How utterly worthless... (Age Verification Implementation)

Integrity can verify age based on name, address and date of birth. The argument against credit card verification is that minors can obtain them, Integrity weed that part out, they do the part that VISA won't.

I doubt if any of the proposed methods of additonal info would stand up to scrutiny as being legal form of identification. The numbers aren't enough to prove your identification.

I guess I must just ban everyone except my partner and a couple of my closest friends. So my gallery shuts down (which was public) and we become more and more reclusive. It's a great way to "play" a game.

Another test to report, and a positive one this time...

I age-locked an entire sim, that is not connected to any other sim. Classic 'Private sim' configuration. Then I sent my unverified alt a LM to that sim. Logged off as me and on as the alt, and tried to go to the age-locked estate, using the teleport landmark. I was denied access, left where I had been before the attempt, and I got a VERY clear dialog message that my ability to go to that sim was blocked because I was not age verified.

Now, I did NOT test what would happen if that same alt also belonged to a land access group somewhere in that estate. It is possible that if they did, I might still be able to TP to that particular parcel. That will be one of my next tests.

I also plan to test what happens if you send someone a TP summons to an age-locked private sim Estate.

I plan to keep bugging them with JIRA requests until this becomes more than just a sick joke. I don't care for the company they chose to use for identity verification, but the fact of the matter is they made the choice in spite of massive protests by their customers, so we are stuck with it. Being able to identify age of residents as being verified over 18 will become a mandatory necessity in SL in the future. So let's see if we can at least TRY to make it work.

At worst, if someone does lie to the identity verification service, presenting daddys ID data or big sister's or some dead celebrity... Well, then that underage person committed a CRIMINAL ACT, Identity Theft, to get here, and that will make any legal case about what they did with anyone else while here pretty heavily biased as them being in the wrong fom the moment they logged on. So even if the identity check itself is crap, it is better than just having them answer yes or no to "I am over 18" or having them type in a birthdate. It isn't a crime to 'mistype the date'.

/me thinks Mr Shang might be onto something here

And I, too, hope Desmond is on the right track.

"Originally Posted by Peggy Paperdoll
......
It matters not though.......we will have an age verification system in place soon. And CC's are not a legal age verification means in all countries...........the United States being one. They are out for that purpose and continued whining about it will not change that fact."

It is unfortunate that, just as you did back in May when this first came on the scene, and THESE SAME OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED, you continue to label anyone who does object to this implementation and who points out these problems as a whiner.

We objected with forceful reason back in May and here we are in December and the plan hasn't changed one tiny bit. Peggy, how is it that you yourself are not incensed at such lack of credibility and responsiveness from LL? How is it that in this thread, you are so eager to grind down people who object to this plan that you cannot even read the OP's post, in which she clearly states that she filed JIRA and that Lindens closed it down... she even shared the Linden's reasoning with us!

I'm not a whiner.
I'm not a moron.
I'm not even a moran.

I am, however, too interested in the continued success of SL to stand back and watch LL make a mess of it without saying, again, clearly, repeatedly, forcefully, reasonably, intelligently, incessently, that their plan will not work either to keep kids out of naughty cartoon places or keep LL and sim owners out of court. There is no protection for either party, and this has been obvious to all but a very few people since at least May.

And if he is, (verification for all - effectively) then we don't actually need parcel restrictions at all.
We go back to state where the M-rating of a sim advises people that they might encounter 'adult' content in that sim.

Not quite, the way I read the blog post (reading between the lines so I'm speculating) is that at some point new residents will have to age verify, but existing residents will be allowed to continue as a rabid bunch of wild outlaws

The fact that LL has confirmed that group access trumps estate or parcel level IDV protections bothers me the most. Obviously they intend to keep it that way. Why in the world would they go through all this trouble to come up with this IDV thing, but allow other pre-existing low-level group perms to render it totally ineffective?!?!?
So basically, that pushes all of the burden of verifying 18+ off onto group land owners... expecting THEM to make sure everyone in their group is over 18. Large malls, big clubs, anyone with a big list of group members and group land is gonna be expected to do Integrity's work for free... How lame...

I guess I dont see why IDV wasnt made highest permission... the way it is now only opens up LL's supposedly "covered backside" to loopholes and puts all kinds of group-related headaches onto the residents.

You've answered your own question.
LL is shedding as much liability as it can.
Welcome to "self-governance" LL-style.

As Desmond pointed out, "existing" residents will age in RL.
15 today, 18 in three years. As each year passes, the percentage chances of a currently existing resident becoming the injured minor in a claim will diminish.

*whispers* Follow the numbers....

Lol! Hey it's Monday my brain is fried. Damn good point though about aging.

if you are standing downwind from someone smoking on a private parcel, it doesn't really change the fact, now does it.... just as flying 50m above a sex pit doesn't change anything... especially if the sexpit is above 50m.

It was destined to be worthless, so long as you can disable camera constraints and look several sims away at pixels bumping uglies.

Thanks for the update, Ceera!

The only thing that would need to change is to restrict access to the common area to a group that's shared between all 4 renters (with the ability to invite guests into the common area group or to add their name to the parcel access list). The 4 rental groups don't have to be in the "Allowed Groups" list of the sim for things to work out.

At the estate level "Allowed Groups" is empty, public access is checked, "Restrict to age-verified adults" is checked as well. The result is that it's impossible for a non age-verified person to ever make it on the sim no matter what group they belong to.

Parcel 1, 2, 3, 4 are access restricted to groups A, B, C, D respectively and the common area is restricted to the "Common Area" group. The result is that any age verified resident who's not in any of the 5 groups can not tp to the sim since there isn't any parcel on the sim they can access. The tp should simply fail.

