Automated Burglary

It only collects PUBLIC INFORMATION about you and your stuff. If you don't want it to know about you or your stuff, then buy a private Island, and control access only to those whom you want to know about you.

The kind of privacy you are wanting, which amounts to opt-in for even publicly-accessible information, doesn't exist, RL OR SL. It's like saying "you can't take a picture of me out jogging in the park without my permission!!". Yeah, anyone can, and that's the way it should be. If you don't want your picture taken, then stay in your home with all the windows and doors shut and locked, or wear a disguise when you go out.

There is such a thing as "pervasive privacy", and it is a VERY nasty slippery-slope that you REALLY don't wanna go down.



Then it is LL's fault, and they should be responsible for cleaning up the mess. Of course, we know that won't happen, but that's hardly ESC's fault in such a situation. LL makes SL, which is the enabling platform, and they are the most responsible party. If they shirk that responsibility, then our only recourse is to reconsider trusting them with our resources (ie, "money" and "property".

Remember, corporations DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. They only care about the money in your wallet and your desire to continue to give it to them, or otherwise enable them to obtain it from elsewhere. That's your ONLY power as a consumer over them. Unfortunately, like a herd of sheeple, most folks are willing to put up with abuse of their trust and rights for the sake of not having to put up with the inconvenience of going elsewhere.

Geesh.. talk about going off on a tangent.

The comemnts Ive made that have cuased such indignation are related tho this in red

A lot dont want to.

I have less issue with the "we cant help" then the total disreguard for even wanting to. Or even caring.

The current Path were on with reguard to unregulated bot use is basically going to mean people are going to have publically accesable business's, and their homes in gated communities.

If they can afford it.
Those who cant afford it - wont get any semblance of privacy.

I suppose this jives with the Open Server plan

I would rather Linden Labs had moved in terms of Community Preservation and regulated bot introduction.

Instead it looks more like they will be hands off and see whats left after things get rolling.

You don't have to treasure hunt it any more. If you got there from their website, it tp's you to right in front of it.

coco

Exactly Talarus.

Not if there is a for sale sign on it, listing the price as $0, and a signed title on the dash.

Oh please, I refuse to take pity on that note. Walking into SL is like walking into the street. You may get seen. Your car may be seen. The clutter in your front yard may be seen. Things you put in the window may be seen. I don't think there is any right to have a private space within SL any more than there is a right to own a vacation home in the middle of nowhere on a big estate. If you want privacy 24/7, don't go into public spaces. SL is essentially a big public space, unless you have the money to buy that vacation home on a big estate.

And it is in my locked garage.

Rusty, deed to group has technical issues. It can cause scripts to stop working, and it does not make the rightful owner the owner. Not to mention that you need to spend $100 to create a group and get another party involved to secure the group so it doesn't disappear (causing all owned goods to vanish or return to LL's ownership).

Deeding to group is a workaround that's useful to mention. It's not a solution for all cases.

There are other workarounds, such as using rez-foo, and using glom objects (taking unlinked objects together, looks like one item in your inventory, but is multiple objects when rezzed, and doesn't need to meet linkage criteria, etc.)

Each workaround has situations where it's helpful, and situations where it isn't and "buy for $0" is still the only reasonable option. See Ceera's post in the alternate thread meantioned above.

In truth, there was always a problem here, and the ESC bot simply made it a much bigger problem -- and that's hardly ESC's fault, assuming this wasn't their intended application. The fact that nobody in some sim hasn't heard about it yet doesn't mean it's not a significant problem. It was definitely a significant problem for the OP. If you don't think it was significant, then please offer to compensate him for his lost $L.

Also, nobody here is saying that the sky is falling (as they did with the coybot -- a potentially serious problem, but which has obviously not caused the sky to fall!)

But just because you and people you know aren't affected by or aware of the problem doesn't mean it's not significant. (The fact that most people are unaware of it makes it more significant, in this case.)

Also, I have little sympathy with folks who simply want to blame the victim here. Yes, the victim used risky behavior. I'll admit my analogy is stretching it a bit, but a woman who wears suggestive clothing in a dangerous section of town exhibits risky behavior, but that doesn't mean that a rapist who attacks her is off the hook. Extending this (admittedly extreme) analogy further, what ESC has done is provided a "hot babe" detector. Not an inherently bad thing! Simply, subject to abuse, and therefore ESC holds some responsibility to trying to taking reasonable measures to avoid the unintended consequences.

The privacy issue here is another matter entierly. It's an interesting question, and I'm not sure where I fall on it. Probably because personally I don't really care who knows what objects I have, so I'm not personally interested. In reality, though, there *is* little or no privacy in SL, only the apperance of it. (I believe LL did agree to consider implementing some kind of protected skybox, and if so I'm not quite correct, but the bots would be unable to penetrate these boxes anyway).

