Automated Burglary

Talarus, what you have is simply this . . . if it can be done, it's okay to do it.

coco

I'd like proof of this. I do not have this information, and I have seen a claim from ESC claiming otherwise. I'd like to get the facts before assuming they are lying.



Which is exactly why I am taking the stance I am taking. Because I do critically think about the value of claimed rights. And because I criticaly think about when certain rights are and are not applicable.



I make a different categorisation. I think the conflict is not about whether people have a right to privacy or whether the option of having privacy is important. The conflicting views are about what does or does not constitute 'private space'. Privacy is about having your private space protected. SL is not private space unless you make it private by limiting access to your land. If you don't, the 'land' is public. Items in that public sace are open to public view. The indexing by ESC changes how many people are likely to see what stuff you own that is for sale, but it doesn't change the fact that these items were already in a public space open for public view.

Now if the sheep bot does scan across ban lines, I agree with you that is a serious problem. But in my opinion no breach of privacy exists when items that are essentially in public space are indexed. Privacy is important. But unless items on parcels with restricted access are indexed, it is simply not a matter of privacy.



Whoa, you are on your own on that one. Talk about gross generalisations!

On a side note: in my university Philosophy and Cognitive Artificial Intelligence share one department and many students 'hop over' for a minor or extracurricular information gathering to broaden their view.



I'm not. I actually take the stance I take because I gave thought to the issue, not because I like shiny technical things. I suspect the same goes for many others, including those 'techies' you are generalising about.

This is not a conflict between immoral and thoughtless techies and enlightened liberal minds. No wonder people are taking offence, no matter if you put an 'I wonder' before those generalisations. Implying that the conflict is based on that difference, reads to me like a way to dismiss what those who disagree with you are saying. I don't know if you are doing that on purpose, but I sincerely hope not.

Part of the complaint here was that there is now a tool that makes it easy to take advantage of this necessary workaround. For input from builders, see a related post HERE. You may think the "sell for $0" is unnecessary, but you probably haven't hit situations where it's most significant.

I agree that it's important for builders to mitigate their risks. I agree that we need a new feature from LL. I also stand by my statements that ESC is (unwittingly at first) abetting theft, and that those who take advantage of it are thieves.

If ESC does nothing to help deal with this situation, then they're abetting theft with their full knowledge.

I don't blame LL for not honoring a greif report about this. What they need to do is provide a screwdriver, as you say. Meanwhile we need to warn the community of builders who use this trick and are now at dire risk.

Considering that the government sanctioned it (you know, all the Liberal Arts types, the POLITICIANS), and the techies warned them of its dangers.

Of course, the same Liberal Arts folks also tend to support its use in WWII, because it "saved so many lives", while the scientists who worked on it continued lamenting it for many years afterwards. Einstein and Oppenheimer both wrote volumes on the subject, long after the war, and fought hard to control the nuclear arms race that they enabled.



Case in point.



Most often, mob mentality reactions are the sole product of IGNORANCE. It happened with CopyBot (my oh my, the sky! It be a-fallin'!!), too. Thank you for being such an exemplary embodiment of my point.



Yes, reiterating history as well as restating the obvious always helps. Thanks! *rolls eyes*

By implementing "Indexer Bot" without our knowledge or consent, they changed the rules. You can't learn and adapt to conditions that you don't exist. Before this , if an item in my house was marked for sale,someone would have to, on their own, come into my house, lookat the item and buy it. Fair enough. But this Lemon is designed to give the buyer an advantage. And I don't think that's right. Also I don't trust that someone can't tke this and use it to steal, maybe diverting the payment or something like that?

New Thread on this now /8/51/179774/1.html in Building Tips Forum. Seems this device is concerning the content providers that do custom work.

An excellent point above. Talarus and the other ESC defenders, please explain to me [rememberI'm a twit and an ignoramus so try to avoid polysylabalic words] WHY oh WHY doesn't ESC simply make it an opt in process OR make opting simpler, [e.g. going to their web page] ?

I fear their actions and lack of there of speak much louder than thier defenders.

If ESc were a concerned and ethical company, they would do this.

Susanne, let's give ESC time to think things through and experiment with solutions. A couple days may seem like a lifetime in SL time, but it's still just a couple days, and programming happens in RL time.

I saw a good suggestion, that the default be IN for commercial property and OUT for residential. While no doubt lots of rental property falls under commercial, this would at least avoid a lot of the major problems.

Maybe some techie over at esc screamed till he was blue in the face and then he completed the code and got paid.

This just proves that when you knowingly create something bad for the community because your employer paid you to do it you can't clean yourself by complaining about the device you created.


