Automated Burglary

Easy... everybdy just create hundreds of cubes and set them for L$0!

That maybe is the point of my contention. I can be in my SL House, with the windows closed, doors locked, etc, and still not have privacy. Between the various bots, scanners, mapping devices, camera tricks and floating prims, anyone can intrude as the please. Why is that? Why can't the program be made so you CAN'T see through walls. You can't sit on a prim and fly through walls? What is the need for these "features'? If it is a program limitation, then stop foisting unneeded features on us and spend the time figuring how to to fix this. The jogging in the park argument is valid to a point. I don't expect privacy in a PUBLIC place. MY RL Home is private. Why can't our SL homes be made the same way? And I don't buy the 'It wouldn't be possible to make Opt in a viable option".It might not have been the EASIEST wasy to do it from ESC's point of view, but a little effort on their part, and perhaps LL's as well, would have gone a long way. So my view is it wasn't a case of any type of thievery, but laziness, and bad planning. nor t qualities i wan't from companies I may do business with. But you are right. They don't care about us, and only we can fight back with our Wallets. And I will do just that. Unless this situation changes, and someone involved with this fiasco shows some good faith and sincere attention to our concerns, I won't give my business to any endeavor that ESC is involved with.

Sure, IM's for example, they are like phone calls. Or notecards given to someone, they are like private letters. Or what kind of activities you engage in on private land with ban lines (which means in this instance I support greater privacy than the game actually offers). Transactions histories too, transactions are a private matter between buyer and seller (or giver and receiver etc.). Of course if you then proceed to pull that giant double dildo out of your inventory and rez it in a public (i.e. non-restricted) space, don't go bitching if a paparazzo comes along and takes your picture licking it.

ESC's search as opt-in would have been hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Sellers would love it.

Buyers wouldn't have to wonder whether they were really going into the shop they thought they were, or embarassingly teleporting into someplace where they weren't actually wanted.

This version should be scuttled and a new opt-in version instituted. There would still be bugs, but nearly everyone would be happy.

coco

Collete, gross overgeneralizations like yours about technical people are not helpful, and they're painfully false and unsubstantiable, and make you look bigoted and ignorant to those of us who know better. The truth is that there are plenty of narrow, self-centered people of all ilks.

And while you may not mean it personally, it is taken personally. Just as if I said most women were technically incompetent, many women would justifiably be upset.

Let's please discuss the subject here, rather than continuing a flame war. This will be my last word on this subject. I don't feed trolls; I ignore statements that are intended to inflame. However, I suspect that beneath your prejudice against technical people, you're actually a thinking person trying to communicate. I doubt you're as ignorant and bigoted as your words make you seem. Please recosider carefully.

Coco,
I think thats the road were headed down, unless the Lindens change course somewhere.

I would like that a lot. But I blame the Lindens for that problem, not ESC. Just like I don't blame Google when my private account information on some website gets published; I would blame the website's shoddy security.

Actually the price tag automatically comes off upon purchase.

If there is a price tag on anything in secondlife... it is because the owner put it there.

The difference is that you put a signed contract on the FOR SALE tag which encourages people to claim ownership in exchange for money. That is still quite legal in ALL US jurisdictions, INCLUDING California.

If in doubt, please feel free to contact a contract law attorney in your locale and verify that fact with him. If you allow people into your home, and someone takes your lamp, leaving you the money as stated in the contract, you'd have a VERY hard time in court retrieving it.

I've already dealt with the access control issue, from one of my very first posts in the thread, so don't use the "but my house was locked" argument. If someone can get onto your land to buy your stuff set FOR SALE (ie, the access controls allowed the buyer access), then the "locked" argument doesn't apply.

Not always, it is a known bug.

Talarus, your argument doesn't apply if it's on private property behind locked doors. And you keep ignoring the fact that this method is necessary for certain kinds of builds, and is a common practice prior to the sheep bot. These are things that any RL court judge would take into consideration. If you don't believe me, ask a good lawyer.

Also, many prefer security orbs to ban lines. In rental properties, you can't put up ban lines, so you resort to a security orb, which doesn't prevent this kind of thing. If land is obviously locked (even though we know we can get past locks using "sit here", it is locked. The fact that it isn't banned is completely beside the point.

Apparently, the thin line Talurus uses to divide acceptable behavior from unacceptable behavior is that if you use anything for other than the purpose intended by LL, then you're responsible for all the consequences.

There is merit in this argument.

However, that does not mean that those who try to profit by others "misuse" of SL features are not also ethically responsible for their acts. This is where I part company with Talarus. We are responsible for our acts and the consequences of our acts.

Al this would be moot if there was a reasonable way to transfer property privately. The fact that there is not a good way is exactly why those who exploit it are thieves. People who are benefitting from others without compensation. People who are not providing any kind of useful service but are being leaches.

(Oh, I bet those people who swoop in and buy are really collecting for goodwill!)