That should accomplish your requirement that the sim shouldn't be public, and that anyone who ends up on the sim has to be age verified even if they're a member of the group(s).

(Edited to add that the "The parcel owner can always access the estate" on the KB is throwing me off a little bit, but I'm assuming it's a typo and "estate" should actually be "parcel" since the rules sets are contradicting themselves otherwise )

You may be right, Kitty. I'd have to experiment a bit with it to be sure.

As to some other comments:

I can see one reason for having the explicit parcel access list trump age verification, in that the parcel owner may know the person in RL - "I see him every year at AnthroCon!", and may also know that there is some definite reason they can't verify, such as the IDV system not functioning for people in that Player's home country. I've known my SL Partner for many years in other forums, prior to our coming to SL. For her Player to be less than 18 now, they would have to have been a virtual child prodigy when I first met them on-line, to have posted back then with the eloquent prose and clearly adult perspective that drew me to them in the first place. Plus, I know others who *have* met her Player in RL, have seen them carded in bars and served liquour afterwards... But her Player is Canadian, and might not be able to verify. So I would have no problem adding her avatar and her alts to a parcel level list that bypasses IDV checks, since I have ample proof that her Player is well over 18.

But groups? Especially the group that owns the land? In my test, a non-verified alt that was a member of the land group for my main parcel, with the ability to set home position on group land, could also walk right into an age restricted parcel, where the only mention of a group that he was in was the land group that the land was deeded to. There was no "access group" defined for the parcel. It was apparently this "the owner can always access their land" assumption, applied not to the owner of the group, but to ALL members of the group that owns the land.

Take again my example of an Elks Club. You might have many members in an Elks Lodge, including the children of the older members. All are card carrying members of the "Elks Lodge" group, without a doubt, and able to access and use most of the group-owned facilities. Those who are over 18 (or 21, depending on the state they are in) can also use the club bar. They don't have to belong to a second. "Adult Elks Club" group. Nor does the bar need to be owned by a seperate organization. They just need to show verified proof of age, such as a driver's livence, to buy a drink there. To assume that all members of a group should always have access to all facilities owned by that group is a very foolish assumption.

IDV the new "get rid of free accounts" thread.

/me awaits his 3Ring binder.

I'm Still Trying To Find Out Where I Can Verify. I Looked In Beta On The Pages Here In Forum, On The Sign On Page And Still Havent Got A Clue As To Where To Go.
As For Checking Out Other Peeps Age. I'm Going To Have A Central Landing Spot On My Sim. If U Cant Tp There Then You Cant Get On The Sim. Maybe That Will Help Keep Out Kiddies.

heh... yeah... "maybe"

For your answers, Check the blog. Read all three of these blog entries carefully. Report back if you still don't understand, and we'll throw a pie... i mean.. answer your questions politely.

Age verification enters Grid-wide beta
http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/12/05/age-verification-enters-grid-wide-beta/
[Updated 12.07] Age Verification Update
http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/12/06/age-verification-update/
More on Age Verification
http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/12/09/more-on-age-verification/

I advise you to read and think carefully before volunteering any personal information to anyone. I am not a lawyer. That is all.

-Adz

OK, I've redesignated the bugs that LL wouldn't fix on the basis the current behaviour was by design as Feature Requests (to change the current "by design" behaviour).

I've also pulled together all of the "design flaws" in the age verification controls into a meta-issue

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-3787

Matthew

I've always said the buck should have stopped at the gates of the sign up page. LL, for obvious reasons wanted the sim / parcel owners to be responsible for whom is on the sim in every facet, not just adult oriented.

The issue is, it won't work right. Never will. Way before all of this was ever even talked about many believed it should be LL responsible for whom is on the servers. Which in case would stop the underage from even being able to sign up for an account. The verification system needed, needs, and will always need to be put on the front end.. Not tagged to the rear and subject of end users, and certainly not voluntary. I think at some point and time we will see some hap hazzard tools that partially work and suit the purpose, along with a new account sign up policy put in place with more restrictions on being able to access the account in world.

Just my 2 cents now falling to oblivion against the Euro.
Tracy

SL has a History of trying to reinvent the Wheel... Bless their Hearts
Dynamic Cacheing over the old tried and proven Static Cache is also doomed... first you need Broadband then you buy more speed and memory soon we will need a T-3 Line to the house......where Hard Drive memory is Cheep

Now this.. and I totaly understand the Position SL is in and I do not blame them 1 minute for trying to protect themselves and us. BIG CUDOS for that to SL.
However Once again they are attempting to Reinvent the Wheel.

Believe me.. there is no system that can not be breached.
The Very attempt to create such a thing is Tangent to an open Challege to any and all Unverified people to prove their abillities for whatever reason they decide. to not only Breach this security, but to also exploit it in some profital way.

I have felt for some time now that The whole issue is being over built.
I am 1 that believes the more parts that are needed creates the more opertunities for breaking down.
I have asked this in other posts.. but have yet to get any real feedback on the idea.
What is wrong with useing the same security that Movies...TV.. and other real life items that have Mature Content use?

A PARENTAL CONTROL DEVICE OPTION INTO THE SL INTERFEACE
And turn the control of those children back over to the Parents of said Child.
Place a statement in the TOS about Parental Control and have everyone sign a release of Liablity before coming into SL.
Will this not relieve SL of Liability?

If we say no children are to play in the streets, and a Policeman comes by and catches them playing in the Street.. do we Sue the City for Placeing a Street There? Or Confront the Parents?