L$ theft and the penalty of same..

Date:

Sunday, May 27, 2007Violation:Terms of Service: Account SecurityRegion:LiaisonLandDescription:Obtaining another Resident's password, and fraudulently taking L$ funds.Action taken:Suspended 7 days.


I wonder how that can only gain someone who does this kid of thing only a 7 day suspension?
Doesn;t seem right to me.

Or how about this, which I copied the other day:

Date: Sunday, May 27, 2007
Violation:Terms of Service: Interception of Payments
Region: City Of Lydius
Description: Attempting to intercept payments. Terms of Service violation.
Action taken: Warning issued.

(I like to amuse myself with the Police Blotter from time to time, as a known criminal myself. I like to contrast the crime of finally talking back to people who abuse and bully you with impunity on forums for ages, to such obviously lesser infractions as "attempting to intercept payments."

coco

Seems a standard penalty. Note this is a different instance, the one you quoted is still showing in there too.



Seems odd when these are deliberate attempts to defraud someone.

When such things are reported on the blotter, that's usually not the only punishment the scammers get. The system has to register something, but the blotter, if I recall correctly, cannot show "ban hammered." So it spits out the most it can, while Daniel Linden (the dude in charge of the bits) takes care of it outside the blotter.

Well, but then you'd think it would say two weeks.

coco

Using shared password<--- now it could be me not understanding this, ut what is a shared password?

When someone else has your password.

You aren't supposed to let anyone else - even your own family members - have access to your SL account.

It's also technically covered as, say, a rl husband and wife who are both content creators using the same account to make stuff for a 'business account', but having their own alts for personal use of SL.

Broccoli

This is no longer true.

Proof please. I'd be interested to know when Linden Lab decided to no longer require compliance with one of the most common and standard security requirements of any computer system.

Broccoli

There is no mention of not sharing your password in the TOS for some months now. The knowledgebase article that used to insist on not sharing passwords has been changed so that it has no reference to it either.
http://secondlife.com/knowledgebase/article.php?id=065
The KB article was changed on the 11th March. I'm not sure when the TOS was changed but it was maybe a month prior.

Now, YOU are responsible for the security of your password not LL.

Even when the loss of security is Linden Lab's own fault, such as the time the hacker got in? That doesn't seem... right somehow.

Broccoli

I don't particulaly have a position one way or the other, I'm just telling you what it says.

Accepted, but from the way it's worded in the ToS, it seems like Linden Lab are no longer responsible for the security of your account if, by their own failure, someone else gets hold of your password.

Downloading a program which you need to run to get L$20,000,000 free, sent to you from an unknown person - which turns out to be a keylogger that allows someone else to steal your password... then that's your own fault, sure. But I don't see that LL should be absolved from all responsibility if the fault is clearly and unequivocably theirs.

Broccoli

If that is true then that eliminates much of the point of the police blotter. It is important for us to see what penalty goes with what crime, both from the perspective of an honest resident (so that you know appropriate action is taken against people who harm you) and from the perspective of a dishonest resident (so that you know the consequences of your actions.) Meanwhile, there is no reason I can think of not to say the punishment was banning; it's not like there's a privacy issue, since no names are mentioned.