I imagine a SL without the outrage over copybot and it is not pretty. Robin Linden went on record saying copybot was fine. Hours after forum outrage and in-world protests Linden Lab went on record saying copybot was bad (check your blog archives). Community Action works.

If it was opt-in, it would never have gotten off the ground. And no, not because it's such a terrible idea, but because not enough people would have even known about it, as is very much in evidence throughout this thread. It makes sense to launch it the way they did.

The reason the opt out is in-world and not on the website is that is the only way they can verify your identity. There would be no mechanism on the website to verify that indeed, Zaphod Kotobide opted in, or opted out. In-world, they have the agent's key, which is 100% verification.

No im not -

But dont worry people love putting words in my mouth.

I think my posts are too long, and some tend to zero in on a statements that taken out of context, aggrivates them.


I was speculating in direct reference to the comment the other poster made - She referenced you , I did not.

Yes there are a lot of people who seem to have the attitude "You want privacy - tough - cuase you aint gonna get it" and those are primarily from those who are technically minded and proceed on with technical arguements of why this Searchbot thing is right.

But Im not even calling them (the posters) unethical. I do not think denying people privacy in that manner as in they shouldnt even want it - is considerate of them.

I dont even think Electric Sheep is unethical - I think they are inconsiderate.

As far as the coments on who studies what -
I doubt most Engineers take a course on English history before the dark ages.
I doubt many History majors take classes on Fluid Dynamics.
Ive noticed people like to make comments that "Im not like that" when they then go on to say there are not a typical sort.
Does it happen? - sure it does, but when speaking about groups of people you discuss trends.

Learjeff, both of your ideas work for me. Good point about maybe needing some time. What they COULD do is have someone from their corporate offices write inthis forum something to the effect of "hey, we didn't realize this would cause the problems you folks have mentioned. We're working on fixing these and addressing your complaints. In the meantime, if you want to opt out of the system without going to our in world offices and searching for the opt out sign, here's our web address and you opt out simple by clicking here...."

I personally don't believe they have the slightest intention of resolving these issues, but I have been wrong before andI hope I am wrong now.

well I wrote to them and told them i liked their idea (which i do if its properly and responsibly impemented unlike the way it is now) , but asked why they didn't go to the community and ask for beta testers and use an opt out method instead of opt in because all its doen is upset people and not really do much to help anything. I went into issues of search engine spam on the net and the fact that more and more engines are opt-in for many reasons blah blah blah.

I have not gotten a reply from them even though I thought a search engine was a decent idea (why not have several search engines people like choices etc plus the more peopel can list stuff in the more places the more they can get noticed IF they want to be noticed)


Anyhow I dont see how they could not have done beta testing with interested parties that's how its usually done /shrug

Then you are missing the point. The "loss of temper" you are ascribing to me is simply an example of righteous indignation ANYone with ANY technical background would have over your prescriptions. I don't know you, either; I just am going by what you say; as such, my words are simply there as a counter to yours.



See what I mean? "failed to notice" versus "haven't noticed". You automatically assume that my perception is broken (ie "failed" by your very words. How can I not assume that this is indeed an attack on me personally and technical-minded people in general?



When I was in college, I had to take electives to fill out my coursework. I chose several non-technical courses to fill those electives. Surprisingly enough, a buddy of mine who went to another state college in the University System who was an Art major filled his electives with technical courses. All-in-all, I think I had MORE Civics coursework than he did. My Civics education didn't start with college, either. I had quite a lot of Civics classes in middle and high school as well, back when it was a big requirement.



Never claimed any such thing. I simply maintain that "formal training" is not the ONLY source of such education, nor necessarily the BEST source of same.



Then maybe you should have worded it quite differently, because the way you wrote it came off as quite offensive and condescending, let alone prejudiced and stereotypical.

I know I am not dismissive of others' privacy. I suggest that they work harder to maintain it and to recognize when they haven't.



I support a desire for privacy. Never claimed otherwise. All I bring into question is people's lax attempts at securing it, and claiming that it is someone else's fault that they didn't get it when the fault is clearly their own.



That's where we disagree. Setting objects for sale on PUBLICLY-ACCESSIBLE land hardly constitutes any desire for privacy. Maybe a misguided one, but like I said, I don't pretend to read minds. I will try to evaluate the situation, but if I feel justified in purchasing an item set out FOR SALE and the previous owner comes back to me, bitching to me that it wasn't meant to be bought by me, I may just say "tough luck". It probably will have more to do with how I am treated by the person than anything, though. Someone who is nice and explains the situation, I may have sympathy for and return the item for the price I paid, along with a warning to be more careful in the future, since others may not be so kind, and they have ZERO obligation to be such and return the item.

