Why age verify in-world?
|
Susie Boffin
Certified Nutcase
Join date: 15 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,151
|
08-31-2007 19:58
From: Bradley Bracken The answer is easy. LL appears to be moving towards being classified as an ISP. Smart move on their part as it would eliminate a huge amount of liability.
It's not the responsibility of AOL or Earthlink or any of the thousands of other ISP's out there to ensure it's not children viewing those naughty websites. LL would like the same deal. Since when does an ISP require age and personal verification? I use MSN and don't recall them asking for my passport and Social Security card. In fact, why would any merchant (which is what SL and all ISPs are) ask for ID unless I am buying cigarettes or alcohol? I know that LL is all worried about liability etc but does the "new internet" now require that we hand over all of our personal information to a company that is known for selling such information to politicians and corporations?
_____________________
"If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intent of doing you good, you should run for your life." - Henry David Thoreau
|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
08-31-2007 20:01
Jessica - if you're going to talk to a legal counsel, it would be really good if you could also ask if there's any legal reason why LL _can't_ be responsible for age verification.
I suspect it's far more to do with the public image of SL they want to present. LL don't want a situation where in order to access the Main Grid, you have to go through a validation process that's legally sufficient to access pornography, because it will put off all the people who _don't_ want to do that. The problem, as I've mentioned before, is that LL trying to hide the existance of pornography will only hurt age verification more and more because it'll be much easier for little Johnny or Janey to ask to borrow mummy's ID if there appears to be no clear good reason why it's being asked for.
Another issue is the danger of a lawsuit being filed against _you_, the landowner, directly. The problem with this is that once your real name comes out, a lot of damage has already been done, even if you win the lawsuit. Maybe it's legally necessary for you - rather than LL - to be the one visibly taking measures to prevent children access your content, because otherwise the other side's lawyer can argue that you should not have trusted LL. LL don't make any representation that every user of SL has signed the same TOS and there could be all kinds of reasons why they wouldn't do that (what if a 17-year-old pop starlet who has many fans in the 18-21 age bracket wants to give a concert in SL?)
Or maybe it's something to do with needing to potentially block a subpoena, so that your real name can't come out. I don't know, but hopefully your counsel would.
|
Dnate Mars
Lost
Join date: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 1,309
|
09-01-2007 01:11
I see it as LL owns the land, you built and run the building that is on the land. Using this, who is responsible for who enters the building? The land owner or the person running the building?
_____________________
Visit my website: www.dnatemars.comFrom: Cristiano Midnight This forum is weird.
|
Warda Kawabata
Amityville Horror
Join date: 4 Nov 2005
Posts: 1,300
|
09-01-2007 02:47
From: Dnate Mars I see it as LL owns the land, you built and run the building that is on the land. Using this, who is responsible for who enters the building? The land owner or the person running the building? Maybe on the mainland. But they *sold* me that server, lock stock and barrel. I simply pay them a monthly fee to house it in a networked location and run their server software on it.
_____________________
 I rent out land on private islands. Message me in-world for details. 
|
Jessica Elytis
Goddess
Join date: 7 Oct 2005
Posts: 1,783
|
09-01-2007 04:58
From: Warda Kawabata Maybe on the mainland. But they *sold* me that server, lock stock and barrel. I simply pay them a monthly fee to house it in a networked location and run their server software on it. People think of "land" in SL the wrong way. Land here is not a physical thing. Not the visual pixel land you see, and not even the server it is run off of. The land we pay LL for is actual virtial space on their network. It has no physical boundries as LL can move the programming that houses it anywhere. We are paying for the ability to maniplualte that piece of virtual existance. For the purposes of Verification, LL owns the program. They own the servers. They own the network that runs SL. ie LL actually owns the "land" we use. They control how it can be accessed, and even if you can still use it. If LL open-sources the Server-Code (doubtful), then private servers become the domain of the user. At that point, the person running the code is liable for whatever occurs on that mini-grid. Until then, however, LL is responsible for the actions on their grid. If they want Age Verification, then that's fine. But let LL do it then, not us Residents. Lock the Main Grid down to only those who verify, if that is their intent, or if the plan is to combine the Teen Grid with the Main Grid, then lock down every Mature sim. I say lock down the Mature sims because that was the intent of such labeling of those sims in the first place. However, if LL is going to look at it that way, they better plan on finding a way to prevent camming over ban lines (which is easily possible now). Because there is absolutely no way I, as a Resident) can prevent anyone from looking into a 1024m parcel, nor can I prevent them from interacting with objects there other than in a purely physical sense (ie, I can prevent them from using poseballs, but not from using a vendor). In short, LL is NOT giving us the tools to prevent minors from accessing anything. All they are doing is throwing up a smokescreen to the media and uninformed masses in what appears to be a shifty dodge of responsibility and shirking their jobs. So LL needs to go back into the conference room and sit down and plan this thing out again (take lots of coffee). This time I suggest they take their brains with them. If this is the best they can come up with in six months, then LL deffinately needs some changes in management. Esspecially in the legal department. The main plan is fine, but all the little loopholes are going to turn this into a fiasco. If LL thinks I'm kidding about the media impact, I suggest they go do a google search for "Integrity". Why? Because there are already media reports on the "joke" of SL Age Verification. Seems the media is smarter than LL and has already seen through the hype and smoke. ~Jessy
_____________________
When your friend does somethign stupid: From: Aldo Stern Dude, you are a true and good friend, and I love you like the brother that my mom claims she never had, but you are in fact acting like a flaming douche on white toast with a side order of dickknob salsa..maybe you should reconsider this course of action and we go find something else to do.
