Proposed "privacy" solution

Ok, I appologise it this has already been suggested and I just haven't run across it, it's one of those things that's been growing in the back of my head and I'd be surprised if someone out there hasn't already suggested or pinpointed flaws in this sort of system... But, here goes....


I currently am bordered on both sides with ridiculous security scripts that bounce people as they try to fly in to my store. One particularly large parcel that is DIRECTLY between me and the telehub has a security script, I've politely asked them multiple times to remove or turn the range of their security script down. They actually did remove the security script for about 2 months, during which my dwell and sales doubled. And then they rebuilt their area with even more sexballs and put the damned script back. I have been just flying through sims exploring and gotten nasty IMs from people who thought I was "spying" on them. Here's my solution.

Right now when we restrict access to a parcel, it is surrounded by red lines. You can still see that parcel, you can still see the people in it. What if, instead, we just had it simply not render anything inside of the parcel. I would see an empty lot with red lines around it, the build and characters inside would not be streamed to my client or to any client that isn't able to access the parcel. I wouldn't be able to alt-zoom in and still see them doin' the nasty, I would simply see an open space. Or perhaps a large solid block to denote that there's something there, I'm just not allowed to go there or see that parcel's contents.

This would cut down on the local lag of having to stream a bajillion sex balls to me and other people who could care less, and this would alleviate the fear of said sex-ball owners who obviously are terrified that I see goin' at it. Hopefully this would encourage people to use the free, built in parcel restrictions instead of buying buggy security scripts.

And, on a not so seperate note, if I were to simply scroll my camera in on said sex-ball-oholics and send them some screenshots of what I can see, along with an IM that says, "Your security script isn't preventing anyone from seeing THIS", would that be considered griefing?

I have given some thought to a similar solution.

Why not let land owners build "underground." By this I mean, an instanced space - still on the grid - still on the simulator - but impossible for anybody to enter uninvited, or to rotate a camera into. I hate the thought that large numbers of people would begin to withdraw into their underground lairs, but these folks are already doing this in thier skyboxes and private sims.

When the 2.0 renderer is released everybody is going to look up and wonder if there isn't a better way.

The problem that Logan describes is my biggest annoyance in SL. Here's my proposal. It sounds like a coding nightmere, but logically it might be possible. It also sounds a little extreme, but it provides maximum privacy for landowners, and maximum freedom for others.

1) For unauthorized people, all objects and avatars inside a secure parcel do not render. Only the land, water, (and maybe the trees and grass) do. This means that I would be able to fly through the space without hitting anything.

2) For authorized people inside the parcel, the following things do not render: (a) ANY unauthorized avatars, (b) objects attached to unauthorized avatars, and (c) vehicles owned by unauthorized avatars.

3) Then the secure area could be extended to a height of 768m, to cover skyboxes.

4) Call this feature "cloaking" your parcel.

Underground would be an awesome way to implement it IMO. I just worry that having an "instanced space" that if we let people just fly through that land, I think we'd run into bigger issues like trying to make the sim physics engine keep track of what's going on inside the authorized-version of the parcel and the unauthorized, basically creating and keeping track of our two "alternate realities". Once you fly into the parcel, you're there, as far as scripts, physics, ect, would be concerned. Or at least it seems to my only-slightly-technical mind that it would be difficult to implement. If it's doable, I'd definitely be for it over having a bunch of solid blocks with red tape around them. But I'd much rather have solid blocks of red tape or ANYTHING over having people implement all sorts of scripts that bump people as they're just trying to fly past/through an area.

Actually, I can envision new shiny access/ban tools with the 2.0 render, or maybe even LSL commands that would allow land owners to:

1. Specify an area. Specify your entire parcel, or just a room. This could be done by temporarily placing a scripted prim in the upper corner of the specified area and the lower opposite corner of our room, of the entire sim, of whatever. Things like this are probably already done with well coded security scripts. Or, not built-in LSL commands and have some interface under the access/ban tools.

