, deal' without any apparent reasoning behind it than ignorance, do.


Like i said, too bad that's not what i suggested, which makes you shoot entirely off the mark here...

This kind of response is exactly why the silent majority in Second Life say nothing and resort to creating alts, building skyboxes, and installing security orbs. Asking for privacy here means you will be attacked for wanting to engage in deviant behavior or other nastiness. Perhaps you could form an actual argument to support your assertion, rather than relying on character assasination?

I hear Homeland Security is hiring Secret Police, should I pass your name along?

I find it interesting that those who argue against privacy in SL, use RL intrusions on our privacy as some sort of justification for it, as if this was a good thing, that we should just give up any hope of privacy and individual rights and "get over it".

Very interesting, indeed. Well, the government had to hire geeks to develop their little spy programs in the first place, right?

If the re-introduction of an unfettered camera distance makes you paranoid for your privacy, I recommend turning on the Show Look At on in your debug menu. For those who don't use this handy feature, it places a colored crosshair on the screen showing the exact point where each character has their camera focused.

I find this feature useful for when I am mentoring new residents and need to discern whether or not I need to teach them how to ALT-Zoom. (It seems a lot of people skip over the ALT-Zoom instructional station on Orientation Island..)

So turn on Show Look At! If you are "alone" with your friend and all of a sudden a 3rd colored crosshair shows up somewhere in the room, you know you are being watched from afar. My recommendation would be to throw the Wave gesture a few times to let your stalker know that they're busted. They usually fly away after that..

From: Io Zeno

I hear Homeland Security is hiring Secret Police, should I pass your name along??

No thank you I already have a boss that watches me You cheap shot at me will not work

From: Io Zeno

I find it interesting that those who argue against privacy in SL, use RL intrusions on our privacy as some sort of justification for it, as if this was a good thing, that we should just give up any hope of privacy and individual rights and "get over it".

You are confusing against privacy guards and those against the illusion of privacy. I am against giving residents the ilusion of having privacy where there is none.

From: Io Zeno

Very interesting, indeed. Well, the government had to hire geeks to develop their little spy programs in the first place, right?

Someone has to do it and you saying this changes nothing. It is much better to be informed of something than burying your head in the sand against the possibility. I am the messenger yelling that there is no privacy in second life and a quick fix by Linden Labs is not going to change this!

Rehashing previously mentioned ideas, and adding more, hopefully. If they were previously covered and I overlooked them, I'm sorry in advance.



I think having a parcel option, "Block external cameras," that would block the camera of any avatar over a certain distance away from a parcel (perhaps the distance of normal altcam, or half that, would be ideal). It wouldn't obstruct people closer to the parcel, and also lower the likleyhood of your cam accidently hitting a 'wall'. True that it would have to be done clientside, which can be hacked, but its security through obscurity, which is better than nothing. Atleast the thing won't be right there in the gui.

Also, I think the rendering range for avatars in said parcels should be reduced and capped, so you can't see the avatars if you're sitting halfway across the sim, or two over. This would also prevent people on the ground from looking up into a skybox from within the same parcel, as they wouldn't be able to see the avatars up there due to the capped av rendering. Hell, it would be a pretty good measure just by its self. It could also inhibit people with supposed 'hacked clients' to cam into camblocked parcels, as the sim could simply not send them the avatars to begin with. Objects, however, could be handled as they are now, as it is a benefit for builders.

Builders would have their handy supercamera when building, provided they arent building in a blocked parcel across the sim from them, which is unlikley.

Parcel owners can still have some iota of privacy from the unrestricted camera. It's not guarinteed privacy, but peeping toms, or whatever, would have to be alot closer to spy.

Compromise?

Edit: on second look, it appears that av rendering is already limited to some degree, even with camera restraints removed and drawdistance set skyhigh. Is this not the case, or is it just rendering to far at the current state?

Ranma, why are you and others so upset by the idea that some people would like to have some privacy, that is what bothers me, and then the insinuation that if they desire it, they must have something shameful to hide, as you did?