It would get off the ground if they put some advertising dollars behind it. Did Snapzilla creators opt everyone in and publish every picture that was taken in Second Life onto their website so they would have instant 'success'? Of course they did not. They advertised, offered contests and incentives to create a customer base for their service and products.

Really Zaohod your 'do it because it's a short-cut and I want to' approach to things that effect a huge community is so scary.

Yeah, well, hopefully they will keep it going if for nothing else but to annoy you.

Zaphod, thanks for your reasonable response. Its appreciated. Not sure if I agree with your points though. First, if its that good an idea and that needed a service [note the abscence of quotes here] why not do some beta testing, plus a little advertising and perhaps a services post on this forum?

Second, another poster mentioned why not opt out for commercial sellers and opt in for residential targets? I apologize for the use of the word targets...its just theonly one I can think of right now. Its not meant in the perjurative sense.

As far as verification of users, I guess that's a valid comment about having to go in world to opt out. I don't know, but I will take your word for it. However, why not just a large sign inplain view on sheep island or wherever they ar elocated to make it easier to opt out without having to go on a treasure hunt to find the opt out sign?

Once again, thanks for a rational response without the name calling. I DO appreciate it.

hey, don't call it mine, I'm just echoing their reasoning.

Considering that it seems that I am the only one in the ENTIRE Isle of Wyrms Community who has even HEARD of the issue, let alone actively discussing it, I tend to agree with Zaphod. It's the same as the CopyBot issue. "The SKY IS FALLING!!111!!1!1oneoneone!1" repeated in cacophony in tiny places and smaller spaces ad nauseum.

A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE (note that I didn't say anything about "insignificant"; if it were truly insignificant, I wouldn't bother with it) of folks know, let alone care, about it.

Oh, you realize that every time you post, it adds another view to the thread, right?

Awww

Some seem to be confusing "Manners" with "Ethics".
I am ethical... I'm not polite. There is a difference.

Some seem to be confusing "Probability" with "Possibility"

Losing something in a buy-for-zero-transfer was always possible, just improbable.

To wax metaphorical...

"Safe" is walking on a frozen lake in winter, it's possible to fall in, just not likely.
"Secure" is staying off the ice. Falling in isn't just unlikely, it's impossible.

Spring has come to secondlife.

Techies are saying "Get the h*** off the ice before it's too late!"

And getting answered with "Well, fix it! Make winter last longer!"

We can't! Even if we wanted to!

So please: stop expecting security from buy-for-0 transfers!

Use "Deed to Group" instead.
.
.
.
.
.
fwiw- I was a liberal arts major with an engineering minor.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt to prove it.

Just wait for the next developer to get robbed because he didn't make one of these 9,000 views of this thread. Then it renews and grows.

OR the entire issues can be fixed now before it turns into the Copybot protests and reaches outside media.

Doesn't work, and breaks a lot of scripted items. In the end, now the group owns the item, and not the rightful owner, and he STILL has to buy each thing back from the group!

Oh, maybe I should have done that then instead of reacting to things you said, informing you of how those statements come across, and expressing my hope you weren't doing that on purpose.



Or maybe people who react to your posts actually read them and respond to them.



It doesn't matter if it had nothing to do with my post at all. I object to the generalisation of people who don't agree with you as not being versed in ethics. It is offensive, even if you do grant the possibility of exceptions. And even worse, it pollutes the actual argument.



Of course, you are the one who's getting words put into her mouth. Sure.



Your generalisation is both false and irrelevant.
Irrelevant because a small minority of people studie subjects like Liberal Arts or Ethics in a formalised context. It's not just the techies who don't study that subject in college, most people around the globe don't. Even if you don't take into account all those people who don't get a college education at all. If you go that road, you are dismissing the majority of people on this planet just because they didn't study Liberal Arts in a university setting.
And your statement is false because there is life before, besides and beyond a college education. Engineers are as likely as historians to have broader interest than their major alone. In the time I spent in a political youth club the techies were as numerous as the non-techies. Their contribution to ethical discussions were as valuable as the contributions of the non-techies. You know why? Because techies are as capable of educating themselves as non-techies.

Interesting by the way, how you largely ignore the main point in my post: my thoughts about the difference between private and public space, and how I think rights associated with the protection of one's private space cannot be claimed when in a public space. Tell me, do you disagree with this notion, or do you have different definitions of what constitutes private or public space than I have? That would be a far more interesting discussion than the question if all, most or some techies are lacking in liberal arts education or not.