Where do you find this rule?

Can someone provide a link to the following passage, or instructions on how to get to it?



It is said to be findable somewhere in the support system.

I imagine they have serupticiously removed this privacy protection clause as it directly interferes with their new mandate that we spy on and expose the virtual activities of people we do not like.

I just read the TOS and CC and can't find it either.Hmmmm. The CC mentions chat and IM's but nothing about pictures. But in anycase, the TOS and CC that i just read is pretty clear to me. I see no problem with following them as they are written now. I think, just maybe if they had been adhered to better by us and enforced better by The Providers, we may not be having a lot of the discussions we are having now.

It isn't in CS or ToS, but it is in a Knowledg Base article - log into the support system and search on keyword 'privacy'.

I knew if anyone had the answer it would be you.

Took me all of 10 seconds to find. Now I have some questions:

1) Who wrote the article?
2) Is said author in a position to create policy for Linden Lab/Second Life?
3) Are we to assume that the statement made in the KB article carries the same weight it would if it were a paragraph in the CS?

Rule 4, Disclosure, Community Standards Suezanne

Edit: Oops, no it isn't .. just the first few words .. damn! sorry

I was too busy reading The CC and TOS for the 1st time

And I await the answers to those questions quite eagerly.

Disclosure covers Chat Logs and IM's, not Photos or Videos.

Daniel took credit for coming up with "The Big Six", and he doesn't seem to like limiting or specific rules, so it's just a guideline and "Disclosure" is whatever "the community" feels it should be . (If only )

I don't really see how it falls outside of what's in the CS right now though. We're not allowed to post conversations or name people on the forums, but all of us regularly do when it comes to Lindens, or things Lindens said.

If you cam into your neighbour's house and take a snapshot of their wall, nothing is going to happen. If you follow someone around and "stalk" them by sending them snapshots of places they've been, or if you take a picture of someone being "naughty" and then send it off to their partner I'd think the first is harassment and the second is disclosure.

Not that I think anyone here really believes Linden would look into it, especially since it's been made clear that the disclosure portion won't surive the next rewrite.

(Edited to add that it's technically a disclosure violation to say "B is A's alt" depending on the context - maliciously - although we don't have that written down anywhere either)

In a logical normal SL world, definitely. But sometimes I think we are getting deeper into Bizarro World each day.

It's not so bizarre the way I see it. I viewed the video and walked away from it with a better understanding of his/LL's position, and a confirmation of some of my own assumptions. Although I would agree there are times when clarification is in order, I believe the strategy on the whole is a smart one, and the only one that would really work. People want such granular definition of the rules, and it's impossible to produce it. Human behavior is an almost infinitely open-ended thing, and to try and craft law that follows that same granularity would be an impossible task.

Daniel made a very specific point that I find impossible to disagree with. (He said basically that if they were to code alot of specificity into the standards, people would walk right up to those lines and spit over them.) Keeping the language as general as possible provides the needed flexibility to deal with the widest range of issues as they arise, while imposing the least amount of hard-coded restriction on Residents.

Age and Identity verification plays into this, and should, at least in theory, inhibit a fair amount of unwanted behavior, as the feeling of anonymity is lessened by some degree, and there is increased transparency between the Resident and Linden Lab. The only way to realize the full effect of this is of course to require verification of all residents, and I expect that will become inevitable at some point.

Overall I do think it's wise not to take everything he said as if it's going to be tomorrow's policy. He was merely expressing some ideas, talking about the past, where we are today, and where ideally we *might* go in the future.

I can relate to that. I remember my Dad threatening to put me on a leash the first time we visited the Grand Canyon............

I'll concede to your points. They are good ones. Sometimes I wish The Providers would let you write their announcments, I seem to undestand them the first time I read them. It is not an easy job, running this thing called Second Life. And even when I accuse the lindens of being disingenuoous , greedy bastards, they are people trying to accomplish something. In the end, I'll just see where SL goes and if it's somewhere I don't want to be, I'll simply take my leave without any regrets

I find it very easy to disagree with that point of his, and rather insulting that he made it in teh first place.

There is a MASSIVE amount of specificity coded into our RL laws, and yet the vast majority of us do not walk right up to the boundaries of our RL laws and spit over them. He basically called the entire SL population a bunch of borderline criminals.

That's assuming those are his words you are citing, and not hearsay of course.

It's impossible to write rule to cover every possibility. However, rules that are overly-vague are no rules at all. And people can't follow rules that they don't know about. Linden Labs, it seems, often remains purposefully vague because it just doesn't want to be bound by its own statements.

There's a difference between operating on a lazze-faire standard, and avoiding responsibility.

Many people tend to behave quite differently in virtual spaces than they do in their everyday real lives. Obviously he wasn't speaking of you, or me, or others who have the sensibilities to behave ourselves. A great number of people will, in fact, release themselves of personal responsibility, the moment they enter the virtual space. That is an indisputable fact.

You'd need to watch the entire video to get the full context, and really understand what he's saying.

This is precisely where we're at right now. One of the big questions that they're trying to answer is WHO is responsible for WHAT? The answers are numerous, extremely complex, and relatively unresolved at this point. In the end, it would be prudent of them to endeavor to avoid certain responsibilities, as in doing so they avoid certain liabilities which could ultimately harm Second Life.

It seems they are trying to get the Risk to Reward ratio down to Zero. which from a business standpoint is understandable. But is it feasible?

Unfortunately it also gives those who have been encouraged to turn in possible infractions a wide latitude when deciding what to report.

You can only hope on the Linden End the rules are very specific, which questionable things going to a judgement call from a supervisor.

I did not get an impression that was going to happen.

Yeah, they either don't have very strong writers on staff or the writers get handed a napkin with random ideas scribbled on them and have to turn it into a release.

Based on how the rest of SL runs I'd vote for the latter!