But that fact aside, as an ethical matter, privacy should be respected, and the ESC bot does seem to violate that principle. Careful reconsideration of the opt-in/opt-out system and defaults might address this sufficiently.

Thanks Cocoa...I tried looking at their webiste..the one for ESC but all I could find was PR puffery, no links for opting out. Maybe there is another webiste. What I DID do was spend an hour or so of MY valuable time [valuable to me, anyway] and make sure that all my expensive items are not for sale. I'll have to go through again and do the smae for inexpensive items. I stil want to opt out though, so if they have made it easier to find the sign, I will avail myself of that.

Certainly far from a complete replacement.

I haven't had much cause to experiement in this area...

Would the option to "sell a parcel, with all it's contents" be a possible alternative?


For example, deed the parcel to a group, have decorator place contents and deed them to the group... have the original owner buy the parcel back with the 'include all objects in sale' option checked.

And, if group ownership is required for the parcel, deed it back again afterwards?

I think you're right Suzy -- there is no right. On the other hand, there is ethical and decent behavior, and one principle would be to respect the privacy of others, even when there is no mechanism to enforce it.

We're not asking for your pity, just your consideration. When I say "we", I'm not really including myself, because I don't really care about privacy in SL. But I try to respect the wishes of those who do want it.

Thats becuase I wasnt having a private conversation with you,
nor Was I accusing you of anything.

If I accuse you of something , Ill come out and say it. Ask Zaphod or Chris.

It was you and Talurus who continued the Education topic by needlessly personalizing it.

BTW I wasnt accusing Talurus of anything either, except losing his temper which he said he hadnt. Sorry Talurus.


Im far from the first person in history to make the observation that Technology often comes at the expense of Social values. My speculation on a partial cuase for that might not be the cuase at all.

It is a fact Engineers, and Computer Scientists have less Social Science education than Historians, Sociologists, and the like Its a simple matter of specialization. Most engineers will not take a senior level course in Philosophy for example, they simply wont meet the prerequisits.

That Obveration does not mean my specualtion was right - That its an educational cuase at all.

But Ill submit to you - that theres a chance you personally have changed some opinions about life as a result of your coursework in Socially related topics.

Additionally -

Just becuase you include someones post in your post it does not mean every single thing you say pertains 100% directly to their post. Your assuming it does leads to over peronalization of your responses.

Nor is there a law saying you have to respond to every point a poster makes - The forums are not a debating society nor a place for personal arguement.

You are entiled to you opinions on Public and Private space. You've stated them. Ive stated mine, Ad naseum through-out this thread. Me saying yet again will just annoy people.

Normally, the parcel (and often, may objects on it) are already owned by the intended owner. The contractor is adding content.

My suggestion would be another box on "make availabe for sale", where you can add a resident's name. In addition,
(a) we should be able to enter the name and value before making avaliable for sale
(b) when we turn off 'for sale', the price and name, if any, should remain for when we turn it back on
(c) it should be possible to do this to a group of selected objects in one operation.

Frankly, I'd like to see (c) for setting permissions as well; it's such a hassle when making complex products with lots of contents, to keep changing each individual item when changing between selling directly to customers versus selling to resellers who need copy/xfer capability. Of course, (c) might be scriptable, if they would actually implement the LSL function to set object permissions. But that's off the subject!

As per the dictionary:

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

By putting an item up FOR SALE, you are granting permission or right, with an implied acknowledgment that the item CAN be bought legally and ethically. That is the intended use of the FOR SALE mechanism. No one can assume that it was meant to be used otherwise simply from the information in the item. As such, there is NO THEFT if someone purchases an item set FOR SALE. Period. EVER. It was an explicit contract set in the options of the item. It can ONLY be UNethical if there was some previous fiat arranged beforehand which was understood by the buyer AND the seller that, even though the object was set FOR SALE, it was not really available for purchase.

So, yes, I am saying, in the absence of other information, it is legal AND ethical to purchase something set FOR SALE, by virtue of the fact that such is the intended purpose and use of the FOR SALE object settings.

It works the same way in RL, too. If you go to a yard sale, and pick up an object, ask how much it is, the owner or his/her proxy gives you a price, you pay it, then leave, only to have the owner chase you down and say "No, I am sorry, I didn't mean to set that out for sale to anyone but my neighbor!!", you are under NO legal OR ethical pressure to return it. You made a bargain, a trade, negotiated in good faith, and the owner wants to change the rules of the trade. You CAN choose to be nice and return the item in exchange for your money, but you are under NO obligation to, and it says nothing about your "moral fiber" if you refuse.



