Stop the Peeping Toms / Camera Limitation

As I'm sure you are all aware, you can swivel your camera around to look at anyone and anything as far as 50 meters away. Yes. Even through solid walls. This is without a doubt THE most common way to invade people's privacy, get "fun" screenshots, and so on.

After I had this happen to me, and then have the screenshot posted on a 10x10 prim for the world to see - I'm fairly pissed off. I did of course register an abuse report and so, but after several please, and a lot of begging. I have yet to hear anything - save for an automated reply. This leads me to have a few things to say about how the SL management handles their abuse cases - but I'll cover that some other time.

Here's a solution for you:

1) Let the sim owner set a maximum camera distance. Currently - this is 50m everywhere. Just let them set it to 3 if they please. I'm sure you will see a *LOT* of islands suddenly offering privacy for the first time in SL history. You will probably see people beating down their doors to get a parcel too. I sure as hell would.

2) This may be more complicated and should be a secondary concern: Let the parcel owner over-ride the sim-default max camera distance, and set it to their own preference - to allow or disallow peepers.

That's it. It's that simple. With all the time that SL has been in existence - I'm quite frankly STUNNED that this has not been implemented yet! Hey, I'm all for the voyeur thing. You want to be seen, good for you. Power to you. Me however - if I want my privates seen in public - I'll go somewhere public. When I'm in my own home (that I by the way PAY for) and have the shutters closed - I expect some bloody privacy! I certainly am not ok with the way thinsg are now, and I'm sure a lot of people agree here. (Save for the pervs that get off on spying, even when they know they are not allowed.)

For reference: If you are lucky to get a corner-parcel on a sim - currently you would need a 60x60 meter parcel (3600m3) to fit a 10x10 house that is safe from camera intrusion. If you have houses on all sides, you need a 110x110 propery (12100m2) to fit a 10x10 house in the center. I'm pretty damn sure this isn't what was intended when SL was built.

I'm asking you PLEASE to fix it ASAP. This will get rid of a hell of a lot of problems, ease the load on the abuse department, and give a lot of people some well deserved peace of mind.

This is not a big or unreasonable request. I don't even think it requires a very big coding change. Just please, get it done!

AD

Not a very useful poll, really. Why is it that so many people start forum polls with such stupid options as "I am a perv"? So if I disagree with you, regardless of the reason for it, I am a perv?

Please.

And you forgot the damned pie

Give me one single reason you think it a bad idea to give people the option to have privacy at the expense of camera freedom. Just one.

It's the OPTION. The freedom to CHOOSE. You don't have to live in an area with restricted camera movement. What I want from you is one single reason why I should let YOU look into MY house.

I agree it'll be a hassle. Much harder to move, navigate, move around, not to mention build - but I'm willing to take that. I can build in a sand box.I can build with limited camera on my own parcel. I'm happy to - if it keeps people out of my bed room.

See my point?

As with copybot, there is no way to enforce this client-side because a custom viewer would be able to ignore your limitation.

AFAIK, the sim itself does not worry about view-occlusion. The sims stream all prim data within viewing range to the client. It is up to the client to determine that there is a wall in the way of the camera that hides everything behind that wall. But the client is still sent everything that is "hidden" behind that wall.

If your prims are sent to the client as 3D data then it can be rendered whatever way the viewer chooses, and you don't have control over that.


This proposal is something the Lindens would flag as "... unworkable, leading to an arms race..." which as they've said with regard to copybot, they are not going to attempt to fight or block.

Sorry.

There's is always the option of hacking the client. At least it's worth a TRY. It must be better to fight to prevent abuse than it is to just say "Nah, someone is gonna hack it anyway", right?

At least it'll get rid of some of the people. And it should be easier to prove client-hacking than window peeping, mm?

Ariya--first of all I do sympathize, but unfortunately it probably IS technically a bitch to do this. BUT if LL would get around to actually punishing abuses like what happened to you, then maybe you and others could rest easier. That to me is something doable, but LL seems to have a very weak spine when it comes to punishing real abuses.

Makes me think sometimes that some type of vigilante justice is necessary. Something in the form of bringing grief to the griefers themselves.