|
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
|
09-01-2007 05:24
From: Jessica Elytis If LL open-sources the Server-Code (doubtful), then private servers become the domain of the user. At that point, the person running the code is liable for whatever occurs on that mini-grid.
A good point, but, with open sourcing if you read some of the interviews, Philip was talking about a means of connecting private servers to the main grid (for a fee). Which makes sense as people will want to come to the main grid where there's so much to see and do. That simply won't fly if mandatory age verification is required.
|
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
|
09-01-2007 06:52
From: Jessica Elytis I figure this will get locked, so I'm hoping the RezMod will send it on ti LR since LL cut all forms of feedback to them. No, I'm not calling them on my dime, yes, I already e-mailed (which they never respond to), and no, the "Feedback on Current Version" forum doesn't fit this.
... but it will cause more strife within the community. ~Jessy You say that like you don't want more of me in the community?  Don't usually send threads to LR when moving them. Going to move it from RA to Current Version Feedback. Changes of policy can be discussed there. LL has met their legal responsibilities but they cannot meet your legal responsibilities, it's just the way the laws are written; don't like it, call your legislator. Verifying that children are infact children is necessary, everyone would be in legal hot water otherwise. Remove that check and a lawsuit is guaranteed. LL does not provide content, building content is up to the users; if the teen grid sucks it's not LLs fault but the residents.
_____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river. - Cyril Connolly
Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence. - James Nachtwey
|
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
|
09-01-2007 06:57
From: Warda Kawabata Maybe on the mainland. But they *sold* me that server, lock stock and barrel. I simply pay them a monthly fee to house it in a networked location and run their server software on it. 1) You don't own the server. 2) Your sim shares a server with another sim. 3) Your sim may be running on any server in a server pool, it does not infact run exclusively on a single machine.
_____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river. - Cyril Connolly
Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence. - James Nachtwey
|
Usagi Musashi
UM ™®
Join date: 24 Oct 2004
Posts: 6,083
|
09-01-2007 07:15
From: Strife Onizuka 3) ------------------------------------>Your sim may be running on any server in a server pool, it does not infact run exclusively on a single machine.<------------------------This one
Now if your Sim or island crashes, and your a a have way decent server, then your sim/island come back up. Your not promised that the number wil be as they were in the past server you were on right? Hence why numbers are screwy, if your getting higher ranks of FPS on the first one, and the one your connected to shows lower rate server you crap out of luck.