I'm not ignoring it; that's been one of the core points of just about every post I have made. There's no screwdriver; use a hammer to drive screws AT YOUR OWN RISK. I wouldn't exactly say it is a "missing mechanism" any more than having full mesh support is a "missing feature". It is a needed mechanism, sure, but there are other ways around it; not necessarily as efficient or easy, and some which entail risks that must be mitigated, but it is definitely not a "missing" feature. Missing implies pre-existence.



If the room is public-access, and there's a big FOR SALE sign sticking on the object placed there by the owner (and verifiably so), how can one be 100% sure that it isn't for sale?



Again, with a big "FOR SALE" sign sticking up out of it, verifiably placed there by the owner? You tell me.... sounds to me like it was meant to be sold.



The owner specified their wishes when they set the object FOR SALE. Maybe they didn't COMPLETELY specify their wishes because they couldn't, but that is hardly the fault of the potential buyer. The contract is there, consent given, payment accepted. Done deal.

As such, it is NOT "theft".

OK, just for fun, let's take this a bit farther.

Let's say there is a bot that can track my whereabouts at all times. And I guess there probably is.

What would be wrong with somone publishing the findings of that trackbot? You could look up a person's name, and find out exactly where they are, and TP right to them. People would not know about this system at first, and would be listed, but they could always go to opt out of it later once they discovered it.

(Knowing, of course, that the people who do the tracking would still have this knowledge.)

Or - what about a making big list of the parcels everyone owns, with their names on them, with direct TP's to all those. People wouldn't know about this system at first, and everyone would be listed automatically, but you could always go to opt out of it later.

There are maybe some other things like that I haven't thought of.

But what would you say to these things?

coco

Talarus, please forgive a question from this twit and ignoramus, but if I go to Macy's and buy a new lamp, take it home, inside my house, forget to take the price tag off of it and leave, in the meantime a burglar or sheep bot manages to take the lamp from me, isn't THAT theft? In California andmost , if not all, US jurisdictions it is. I think thatis what most of us are objecting to.

You have, actually. You called them "thieves", which is false, and you CANNOT prove otherwise. It's just something you can get your hysterical mental state around to beat up on something you don't understand. That's OK. It won't change anything anyway, but please continue to blow on.



I said people who use libel as a form of attack in the name of "constructive change" are twits. You tell me, is that all you have on them is name-calling, labeling (and libeling) them "thieves"? If so, you answered your own question.



Wrong to you, maybe. I don't agree. In fact, the more people listen to your polarized point of view, the more tempted they are to take the opposite pole, just to be against you. That's why your whole argument is specious at best, because that is all it is serving to do. It's not about finding a solution, it's not about discussing things rationally and civilly, it's about bashing something you don't understand and, as a result, fear, like all monkeys. Don't let that stop you, though; it is still very amusing.



I aim to please.

Analogy doesn't quite work, because the burglar also left you the money it cost you to buy the lamp.

It would be breaking and entering, though . . .

coco

The same I have been saying. SL is essentially a public space, so I don't think rights associated with one's private space apply. Don't want to be seen, don't go out in public.

Telarus, please review my post previous to your last one. Also, if anyone from ESC really believes I am libeling them, I will be delighted to discuss it with them.

Just so that we're clear on something, I never called you a thief or indulged in any name calling about you whatsoever. Be advised, my comment about thieves applied only to ESC and those who use that ....service...to take things from other people.

Actually, most of the time just 'entering', not 'breaking'.

Great point Suzanne.

Talarus, you have your reasons for your arguments, but these items were not intentionally sold. They were set for sale due to a common practice to workaround a shortcoming in SL.

The people who swoop into private property and buy thousand-dollar-plus items for $0 know that they're taking advantage of others. They're acting reprehensibly.

Talarus, I hope that you're arguing a technical ethcial point rather than trying to justify your own behavior. That is, I sure hope you're not one of the folks who are swooping in and buying obviously private property set to buy-original for $0.

If you do that, you should be embarrassed. If not, I pity you for your lack of sensitivity to others.

It would be burglary.

That may be your interpretation of my view, but that isn't the reality.

Do I support the existence of sim bombing tools because it "can be done"? Nope.

Do I support the existence of landbots exploiting loopholes in the existing system because it "can be done"? Nope.

Did I support the use of CopyBot to copy and resell someone else's work because it "was done"? Nope.

I'm well aware of the legal and ethical implications of using tools. Did you know you can use a paperclip and a small screwdriver to pick many different kinds of locks? Do I condone people using them to break into someone's house and steal their stuff because it "can be done"? Of course not, but you won't see me supporting a ban on paperclips or obtaining mandatory screwdriver registration as a result, either.

Anyone who is reading anything else into my posts is clearly too busy humming their own mantra to hear what I am saying.

So - SL, with the exception of private islands, is all public. And where you are and what you own is public information, and it is okay to compile this and publish it.

Would there be there any SL information about a person that isn't public and fair game for publication?

coco