Hate to break it to you, but the client already has a method to Disable Camera Constraints (its in one of the menus) that lets you move your camera to any area within your drawing area. You can see a heckuva lot farther than 50m.

It's a "client" option in debug mode.

Now if the server could decide what you can and can't see based on accessability of rooms etc, that might reduce lag as far fewer prims need to be streamed to the client. I think there is a proposal something along these lines of closed boxes being private.

Should be very effective if done on the server.

Line of sight calculations are very expensive so I could not see them ever server implemented.

The way to prevent the abuse is to create a parcel space or attribute that prevents objects and avatars in that parcel from being downloaded to the client application at all. There have been two general groups of proposals for this:

1. Parcel basements. Some scripted call or other landowner-controlled operation moves an avatar to a "magic" zone (I suggested the space from -1024 meters to -768 meters). This zone is outside the maximum camera distance from the sim, and the sim treats parcel borders as an absolute travel and information limit... you can "move your camera" outside, but no matter where your camera is you won't see anything outside the parcel you're in, and the edge of the parcel would act like the edge of the sim.

2. Phantom zone. Instead of putting up ineffective "ban lines", objects and avatars in a parcel that you don't have access to will simply not be seen or interacted with.

Either of these would be far more effective and useful than trying to keep people from bypassing the limits in the client. Client security is no security at all.

3a. Option to mark objects private, where it will not be sent to anyone not on the access list

This used incombination with a phantom zone means there is no need for ban lines AND no need for weird-looking empty spaces. The exterior of your house could be normal and non-private so it is plainly visible to anyone. A stranger can walk through it and pan the camera through it but inside it seems to be hollow... nothing in there.

The objects marked private are only sent to members of the parcel access list. When people who have access get near the house, they see the exterior and the interior, and anyone without access. When the people with access cross into the parcel they "disappear" into the private space and the "intruder" also disappears from their view.

The phantom zone means that intruders are treated as ghosts and they and their vehicles are not seen by the people inside the parcel who are on the parcel access list.

This proposal would negatively affect one of my products.

I make a security cam system for people to watch over their property. As other people said, you can move the camera up to draw distance (512 meters away) by unlocking cam restraints. I even have a how-to for customers on my website:
link

If people started locking down the camera in their sims (the "parcel basements" idea), my customers could forget about using security cams to watch their property in adjacent sims... they wouldn't even be able to use them across a few lots.

It's a horrible idea. Calling everyone a perv who needs the functionality doesn't help either.

Heh, the tobacco industry says the same thing about smoking bans. Sorry but I can't feel much sympathy for someone who is essentially profitting off of this lack of privacy.

And ah, yes, with the basement and other server-side security options your product, er, wouldn't be needed now would it?

I bring it up every time, but see this thread

If it were implemented with a visibility option, it could be easily used to prevent client receiving objects contained within, unless the client's avatar were physically inside the box (which could be prevented).

Would also allow builds to stream-line their content by stopping complex areas from downloading to clients unless they are in that area.

There are many good ideas here - some perhaps easier to implement and much harder to bypass. Like, for example, being able to set your parcel to stream avatar information to other avatars only if they are IN your parcel, or on your access list. Boundary boxes too would work I suppose.

I believe the point is well made though. While everyone have different solutions - a lot of people seem to be very interested in getting some privacy. Currently 10 votes are for some kind of privacy - and 11 against or don't care. That's a rough 50-50 at this time. If that's a representation of how the general populace of SL feels - Linden need to realise they have 900,000 unhappy customers - half of their population.

Personally, I don't care what solution is picked, as long as a solution is presented and implemented. The reason I liked a limitation of camera distance - is that no one becomes invisible, only impossible to spy on. I think selective streaming of avatar information may be just as easy to implement - and impossible to hack around to boot. That could perhaps make it a better solution, even though it would be a shame to never see anyone on any property around you.

I just want some solution - even more now, seeing as how the Linden abuse team has still not offered me one single word, except that automated reply. If they don't want to police their 1.8 million users - they better make sure they minimise the need to police them.

AD

While I voted yes (to support the general principle) I think either the parcel basements or phantom zone idea would be better.

My biggest concern is that I do not want things streaming to my client, of which I am unaware.