|
Jessica Elytis
Goddess
Join date: 7 Oct 2005
Posts: 1,783
|
09-01-2007 09:17
From: Strife Onizuka You say that like you don't want more of me in the community?  *snickers* Never even thought of that when I wrote it *hugs* Sorry, Strife. Change that to "....but it will cause more problems int eh community." From: Strife Onizuka Don't usually send threads to LR when moving them. Going to move it from RA to Current Version Feedback. Changes of policy can be discussed there. LL has met their legal responsibilities but they cannot meet your legal responsibilities, it's just the way the laws are written; don't like it, call your legislator. Verifying that children are infact children is necessary, everyone would be in legal hot water otherwise. Remove that check and a lawsuit is guaranteed. LL does not provide content, building content is up to the users; if the teen grid sucks it's not LLs fault but the residents. If LL had met their legal responsibilities, we wouldn't be having this Verification implemented, so I call you on that one, Strife. I am NOT agaisnt the Verification process. Read the above again, then continue. What I am agasint is LL doing the Verification wrong. Put it at the door, not inside the room. Verify at signup, as should have been done from the very beginning. Me flagging land will not change that minors are on the Main Grid. Only LL doing that at signup will. Example: A shop that caters to mature customers (product is irrelivant, just that it is of a "mature" or "adult" nature) owns a 512m plot for a store (what most start with as 512m is tier-free). The landowner flags the plot as "Verification Required" (or whatever LL plans to call the checkbox). Little Johnn, who is only 14, logs onto the Main Grid since there's nothing in LL's signup to prevent it. Little Johnny goes to the Linden-Owned Roadway beside the store and cameras into the store, easily seeing all the "adult" content. Little Johnny then uses his left mouse button and buys said content from the vendor while still on Linden-Owned Land. Get the point? Short of buying your own island, there is no way to keep un-verifiedes from interacting with your property. Not when we can camera across and entire sim by disabling camera constraints via the Client menu. In short, LL has added absolutely NOTHING with this plan of Age Verification. It will only work if LL does this at SIGNUP. Why is that so hard to beat into LL's thick skulls? As for the content on the Teen Grid; that IS LL's fault. LL does not promote the Teen Grid as much as they do the Main. Many Residents of the Main Grid have offered (many times here on the forums) to build content FOR the Teen Grid. Those offers seem to have fallen on the deaf ears of LL's heads buried in the sand. ~Jessy
_____________________
When your friend does somethign stupid: From: Aldo Stern Dude, you are a true and good friend, and I love you like the brother that my mom claims she never had, but you are in fact acting like a flaming douche on white toast with a side order of dickknob salsa..maybe you should reconsider this course of action and we go find something else to do.
|
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
|
09-01-2007 09:41
Age verficiation is hopelessly flawed. I've gone and done it and it's very very flawed.
|
Jessica Elytis
Goddess
Join date: 7 Oct 2005
Posts: 1,783
|
09-01-2007 10:23
From: Ciaran Laval Age verficiation is hopelessly flawed. I've gone and done it and it's very very flawed. As I have not verified yet; How is the process flawed? Accepting false information, or simply not requesting relivant information? ~Jessy
_____________________
When your friend does somethign stupid: From: Aldo Stern Dude, you are a true and good friend, and I love you like the brother that my mom claims she never had, but you are in fact acting like a flaming douche on white toast with a side order of dickknob salsa..maybe you should reconsider this course of action and we go find something else to do.
|
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
|
09-01-2007 10:40
From: Jessica Elytis As I have not verified yet; How is the process flawed? Accepting false information, or simply not requesting relivant information?
~Jessy Well I wouldn't put false information in but apparently that does work. However my main objection was with providing either my passport number or my driving licence number, so I didn't select either and left the field blank and it happily verified me. So I've been verified with less information than LL have on me.
|
Peggy Paperdoll
A Brat
Join date: 15 Apr 2006
Posts: 4,383
|
09-01-2007 11:13
From: Ciaran Laval Well I wouldn't put false information in but apparently that does work. However my main objection was with providing either my passport number or my driving licence number, so I didn't select either and left the field blank and it happily verified me.
So I've been verified with less information than LL have on me. I could be wrong since I have not attempted to verify yet but perhaps what information LL already has by your payment information on file plus the name you provided to Aristotle was enough of a match to get you a "verified code". You have a real name, avatar name, payment method, password, email address, etc. all with LL.......so maybe all Aristotle needed was a minimum amount of colaborating information to make a match. After all you logged into the "get verified" portal through your LL account page.......seems to make a little sense to me anyway. I don't know........could be what you say too.
|
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
|
09-01-2007 11:24
From: Peggy Paperdoll I could be wrong since I have not attempted to verify yet but perhaps what information LL already has by your payment information on file plus the name you provided to Aristotle was enough of a match to get you a "verified code". Whatever it is, it's not how LL are selling it. I've provided no more information than LL already had on me. There hasn't really been much of an extra layer of security applied. I'd imagine that Aristotle have access to the electoral register and that maybe I'm verified by a match with that and maybe with another cross match with the info LL have on me. If I'd known I could verify this way I wouldn't have been so critical of the process. In terms of data protection the information requested should be fit for purpose and as I have been verified without some information, it suggests that some of the information they are asking for is not fit for purpose.
