Privacy in a Pocket

This sounds like proposal 703 : objects in inaccessible parcels should not render, only less useful because it is restricted to a skybox.

All that's fine, except for the location.

1. 640 is a better "round number" for this than 650.

2. I propose that it be from -768 to -640, or -768 to -704 (128 or 64 meters high), with the walls (parcel borders and the upper and lower borders) impermeable in any direction, and completely culling the interest list and any other IPC (including listens and objects). From the inside it will act like the void edge.

3. The script call llTeleportAgent can be used by the owner or officer to provide access to this volume.

4. Optionally, a member of the owning group can Offer Teleport for other residents.

The following calls will be modified to make the position of the zone a non-issue.

llGetRegionName() will return "SimName (private)"

Other calls and user interface elements that reference the sim name will return or respond to this modified name. A landmark for "SimName (private)" will work, for example.

llGetRegionCorner() will return a region corner 768 meters below the sim's region corner.

llGetPos() will return a position relative to this modified corner, and other local coordiinate references (including the displayed loction on the title bar) will also be modified accordingly.

Camera block would be nice, but the ability to set limits to how far sound transmit would make condo/appt living possible or desirable.

Oh, the really big problem with having this privacy block in the air... it means that the only way to get privacy in a parcel would be to block access to the high sky for that parcel. I don't want to have to choose between letting people skydive over Avalon Lagoon and having a private area.

A more serious proposal would be : replace 'allow' lines (the lines that tell you that you can't enter a parcel because you are not on an allow list), with a system whereby you can enter such parcels at any height, but you can't see any objects in the parcel, they can't see you, and you move straight through the parcel (you can't stay there and hover).

This would :
1) Let people fly pretty much as they please - the only restriction would be they can't hover over restricted land for long (>15 seconds or so) periods of time.
2) Give real privacy to land owners, letting them set their parcels to get real privacy.
3) Also borrow the "don't let people move objects into this parcel" idea.
4) Not use any form of visible lines - the land should just appear blank. Lines are ugly. Instead, a 'ghost' icon should appear at the top of your screen if you're in an area in which you're just a ghost (someone who can't view/interact with the parcel you are on, rez objects or use any chat functions while you are there).


I admire the idea behind Jillian Callahan's proposal, and it does have the option of allowing parcels to be split by height as well as x/y dimensions.

What we really need, though, is very simple, we need the above proposals for real, no-rezzing, no-visiblity, no-interaction privacy. That is enough work by itself for LL to be getting on with. If they have spare time after that, then maybe I'll suggest that they let parcels be split both horizontally (x/y) and vertically (z). Or for land owners to designate their own privacy zones.

The way I approach this question is simple :
1) Landowners must have the right to exclude people from being on, viewing, or interacting with their property as they see fit. They own the land, they should have the right to do this. It really is that simple.
2) We need to give landowners these rights in a way which doesn't force flyers to stop flying. We can take away the rights of fliers to see anything on no-access parcels, but we can't stop them moving over the parcels. We can, however, force them to move instantly through the parcel and not linger inside it.

If the other restrictions were in place, why prevent people from staying on the parcel? Personally if I was keeping my parcel in the Twilight Zone, I'd rather not give people a hint that something was there by shoving them out...

I'm also not at all sure that this would be as easy to implement as Jillian's proposal or mine.

An even simpler solution... just let us buy a parcel on a "partitioned" sim, one that has these kinds of barriers built into it so it doesn't need to worry about who owns what parcels... it just culls everything outside the parcel you're in regardless of who owns it, and treats all parcel borders as ban lines. I realise this might involve buying extra land if you want to have a semi-private build, but if they'd just get llTeleportAgent implemented you'd at least be able to make it seamless.

On another point:

The right to swing your fist stops at my nose. If the restrictions you place on your land reduce my enjoyment of my land next door, then there's an inherent conflict between the rights of two landowners. That has to be resolvable in a way that doesn't allow landowner griefing... don't forget the lesson of the Bush Signs.

Describing it as a conflict between "fliers" and "landowners" is a great debating tactic, it creates a wedge people can use to push for more powerful controls. It's not...

1. Fliers are also landowners. Often the landowner next door.
2. It's not just fliers that are impacted. There's parts of my build that I have to avoid because it's too easy to bump into a bunch of redlines in the next sim over and get teleported to the opposite side of the other sim.
3. I realise you're suggesting a solution for this, but it doesn't resolve problem #2 (great, instead of being thrown across the sim because lag made me step too far, I "only" get thrown across the other guy's parcel), and presenting it as "landowner's rights... it really is that simple" is not helping.

Because they have no right to be there.


If all parcels move them out, it doesn't matter.


SL already knows when an av is banned, or not, so there must be some server-side flag or attribute that tracks which parcels an avatar can access. The code that sends clients information about what exists inworld just has to hook into that and not send information about things on parcels they can't access. Similarly, people in the parcel should not see 'ghosts' that are just moving through it, their chat, their objects or their objects chat. Scripted attachments owned by someone who is going through a no-access parcel should not work, either, and neither should outside sensors run by the person with no access.

When an av that can't accesss a parcel tries to fly over it, they should be encouraged to move through the parcel, either via instant teleport, or via being made to move at a certain minimum speed, with the teleport kicking in automatically if they stay over the land for more then about 30 seconds.
If there is no space on the other side of the parcel (the parcel borders the edge of a sim with nothing beyond it) then the ban lines for that parcel should be solid and anyone/anything trying to enter without access should bounce off or be returned as if it went off world.
Objects owned by avatars with no access to an area should be stopped from moving into it, as should speech by that avatar or any objects they own.
As information about the parcel contents would not be given to them, there would be no minimap dots there for that avatar either. Similarly the ghost moving through would not show up as a minimap or world map dot.




1) Being the landowner next door doesn't give someone a right to tresspass. Under my proposal, landowners next door can see the terrain, but the parcel appears as blank space. That is MUCH nicer than it appearing as ban or access lines, and much less annoying than getting "leave the area or be sent home" notices from security orbs when they take more than a few steps out of their door.
2) I would like fliers to be able to move almost completely freely - the thing is, when they hit up against a restricted parcel, so long as that parcel does not border void space, they should move through the parcel, preferably very fast or instantly, without being obstructed by anything in the parcel. The effect of this would be that they can fly pretty much as they like (only hovering deliberately on parcels they are banned on would be stopped by teleporting them home after a certain time).... they are just encouraged to stay away from no access areas as there is nothing to see for them there, and no matter what they do they won't be noticed by people inside the area.
3) Personally I think that being either instantly moved to the other side of a parcel, or flown through the parcel at higher than normal speeds, is less inconvenient to people than being bounced off ugly invisible walls. An empty parcel looks much better than one surrounded by ban lines, that's for sure.
If I was flying I'd sure prefer to be moved quickly through no-access areas than to occasionally go *splat* up against an invisible wall I couldn't see because I was travelling at high speed. The specifics of if they're teleported through the parcel, or if they're moved through it at higher speed don't really matter - so long as they move through it whilst spending the minimum amount of time inside it.