My second biggest concern is that using whatever technique, we need walls that work, otherwise we can't properly emulate the privacy that is necessary to emulate many real-life social constraints. For an example, consider the threads going on now about keeping minors out of mature content.

The performance benefit of not streaming complex content until it's needed has so many uses I can't understand why it hasn't been done already.

I hate ban lines... they're ugly. They ruin the view, give an impression of hostility that may not be deserved, and make it annoying to fly around sightseeing.

People will say, use a skybox, but on a small mainland parcel that's not worth anything either.

Watching over ones own property isn't "profitting over a lack of privacy." The cams aren't spy cams, they are big, bulky cams that stay on the owner's property. I don't even care if alt-zoom doesn't work on someone else's property (it's their land). I just want my customers to see back to their own property.

Maybe LL could check if the camera has permission to be moved to the location when llSetCameraParams is called... that would work for me. Or the phantom object thing, that doesn't affect it. I'm not against privacy, but yeah, I don't want something I worked on to become worthless.

I'd say you got at least a couple of years before this is possibly implemented.

The "parcel basements" idea isn't "locking down the camera", it's a recognition that locking down the camera is simply not possible. This idea would create a 'private' zone inside the parcel boundaries that would effectively be a "mini sim" that you could flip into. People inside the "basement" wouldn't be able to see outside the parcel, and people outside wouldn't even know it was there. It wouldn't prevent your script from moving the camera there at all, unless your script was 1000 meters below ground.

Well, just because you are shortsighted and can't think of one doesn't mean that it doesnt exist. And typically, when someone says "gimme one reason" they shoot down that reason, but here goes...

I am an admin and a builder on two islands... I *always* have my draw distance set to 256 meters, so that I may see what is going on anywhere and take care of problems immediately. There are no private areas on the island to be of concern, as there are no residents and no houses. There are, however, work areas that all admins have, and there is of course some temptation to wish to keep "just anybody" from viewing what we work on. If there were a blanket limit on the user's camera distance, it would impact not only my ability to do my job, but also my ability to build. I have on several occasions needed to build things that are quite a bit larger than the default draw distance.

Sure, you can argue that they should then implement the camera selection constraints by role, etc, but that completely ignores the single most important reason (in my opinion) that this limitation does not already exist: Simply put, it is not technically feasible.

I don't know how much you have worked on game rendering engines, but I have done enough to know that it is simply not worthwhile to burn the cycles that would be needed to make this feature more than a half-assed "weak tea" effort. And others who are quite technically proficient have said the same thing in this thread.

So.... I understand your concern, and by the way I do sympathize and am sorry to hear about what happened to you... But I disagree with you, and it is not because I am a perv. It is because I believe differently. And the poll is poorly designed.

I still fail to see how a reduction in camera range on my land affects your islands. Like you said, you have no residents on the island. Why would you set those islands to limit the camera distance? I was talking about the option to set camera max range, not to have it forced down everyone's throat. Again, I still do not see why you need the ability to look inside my bed room, in order to run your islands. I really don't. I wasn't trying to force your islands to restrict max camera range. I was trying to give sim owners the OPTION to do so - if they wish. At no point did I say all islands must immediately have their max camera range severed. You are the admin and builder of your islands. You would get to CHOSE your max camera range. You want 5000 meters? Fine with me. That's none of my business.

Why however, don't you want me to be able to set my land to another setting? How does that hurt you in any way? Why do you need long range camera controls in my house? You don't live there. You don't work there. You don't administrate or police the area. So... why?



As you can also see, I have already conceeded the on the technical details, and after following the thread I have realised that there are other solutions that may be both easier and better.

I do think the poll still has merit. It does show one thing at least - there are a lot of frustrated people out there that want some privacy.

AD

WHY anyone would want/need visual privacy in SL?

I still can't quite wrap my head around this one.. so someone takes a picture of your avatar, what's the big deal it isn't real and it isn't "you".. it's not like intruding on a RL boudoir at all.. there is no physical threat to one's person.. I'm serious I don't get it and don't see the need for any camera limitations.