|
Cheyenne Marquez
Registered User
Join date: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 940
|
09-01-2007 17:17
This only all makes sense if LL is thinking about eventually getting rid of the teen grid. Doesn't it make sense to implement a system such as they are doing now BEFORE the they close the teen grid so by the time they do, everything on the main grid is ready to go?
|
Beatrix MacKay
Registered User
Join date: 9 Jul 2006
Posts: 23
|
missinga CLEAR statement ina ll that blog post !!
09-01-2007 18:33
and I really would like to have a responsible Linden give a true and honest answer to this question:
How does the verification work ? What kind of data will that Aristotle ask for ? How do they store it, does it get deleted after use ?
Does LL get back only a approved/not approved status 'ID', or do they get back all the data you needed to enter to verify ?
IF they get all data you needed for verification, will any of that data be shown in profile, or is what data someone will show in profile if verified REALLY voluntarily and only entered into the profile by the user self ? Or does LL put in any of the data of the verification process without our control ?
I am missing a claer statement about that in all the long blablabla blog postings of LL to that point.
Damn, give us something reliable with an example verification form that will be used and how a priofile will look and what data you really get and will use from that company !
Like now you just leave us all up to guessing how the whole damn thing will work !
Your users craete your world - so give them useable information, not a 'who guesses the right answer game' !
|
Jessica Elytis
Goddess
Join date: 7 Oct 2005
Posts: 1,783
|
09-01-2007 18:33
From: Cheyenne Marquez This only all makes sense if LL is thinking about eventually getting rid of the teen grid. Doesn't it make sense to implement a system such as they are doing now BEFORE the they close the teen grid so by the time they do, everything on the main grid is ready to go? No. Because the system they are setting up will NOT keep minors from accessing adult content on the grid if they are allowed onto said grid. See my example in my previous post. LL's system will only work if flagged plots are not rendered for non-verifieds. ie, they are "cloaked" or "invisible". Not seen, nor able to even be interacted with, nor able to interact any prim on said parcel. Short of that, with being able to move the camera and interact at distance, there's no way to prevent minors from accessing adult material once they are on the grid. The only way to prevent such (with the current tools available in-world to Residents) is for LL to keep the minors off the Main Grid at account activation. If LL plans to merge the Teen Grid with the Main Grid, all they will be doing is ALLOWING minors to access adult material. Merging the grids with the system currently laid out would fall under gross negligence. In other words, LL knows there is adult content on the Main Grid. If they simply allow minors onto said Main Grid, then they are not doing everything within their power to prevent minors from accessing such material. Whether LL has create the content or not is irrelivant. LL has the means to keep minors out (or at least better than we do), and if they do not do that, then they are in violation of state(CA) and federal law. And before someone comes along from LL and tells me that ""LL is satisfing all legal requirements on preventing access from minors", go and tell it to a judge, not me. I'm not the one that can toss LL's butts in prison, nor hand them a hefty fine. The courts can. And in a toss up situation that involves children, which way do you think the ruling will go once the media gets hold of the case? If LL has a plan they are not telling us, that may effect matters. However, not stating such plans, at this time, is poor customer relations, not to mention plain idiotic. When LL can come up with a plan that we Residents can not punch holes in the logic of, then they need to take it to a battery of lawyers and let them punch holes in the logic (and in the legal logic). Doing something half-assed that effects the children of the world is a fast track to a long, hard time in the US Courts. And when I can punch holes in this plan after looking into it for just a brief period of time, tells me this is VERY poorly thought out. ~Jessy
_____________________
When your friend does somethign stupid: From: Aldo Stern Dude, you are a true and good friend, and I love you like the brother that my mom claims she never had, but you are in fact acting like a flaming douche on white toast with a side order of dickknob salsa..maybe you should reconsider this course of action and we go find something else to do.
|
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
|
09-01-2007 18:43
From: someone In short, LL is NOT giving us the tools to prevent minors from accessing anything. All they are doing is throwing up a smokescreen to the media and uninformed masses in what appears to be a shifty dodge of responsibility and shirking their jobs. You say that as if it wasn't their exact intention throughout this debacle.
|
Rebecca Proudhon
(TM)
Join date: 3 May 2006
Posts: 1,686
|
09-01-2007 22:56
Minors will find easy ways to do the age verification and make people feel uneasy about personal information.
