Fellow residents, is search without probable cause acceptable?
|
Zaphod Kotobide
zOMGWTFPME!
Join date: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 2,087
|
06-06-2007 15:07
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. From: Rusty Satyr Keep in mind, if someone complains to LL about inappropriate content/conduct, and they search to verify the claim... they already have probable cause, which makes it "reasonable search" not "unreasonable". Whistleblowers suck. The best option is likely for LL to flat out ignore them. Yes it means that AR's will likely go un-checked, but griefers come and go on their own anyway.
_____________________
From: Albert Einstein Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.
|
Envoy Costagravas
On diplomatic assignment
Join date: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 39
|
06-06-2007 15:09
In no uncertain terms, it is a violation.
|
Matthew Dowd
Registered User
Join date: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1,046
|
06-06-2007 15:10
Well if you search the new support system you find this: From: someone Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Lives. Screenshots or video taken without permission, in an area where Residents reasonably expect privacy, might violate Linden Lab's rules against disclosure; or, more generally, might constitute harassment
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!
|
Desmond Shang
Guvnah of Caledon
Join date: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 5,250
|
06-06-2007 15:11
From: SqueezeOne Pow It's also an irrelevant question because a video game isn't neccessarily subject to all laws of a country. You're getting SL twisted with RL. 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. From: SqueezeOne Pow If you want legitimate privacy then unplug your internet connection. Should we unplug our phones too? It's easy to be wiretapped.
_____________________
 Steampunk Victorian, Well-Mannered Caledon!
|
Marianne McCann
Feted Inner Child
Join date: 23 Feb 2006
Posts: 7,145
|
06-06-2007 15:14
From: Desmond Shang Forget about the bot, how do *you* interpret what my avatar is doing at all? Sure, I may look like a vampire to *you*, but what *I* intend to portray is an orthodontic irregularity to the American Association of Dentistry Convention in Second Life. 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. From: Meade Paravane If it's somebody from Crusaders for an SL Without Apples group: No, get the hell off my land, you freaks. Oh great, now I gotta worry about the apple tree in the yard at my home location...  Mari
_____________________
  "There's nothing objectionable nor illegal in having a child-like avatar in itself and we must assume innocence until proof of the contrary." - Lewis PR Linden "If you find children offensive, you're gonna have trouble in this world  " - Prospero Linden
|
Angelique LaFollette
Registered User
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,595
|
06-06-2007 15:15
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.
|
SqueezeOne Pow
World Changer
Join date: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 1,437
|
06-06-2007 15:20
From: Desmond Shang Perhaps others are getting RL twisted with SL? 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. From: Desmond Shang Should we unplug our phones too? It's easy to be wiretapped. 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!
_____________________
Semper Fly -S1. Pow
"Violence is Art by another means"
Visit Squeeze One Plaza in Osteria. Come for the robots, stay for the view!http://slurl.com/secondlife/Osteria/160.331/203.881
|
Desmond Shang
Guvnah of Caledon
Join date: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 5,250
|
06-06-2007 15:24
From: Angelique LaFollette 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'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?
_____________________
 Steampunk Victorian, Well-Mannered Caledon!
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
06-06-2007 15:28
From: Angelique LaFollette 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. 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.
_____________________
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
|
Desmond Shang
Guvnah of Caledon
Join date: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 5,250
|
06-06-2007 15:32
From: SqueezeOne Pow 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! 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.
_____________________
 Steampunk Victorian, Well-Mannered Caledon!
|
SqueezeOne Pow
World Changer
Join date: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 1,437
|
06-06-2007 15:33
From: Brenda Connolly What I won't accept is any ordinary resident taking it upon themselves to be The Lindens watchdog, sticking themselves into everyone's business. 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.
_____________________
Semper Fly -S1. Pow
"Violence is Art by another means"
Visit Squeeze One Plaza in Osteria. Come for the robots, stay for the view!http://slurl.com/secondlife/Osteria/160.331/203.881
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
06-06-2007 15:34
From: SqueezeOne Pow 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.
_____________________
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
|
October McLeod
Registered User
Join date: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 170
|
06-06-2007 15:34
From: SqueezeOne Pow Why do you assume there is such a thing as privacy in SL? I quote the 'Community Standards' page at http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php:From: someone "Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Lives."
|
SqueezeOne Pow
World Changer
Join date: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 1,437
|
06-06-2007 15:35
From: Desmond Shang 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 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!
_____________________
Semper Fly -S1. Pow
"Violence is Art by another means"
Visit Squeeze One Plaza in Osteria. Come for the robots, stay for the view!http://slurl.com/secondlife/Osteria/160.331/203.881
|
Kitty Barnett
Registered User
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 5,586
|
06-06-2007 15:35
From: Matthew Dowd Well if you search the new support system you find this:
So firstly we *do* have a entitlement to privacy! 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.
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
06-06-2007 15:38
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?
_____________________
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
|
SqueezeOne Pow
World Changer
Join date: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 1,437
|
06-06-2007 15:38
"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 
_____________________
Semper Fly -S1. Pow
"Violence is Art by another means"
Visit Squeeze One Plaza in Osteria. Come for the robots, stay for the view!http://slurl.com/secondlife/Osteria/160.331/203.881
|
Lordfly Digeridoo
Prim Orchestrator
Join date: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 3,628
|
06-06-2007 15:41
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.
_____________________
---- http://www.lordfly.com/ http://www.twitter.com/lordfly http://www.plurk.com/lordfly
|
October McLeod
Registered User
Join date: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 170
|
06-06-2007 15:42
From: SqueezeOne Pow "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  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.
|
Watermelon Tokyo
Square
Join date: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 93
|
06-06-2007 15:43
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.
_____________________
Free eyes and prim sunglasses at the new Second Eyes main store in Plush Theta!
|
October McLeod
Registered User
Join date: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 170
|
06-06-2007 15:44
From: Brenda Connolly 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. 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.
|
Desmond Shang
Guvnah of Caledon
Join date: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 5,250
|
06-06-2007 15:44
From: SqueezeOne Pow 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! 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.
_____________________
 Steampunk Victorian, Well-Mannered Caledon!
|
SqueezeOne Pow
World Changer
Join date: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 1,437
|
06-06-2007 15:46
From: October McLeod 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. 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.
_____________________
Semper Fly -S1. Pow
"Violence is Art by another means"
Visit Squeeze One Plaza in Osteria. Come for the robots, stay for the view!http://slurl.com/secondlife/Osteria/160.331/203.881
|
October McLeod
Registered User
Join date: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 170
|
06-06-2007 15:49
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.
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
06-06-2007 15:50
From: October McLeod 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. 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.
_____________________
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
|