Fellow residents, is search without probable cause acceptable?

That's really it isn't it. The concern is really centered around Residents who feel so "community minded" as to go snooping around others' private spaces (don't wanna argue privacy here), and say "A-Ha!" In my opinion, the community doesn't benefit from this any more than it benefits from kiddy porn. I don't know that there is any evidence that it's happening, but I'm sure it is, to some extent.

I would hope that the Lindens who are sorting out the reports would begin to recognize patterns where the system itself is the subject of the abuse - and Robin touched on this pretty squarely today in office - that if people habitually fire off false ARs, they themselves may be subject to disciplinary action.

But yes, if LL finds a report serious enough to investigate themselves, probable cause is already established.

Personally, I can stomach most things, but there are a few things I will not hesitate to report, should I happen upon them unintentionally in my travels through the search system or the grid. I'm sure not going to waste my time seeking it out, just so I can AR it.

In no uncertain terms, it is a violation.

Well if you search the new support system you find this:



So firstly we *do* have a entitlement to privacy!

On a related note, the page for changing passwords at http://www.secondlife.com/password list the last 10 objects bought/given in world, which could itself be an invasion of privacy or even a violation of disclosure if someone gave someone else an object which included private or RL information to an inworld friend without realising that there is a slight chance that someone might see its name on that page!

Perhaps others are getting RL twisted with SL?

If as you say, it's just a video game, why would anyone get in trouble for anything?

And all the more reason for us to play 'we have rights' within that game.




Should we unplug our phones too? It's easy to be wiretapped.

This has been the issue with child avvies, in a nutshell. Is it okay to hug someone. Can we sell skin files. What happens if our skirt does not rez? It a parent says we're so yummy, they could eat us right up," is this ARable? It all sounds silly to even talk about, but there it is.



Oh great, now I gotta worry about the apple tree in the yard at my home location...

Mari

Not everyone searching, or being searched is under American Jurisdictions. 4th amendment protections are a wonderful thing, But do they apply to Investications by the british CID, The French Surate', The RCMP? SL is a sort of International territory with a multitude of Nationalities, and a multitude of differing "reasonable expectations' for privacy under the law.

Where ever the servers are located, the Game Environment is an international place, I'm just not sure How far into that Virtual world, American Real world protections extend.

Angel.

I don't think so. There are plenty of laws that don't apply to you in a video game on the internet...just as there are plenty that do.

What I'm saying is that we don't have all the same rights in SL that we do in RL.



If you feel as paranoid about wiretaps as you do about moral searchbots then maybe you need to get a shack in the forest in Montana!

I'm no expert, but my vague recollection is that the United States and Canada are fairly in sync with protecting the individual; the French have something similar but far less protective (French citizens, correct me if I'm wrong!) and I have NO idea what the UK has, especially in context of say, Dublin area, various semi-autonomous isles, &c &c.

I suppose the question is: what community standards does the Second Life community at large hold?

As far as the Constitution is concerned, absolutely nowhere in my uneducated opinion.
I agree with Squeeze. LL owns SL, they can do whatever they want, I don't care what some Judge in PA says. They set the rules. They can change the rules. Whenever they want. I firmly believe that. I wish they would use some consistrncy and even handedness when they do, but that's another story. If they wanted to create some kind of guidlines using our Constitution as a model, wonderful. That being said, I grudgingly recognize their right to take whatever actions necessary to enforce their rules. What I won't accept is any ordinary resident taking it upon themselves to be The Lindens watchdog, sticking themselves into everyone's business.

If someone were to search the word 'slave' in forum signatures and found it to be broadly offending, you might be joining me in that shack.

I agree...but I don't think LL will act completely heavy-handed in situations that aren't super-clear. I would also assume they'd realize that many people cry "wolf" or are otherwise crazy.

You are more optimistic than I, I hope you are correct.

I quote the 'Community Standards' page at http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php:

I think it would be hilarious if Lindens started travelling everywhere in SL in black helicopters. I'd love to see the reactions of fools like this guy here!

The disclosure portion of the CS is actually all but gone, it's there in name only, until Daniel figures out how to compress the entire CS into one single sentence.

Maybe they can define "Reasonable" as the try to define "Broadly Offensive". I've never played an online game in my life. Are they all filled with such doubletalk and cloudy definitions in their regulations?

"a reasonable level of privacy"...does that refer to your personal info...CC, real name, etc.? Does it refer to one's SL property? Is the reasonable level one's ability to ban people from your property?

RL-quality privacy just isn't possible in SL. Sorry

The 4th amendment applies only to the government, not companies.

LL is a company, you are on their property, ergo searching is not against the 4th amendment.

I believe that a reasonable level of privacy would include people not being able to camera into your private areas in SL and then AR'ing you if the see a bit of skin. Sure, you can't stop people from camering in (not without removing camera controls altogether), but it should be discouraged.

SL isn't really built for privacy. It's probably closer to the opposite. We have green dots and teleports that seem designed to get you around quickly and meet random people.

Let's say you're doing the nasty with your partner in a private home, and I happen to be hanging out on the Linden road. Maybe I'm trying to drive a car or something and failing miserably. IRL, this is not a problem - I don't even know that you're in there doing something. In SL, you can immediately see those 2 dots real close together and not moving (or moving very quickly back and forth). From your POV you see this green dot on the road - am I snooping or just bumping into trees? I see those 2 dots. Do I assume you're in there doing it? Or maybe you're just watching TV. Should I feel compelled to move and not be there?

I think a prerequisite to the expectation of privacy is the ability to remove yourself from cursory observation. In general that doesn't exist in SL.

Sorry, but if a judge rules that LL can't do something then they can't do it. No matter if it's their property, LL is not above the courts.

Heh, I have literally hundreds on my friends list, and every last one of them has map access to me at all times.

I hang out in Caledon, mainly in PG Victoria City, and occasionally on my PG plot in Alice.

There's a nice gal by the name of Robin who is the nearest neighbour to my wall-less hangout spot. I'm not exactly exciting material, here.

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you believe.

If the level of privacy you mention above was an expectation then we'd have the ability to set objects as "camera blockers" so you couldn't pan around walls...not a bad idea, though!

Instead, we have the ability to ban people from our property and the ability to report abuse to LL for their investigation.

As I said, it should be discouraged. Example: you camera into someone's private house from 20 meters away, you see two people inside having BDSM sex as decide to AR it because it offends you, you get repremanded for abusing the AR feature.

I'm referring strictly to the TOS and CS, which are not circumventing any law in my opinion. In my mind the PA case is strictly a contract dispute, and I think it will wind up in LL's favor eventually, based only on opinion,as I have no legal ammunition to back that up.