Someone on another thread once expressed horror that others could see their "naked" avatar while they changed clothes.. same klaxon for "privacy".. it's not real, its an artistic virtual non-physical representation.. seems like some folks need some perspective on what is real and not over-identify with their avatar and a virtual environment that doesn't really exist except as information.

SL is a shared communal space.. and the best way to have privacy is probably to log out... I wouldn't care if someone took a photo of my avatar.. I've invested a lot of $L into making sure my av is a badass handsome looking fellow.. maybe I'd be embarrassed if my av was poorly constructed.. but then I just wouldn't wear it.

And.. my av is my agent.. he/she is not "me".

Seb

Well, Sebastian...

apparently, you do not identify with your SL character in any way, and as such you can't possibly get hurt on SL. I'm happy for you - but not everyone work like that.

I very much identify with my character. I get very emotional, in real life, when my character experiences things. You may not understand it, but it works like that for me, and for a lot of other people.

When you have an emotional tie between you real life and yor SL character, it suddenly leaves you open for abuse, harassment and being very seriously hurt - emotionally. If I am having an intimate moment with someone I live very much - and some asshole shows up and violates that - it hurts. Almost as bad it it would if it had happened in real life.

Also, not everyone play "characters" on SL. Some people are pure and simple, their RL selves. You can bet your ass they can take things personally, and get hurt.

Further, it's a good idea to keep in mind that places like SL attract many people with disabilities - everything from being unable to walk to suffering from agoraphobia. This may well be just about the only place they can experience things on even terms with everyone else, and have an actual social life. They can spend a very large portion of their lives here, form serious relationships, and so on. They can very much get hurt too.

On a personal note, I was crying behind my keyboard after my little incident. I wasn't myself for days. Call it a mind-rape if you will. I was seriously hurt.

You don't have to understand. It doesn't really matter if you do. Just please, try to consider the fact that you can potentially cause a great load of emotional pain, even in this artificial world. Try to be tolerant and accept that many people do project RL feelings and standards onto their avatars.

Second Life is not all fun and games. This world containes just as many monsters as the real one, if not more. Pedofiles, stalkers, peepers, griefers - just like ALL other internet communities, SL is infested with them.

I'm very careful about who I socialise with - but unfortunately, SL does not give me the chance to close my front door. No matter how selective I am about who I talk to, date and invite - currently, there is no defence against camera intrusion.

I hope this explains it. It's the best I can do.

AD

Machinima creators would certainly suffer for it.
Flawed use of statistics. I didn't vote NO because I'd also have to admit to being a pervert. Somebody else brought that up so I wonder how many other people refrained and ignored the poll completely. Second Life also doesn't have 1.8 million unique users (nowhere near that number) so the assumption that 900,000 users are unhappy on the basis of this poll seems somewhat enthusiastic.

20 votes wouldn't even stand up as a representative cross-sample of 1000 users, never mind 900,000.

What? It's too much effort to ask the sim owner to turn on free camera movement for 1 hour to shoot a scene? Why not film the scenes in locations with freedom of camera movement, instead of a residential neighbourhood with a severe restriction on camera movement in the first place?

Safetly vs Freedom is always a give and take situation. Gain a little bit of one, lose some of the other. The beauty of my suggestion as I saw it was that it affected ONLY those people that chose to live on a sim with restricted camera movement - and the people that came to visit. This is mostly useful for private residential areas, and places that sell rent "private rooms" for an hourly fee.

It seems however that a LOT of people who don't want to live in a sim like that want to desperately stop everyone else from being given the choice to do so. This to me is very strange.

Some people would like to live in a peep-secured prim, given the chance. I'm not forcing anyone to live in a secured sim. You like SL the way it is now, without any changes to privacy? Well, buy your property in a sim with no camera restrictions, and your problem is solved. Does it hurt anyone to be given the choice?

I know. I'm just "whining" now. I'm gonna stop arguing my point after this... Too tired to argue any more. Besides, the idea to be able to limit the streaming of avatar data is much better anyway, so why an I even bothering to fight for this idea?



You think!? Of course it is! That's why I said "If that's a representation" - as opposed to "That means". I'm merely making the observation that there most likely are a LOT of people that would be VERY interested in buying property in some kind of peep-proof sim.


--


Anyway. I give up. Too tired to argue any more.

AD