This is absurd. No one expects absolute privacy in a virtual world like SL, it is impossible. What people are asking for is a space closed to the wandering cameras of their fellow residents on their own bought and paid for land. Hardly anything extreme, given that we can speak in IM with each other without fear that any random person passing by can listen in on our conversations?

What bothers ME is this small request leads some people to accuse others of some "wrongdoing" because of the desire for some private space and the insistance that you will never have it.

Actually I would like to see some new privacy features but not something that is a fake fix or makes life hard for me or other builders. I own land as well and the more Linden Labs does to "paper over" the flaws of second life the easier it will be for the griefers to operate. In any case I don't think the external camera can be excluded due to how rendering is done. Look at what Linden Labs has done to flyers and now it is not possible to fly at all. You have to get right up to the ban lines before seeing them because some residents thought they were ugly.
Again myself and the others are not upset that some way might be found for privacy but I dont like the ideal people will be lured into a false sense of security.

You would be surprised and some residents think their 512sq meters of crabgrass is their fortress of privacy.

I never asked for this feature. I will use it on my next large building and for "maintance" purposes. As for what the residents are doing it does not bother me. I need to get a V gesture to flash at others when they are "spying" on me. I like what Katiahnya Muromachi wrote about Show Look At and plan on using it for grins and giggles.
Who knows maybe Philip Linden will be able to pull a Usagi out of his hat yet
Oh this "wrongdoing" is a very western concept that I do not share. People in America have at least a personnel space of 10 feet all around them. I had gotten use to living in Tokyo where the only privacy is in your thoughts. Guilt however is a big reason for "privacy". I have nothing to hide and don't care what the others are doing as long as it does not bother me. I will leave that to the Lindens and the different Police forces in the world. Remember they will have the tools to watch you, now and in the future. Big brother is indeed watching you!

The functionality required for it is already there. The server already knows how to streams data to your client based on comparison of 3-dimensional coordinates. You simply add 4th coordinate here, which is 'dimension layer' and add this to check list, causing the server to only stream the data for layer the AV is currently in, and for geographical location they are in. That's all. Oh and you'd have to add this 4th coordinate to teleport system, which is also a minor tweak of what's already there.

This is seriously no different from text-based 'net communication which has been around for what, 30+ years by now? The major problem is in getting someone to actually want to get around doing it.


Yes, there are workarounds for everything for an individual who is determined enough. For example, a thief can "work around" your ownership of money by smacking you over the head in dark alley. It does not mean there is no point in trying to protect yourself, and that the only course of action you can take is to sigh and mop around, never bothering to find a work ... because why bother if all you earn can be stolen from you at any moment?

When people seek ways to have privacy they do it because it keeps at bay the majority of casual would-be observers. You can't make things absolutely secure against everyone, but it does not mean there is no point in making it secure against *almost* everyone but the most determined voyeurs.

I know what you mean about the only privacy being in your head, Ranma.

There was a time in my life when my husband and I had far less privacy than most people. Strangers came in and out of our house, unannounced even, and our entire history and financial records, medical records, all of that - were open to everyone.

This was during a contested adoption, which ended up with us keeping the baby, but, like I said, strangers came in and out of our house even afterwards. I felt like our only privacy was that which existed in our minds. (And you do discover that you have a privacy in your mind which no one can ever invade - that's a valuable thing to learn.)

I had zero to feel guilty about. But you know, I would simply rather NOT have strangers in and out of our house unannounced, and I would prefer that our medical and financial records, etc., were not open to all and sundry. It's just not terribly desirable or enjoyable. I much prefer life now that we have as much privacy as a family as most people enjoy. As even you enjoy, Ranma, in your own bedroom and bathroom.

As with everything else, things are not either/or, 0/1, black/white. What people are asking for in terms of privacy for their lots in SL isn't outrageous.

In point of fact, most people in the real world do have reasonable assurances of privacy in certain environments, such as their bedrooms. That's all people are asking for here. Not something that is failsafe under all possible esoteric circumstances.

coco

Very well said Coco.