2. That area simply renders as an opaque, shiny black monolith to outsiders. Or let us specify that texture and draw a our own wall with a "restricted" door, or sign, or whatever.

Personally, I see those scripts as a form of griefing, period. If I'm in a sim where weapons fire, scripted pushing, etc. are not permitted and I get pushed by a script, I don't see that it being a security script makes any difference. They do not have the right to bounce me. That's griefing, and I'd report it and encourage others to do the same.

Erm....I hate to point out the obvious and everything, BUT. I understand your points, and I agree with some of them. However, the fact that you alt-zoom in to watch people 'Doin' the nasty' really is hilarious. Do you steal virtual panties off their washing line too?

Ah hah haha hah hah.

I have only once in my entire SL existance alt-zoomed in to "look where I wasn't invited", and that was last night when I took a couple screenshots and delivered them to my afforementioned neighbors to let them know that their security script isn't preventing that sort of thing. Fortunately, they appeared to just be sitting there on the couch.

But, sure Hayden, to run with it...

Happosai1
I am known as the mythic women's underwear bandit of SL. It's about time I came clean.
Happosai2
I often fly in, break into their clothing drawers or inventory, take those braziers and race off them with giggling histerically.
But I don't know why you have to be so mean to a poor old man like me, you really should respect your elders.
Happosai3


So, with that said, I completely retract my proposal and change my vote on Torley's post to now ask for a "Shampoo Linden".

And, for those who have no idea what I'm talking about, Ranma 1/2 is some funny stuff.

Oddly enough... until a recent change in the CS... if you could alt-zoom and take pictures of them performing non-PG activities, then you could send an abuse report, since such activities were only allowed on M land, behind locked doors where prying eyes couldn't see. It was just never enforced on M land, and rarely on PG land. But open nudity even on M land has always been against the CS.

On the other hand, security scripts which unseat you, eject you or tp you home automatically ARE against the TOS anyway. It's one thing for someone to have a button to make you go away, but if you're ejected from an uninhabited lot, possibly losing an expensive vehicle, then report it. It's griefing, plain and simple.

Thank you Siobhan! I did try to talk with my neighbor, suggested that they build up higher over 300m where they're not visible on the map and not going to have people fly by.... They are finally being responsive and not rude, but their solution is "well, you can sell me your land at a resonable price". My solution is now an abuse report, I'd sooner sell the land to a landbarron in hopes that they can never expand their "no-fly zone"

I've created a proposal and applied all my votes to it:

Prop 703

Shameless BUMP in case anyone else out there has other ideas of how a system like this could work, or incase there's people out there with other similar proposals out there floating around who would like to combine ideas.

It would be far easier to simply disallow all "bans" and security scripts below 100m. This keeps the normal avatar flight path open and those that want privacy can build at 100m and above and apply ban/security scripts there. There are teleporters available that will only be visible/work for those on "the list" that reach to 300m.

Can you specify exactly where in the CS the new policy you describe is?

Without reading all of the posts I will respond to Logan...Yes If you take pics of people, without their consent, engaged in intimate relations you are in violation of the Tos. As far as I am concerned anyone who does this is a prevert. I hope that answers your question.

Open nudity on M land is against the law? Does the law say if wearing only underwear is OK? I am really curious as I have not seen this particular law. I may have to turn myself in.

If you're responding to even just my original post, please re-read even just my original post as you've missed the point entirely, and it's too early in the morning for me to post another Happosai story... I could care less what people want to do on their own parcel, to such an extent that I would REALLY like it to be completely IMPOSSIBLE for me to see what's going on there... That's the voting proposal I've opened. So go vote for it or preverts will continue to be able to watch you as your boffin, Susie.

Anyone know what the exact Linden policy is on AR'ing people with security scripts that eject people from the parcel? I've AR'ed my neighbor's abusive security script and have gotten no response from the Lindens...