Age verification has to be done in person. Notary Publics would be fine for this...but they have to verify age only. No other personal info.
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
09-02-2007 10:27
From: Rebecca Proudhon Minors will find easy ways to do the age verification and make people feel uneasy about personal information.
Age verification has to be done in person. Notary Publics would be fine for this...but they have to verify age only. No other personal info. wouldnt work in my state (Ohio). I was told very specifically by a notary, they are not responsible for ANYTHING the document they notarize says. They ONLY notarize that the signature is made by the person claiming to make the signature based on their identification. So, here, a 15 year old could sign a piece of paper thats says - "I am over 18" Or even a blank sheet of paper. And the notary would stamp it.
|
Matthew Dowd
Registered User
Join date: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1,046
|
09-02-2007 12:19
From: Jessica Elytis As I have not verified yet; How is the process flawed? Accepting false information, or simply not requesting relivant information?
Ignoring the fact that outside North America/Canada, verification seems to be on name, postcode/zipcode and date of brith alone, the system is flawed since a passport number, driving license number, etc. do not identify a person, they identify a record about a person. When such things are used for identity verification it is the photograph or other biometric within the passport/license etc. which performs the identity verification step - not the number. Whilst not perfect getting someone to verify by making a nominal credit card payment has the advantage of leaving an audit trail so if someone fraudalently uses your details it shows up on your credit card statement (and the parents of a minor with a credit card should be keeping on an on their child's statements!). Whereas a minor may enter their parents birth date or passport number etc. to gain access to SL, many will have second thoughts about "borrowing" their parents credit card to make a transaction as a) there's a good chance the parent will spot it on the credit card statement b) if caught, they'll probably end up in more trouble for theft than for accessing inappropriate content Those minors aren't put off by this, are unlikely to be worried about entering someone else's passport number etc. Matthew
|
Lucy Zelmanov
Registered User
Join date: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 178
|
09-02-2007 17:15
It's only to protect the "kiddies" !
BS it's about making money, it's about 7+ million accounts with ppl at the other end. People who are "Potential" customers/voters/whatever. Don't be so nieve, it is about adding as much info to some MF's database about you as possible. If you don't want your kids seeing virtual body parts block the damned IP address, what you say you don't know how to do that!. Sorry but ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, it's up to you the owner of the client machine to ensure that it is not being misused. I would sugest you bloody well learn how the equipment your using works, before you start allowing others access to your personal/sensitive information. I have said it before and I'm saying it again if this BS is introduced I will take my money elsewhere, I am not alone in this and I would confidantly say that their are sufficent numbers of SL's that feel the same. More than that I would sugest that their are enough of us that someone would happly create a viable competitor to SL, to cater for us. SL started with less than 10,000 users and have made a viable buisness from it, so whats to stop someone else from doing the same? My RL is mine, my virtual life is mine also and I will vote with my feet before I go along with this proposal.
|
Rebecca Proudhon
(TM)
Join date: 3 May 2006
Posts: 1,686
|
09-03-2007 00:22
From: Colette Meiji wouldnt work in my state (Ohio). I was told very specifically by a notary, they are not responsible for ANYTHING the document they notarize says. They ONLY notarize that the signature is made by the person claiming to make the signature based on their identification. So, here, a 15 year old could sign a piece of paper thats says - "I am over 18" Or even a blank sheet of paper. And the notary would stamp it. So you are saying Notaries aren't doing their job? A notary stamp is simply a third party stating a person is 18 or applicable age for a country. They have to prove they are 18. The form could just say, I so and so notary, have examined this person's legal identification papers and they state he/she, is 18 or more, years of age. Signed and stamped. Notary#( )
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
09-03-2007 04:49
From: Rebecca Proudhon So you are saying Notaries aren't doing their job? A notary stamp is simply a third party stating a person is 18 or applicable age for a country. They have to prove they are 18. The form could just say, I so and so notary, have examined this person's legal identification papers and they state he/she, is 18 or more, years of age. Signed and stamped. Notary#( ) Here in the States Notaries services are varied from State to State. In my State a signature verification means that the Notary cerifies the person you claim to be did sign the document in their presence. it does nothing to verify age. Here they can also take an affirmation as you describe above, but that isn't true in all States.
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|