Yes, well said Cocoa.

It isn't either/or. I'm sure those who handwave people who want some privacy wouldn't take kindly to me installing a camera in their bathrooms. Now, just because it may be a very difficult thing to pull off on my part, doesn't mean it can't be done. As Joannah said, does that mean you are under some "illusion" of privacy just because a determined jerk can do it?

I would also like to say, what if it some of this is about S.E.X.? So what? Like that is some illegitamite reason. Look, many people aren't ashamed of what they may do sexually, that doesn't mean they are handing out tickets for people to watch at their bedside or their skybox, nor do they want any passerby to camp out and watch. Really.

It's pretty sad that you could have your own private island in the middle of a spaced out grid of sims (spaces between the sims wit no sims), be 40m under the ground below the surface, and still have people in newbie avatars wander right up to you. There was no entrance to where i was at.. Only way she could have got in was by scooting a prim through the floor. Cmon... If i was a bad person i could have orbited her but i'm not like that.

I opine that if you have information you'd like to keep private, you probably shouldn't have it on any public TCP/IP network, including Second Life. There's just no reasonable expectation of privacy unless you yourself have code-level control over the tools. In the meantime, I suggest either being an exhibitionist that doesn't care, or being so offensive that no one wants to see. Wanting privacy in-game is understandable, but believe me, if LSL remains as powerful as it is, it's never going to be possible.

Spoken like someone who never dreamed of creating anything of value themselves.

Sorry, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to create new products for sale in Second Life without building at least part of them in-world. And if you can't understand the importance of keeping information about a new product secret before you get it to market yourself, I recommend that you should take a basic marketing class at your school.

I stood 400m in the air on a platfrom and was able to scan over my whole property on the ground at ground level with the cam

Spoken like someone who doesn't know me, or the fact that I've been developing on and for the various forms of the internet since about 1996. I'm an artist, writer, game developer, musician, web developer (graphic design/CGI/commerce), community administrator, and thanks to SL, an upcoming virtual real estate speculator. If you'd like to avoid looking more foolish, I suggest you not wildly speculate in future replies.

Funny, I make little doodads completely in-game all the time. Care to be more specific, or were you just being intentionally vague?

If you can't understand that the best kept secrets are not shared in the first place, then you simply lack common sense. It never ceases to amuse me when people put a ton of personal information on MySpace and then cry about how their job fired them because of it. The systems are only as trustworthy as the design of the implementation and the company itself. If the system was never designed to be secure, it never will be.

If you're developing something so secretive in SL that you need to ensure some sort of above-normal privacy, you have to realize that your only security is through obscurity. Build in the middle of nowhere, as high as you can, and with an alt, and it's not likely anyone will find you. Clean up your prims before logging off (there may be automatic scripts for just such a thing), throw in a few security scripts, and you should have all the privacy you'll likely need. If that's insufficient, you should ponder why such serious business is being brought to Second Life in the first place. These are the current limits of the system. I am pleased folks are voting to change this (in fact, I love that we can vote for new features), but the one inescapable fact is that there will always be a way around privacy. It might not be well-known or often-exploited, but there will always be a way.

I opine that this is just another niche in the SL economy.

EDIT: I'd like to also add that some of your earlier points about taking a copy of items are flawed, because take a copy properties aren't applied to new prims by default. Your scenario of copying prim per prim is also unlikely, and given the number of knockoffs in the real world, are you really all that surprised it happens in the virtual one? The only way it can be combatted is with higher-quality goods and services. You don't see Apple shaking in their boots over some Sanyo iPod knockoff, do you?

I solve this problem by having e-sex in front of everyone in various public fuck shacks. Bow-chika-wah-wah. Awwwwwwww yeah.

After awhile in Second Life I figured out that there was no privacy no matter what so I gave up caring. I figure the people watching me and my partner engaged in our legally sanctioned maritial relations are far sicker than we are.