"And, on a not so seperate note, if I were to simply scroll my camera in on said sex-ball-oholics and send them some screenshots of what I can see, along with an IM that says, "Your security script isn't preventing anyone from seeing THIS", would that be considered griefing?"

It would not. They would simply be told to put you on ignore. If you persisted in attempting to contact the person in game other ways, perhaps it would, but only if the actions were obvious and persistent.

In fact, you could post the pictures on the public internet, with the names of the avatars, their unique keys, and a blog about what you thought or how you interpreted it.

In fact, you could compile a whole list of said photos and names, tell people where it is, and offer it to them to use as they will.

And you would not receive a warning, or get banned. I know it for a fact, ask any Linden. As long as you are not actually griefing the person in game directly and/or are not compromising actual RL info in any way, such as a RL name, address, or CC#, all info in game that may be gathered visually, with scanners, etc., is considered public and may be compiled and distributed as you wish.

Leading to RL info through avatar info or in game activity, such as the obvious hazard of publishing an avatar name that people could look up to see if they can tie it to a RL name, is not considered something LL needs to worry about. It's your fault, evidently, if you want your SL experience to remain a private and anonymous experience, but inadvertently provide any clues as to who you are. LL takes no measures at all to ensure people are not taking in game data and publishing it externally for whatever reason...they allow it.

AND THEY SHOULD NOT. In game info should remain there...in game. That's where you sign up for it, that's where you pay for it, create it, use it, interact with it, and LL owns it, not some other AV looking to grind more LBucks out of the system. No other AV should have the right to externalize info from a privately owned and individually subscribed-to service. Simple as that.

Before you post, ASK A LINDEN. Everything I say is here is precisely true. LL releases all this info and absolves themselves of any responsibility for it.

ASK A LINDEN. Don't say it's not true until you do. And if you get a response from a Linden contradicting any of this, post it. Becauase I have the responses, directly from LL, that say you can do it. THIS INCLUDES YOUR FIRST LIFE PROFILE, unique key, which a Linden has said can be used to spam you ("but don't do it", and anything else you reveal in game. I believe, however, posting chat is still taboo, surprisingly. Not that there's a damn thing they could do about it, but hey it's something.

SL has far greater privacy concerns than security script boosting, and they are just turning a blind eye to it.

This concludes this public service announcement. Now back to your regularly scheduled spamming.

It was taken out recently. Never enforced anyway... not even on PG land. And no, underwear has been often seen at the WA... so ...

Shouldn't that read and, no underwear has been often seen at the WA...

*evil grin*

Not since you stopped hanging out there, Sweetie

WOW. That's a bit crazy... But it does make sense, guess it doesn't surprise me much to hear... Yeouch.

This topic needs more attention. Bump.

However, according to US law (or at least Ohio), in REAL life, if you can see them (I think with the naked eye but I'm only saying that to err on the side of caution) while standing on public property (or private property which you have the owner's permission to take photos on) without unusual means (deliberately climbing on a ladder to see over their fence, etc), you can legally take pics of them, zoom or no. Because by being viewable to the public they are exposing their activity to the public, and anything in public is fair game. Therefore, if they are out in the open, and he's not alt-zooming into their house, he should be fine (as in, he could probably see it anyway but was zooming for the sake of an abuse report - and if you can't snapshot at all without consent, even in public view, how is he supposed to file one?). If he was zooming in behind closed doors, well, that's rude and should not be done, and isn't really legal irl or in SL. (Sorry, used to be a photojournalism major before I switched. That's one of the most interesting things I learned, which several photographers needed to use to remind our university that they are a state school and therefore public - they liked to restrict photos from the oddest places... the recreation center being the main one. And I was trying to photograph my own club sport.)

Aside from that, until SL finds a better way to deal with that kind of access/rezzing thing, maybe you could request they build a simple wall around the edge of their property in the meantime. Or build a wall around yours, but since it's them that have restricted access it makes more sense for them to, if they don't want people seeing. They can even set it so they can see out but you can't see in.

Yeah I kinda figured it was more up to the land owner than anything.