The result of their behavior is that builders will have to use more cumbersome methods for transferring ownership, leading to higher prices for builds, and driving up costs in general. So that they can have a free sexgen bed or something.

Come on, Talarus. You can blame the victim but you can't defend the perpetrators

Telarus, I AM an attorney and breaking & entering into someone's house, whether it is locked or not and taking things which the owner of them does not wish to give [or sell] IS illegal. There are quite a few folks in California who have done that. they are called "inmates."

Thank you for your input though.

That's my point. They CAN NOT be called "thieves" unless THEY did the "thieving". Period. End of Story.

As a result, calling them "thieves" without any form of backup is libelous. If it ain't true, then it is wrong; doesn't matter if you don't like them otherwise.

There are plenty of legitimate sales done using that service, so not all users of it can be categorized as "thieves", either, making your latest statement just as libelous against the users of that service.

Like I said, don't let the facts stop you from making yourself look bad, though.

Oh, and I am aware that you never called me names. I never called you any, either, really. I put forth the notion of "conditional labels". IE, if you act or speak a certain way, then the label applies. I didn't make any specific label assignment, though. If you felt I did, perhaps there was more truth to what I said than you realize. After all, if the shoe fits......

Talarus burglar tools are illegal. And this is a burglar tool. When someone goes in to your 3rd floor bedroom and buys your bed for zero because this device pointed out where your zero priced bed was - thats assisting thieves in stealing. You know this already. Your just arguing for the sake of seeing your own text.

Talarus's argument is that setting the "sell" button means that the owner intends to sell.

That makes sense.

But it isn't true, due to limitations of SL features. If it were true, he would be 100% correct.

Intent matters. Especially on the part of those swooping in for unintended 'bargains'.

Talarus is correct that ESC are not thieves. The most they can be criticized for is aiding and abetting. However, calling them thieves is not libel unless it's done with malice and knowledge that the information is false.

Keep in mind that the linden commitment is to keep your REAL LIFE data private, they won't disclose it without subpoena, or discuss private particulars about you explicitly to others.

They are also committed to the "no naming of names" and "no posting of chat logs without consent" on their official forums.... something that's possible only because they own them.

They have made no assurances to protect us against such violations of privacy on 3rd party sites because they have no legal jurisdiction to do so.

Nor is harvesting/publishing information freely available in secondlife a violation of tos/cs.

Should an all-avatar online and location tracker be tolerated? No.

Would it be tolerated by linden lab? Probably.

Could the lindens stop it, and still support an open-source client ideology? Not likely.

Will it happen? Yes, and likely worse things too.

Will it be even remotely accurate or up to date? Unlikely, without a huge investment backing it up to deploy enough bots and scanners to collect enough data in real time.

And the cost and inaccuracy increases as the grid grows.

*sighs*

Okay im sorry people for seeming predjucided against technical people.

Im not really.

Me saying they have less education (usually) on Social subjects , than those who study Social Subjects, isnt predjuduce. Its just how things work. Does that make them bad people , no. Does that make those more educated in those areas good people - no.

I simply think that concentrated thought on those issues might change a students world veiw considering the reasons for things like the bill of rights, civil rights, etc.

I obviously didnt word things correctly considering my audience. Again I didnt mean to upset anyone.

As far as the vibe I sense in this thread :

I am aggravated that most of the people who are telling me I have no right to privacy are Technophiles.

Im Aggravated that the company that brought us this bot - Run by technophiles did it in such an inconsiderate and irresponsible way.

So I suppose im making an assumption based on the way these threads have played out.

Does this mean all Technical people are not interested in privacy rights, no of course not.

Now then I made my whole comment that set people off in reference to someone else making a comment about Technical people ignoring privacy. It was speculation. Thats all.

Now then, since my speculation is obviously wrong - why is it that the more technical minded people seem to be in the Pro Bot camp and the more socially minded people seem to be in the anti bot camp?

Is it just that the less Technical are not realistic?

I see that as part of the Issue - Since Electric Sheep , Other Bot makers and the Lindens are all technically minded people.

We want privacy - We want to be asked before our prims get scanned.

When the future Bots come out that can track avatars , a lot of us wont want that either.

Agrees. I'm gonna be called naive again, but I would not buy an object marked for sale, especially one of some value, at $0 in someone's home, no matter what. I wouldn't go into their home without permission to begin with, whether the door was unlocked or not. And I understand that not everyone will bring the same sense of values to SL, but it seems the world is geared to allow for the lowest common denominators. We as a group, can elevate it beyond that. Just because we can do something, it doesn't mean we have to.

Don't forget to name them identical to popular objects.

They WERE intentionally set FOR SALE. That's enough in my mind to enable consideration for someone potentially buying them being "in the right". Every situation is different, and needs to be considered on its own merits, but the fact of the matter is that setting something FOR SALE as a "workaround" for a shortcoming in SL is NOT the proper use of the FOR SALE function. I'm sorry that there is not a better way, but all that leads me back to is that people should KNOW that there is a RISK associated with it, and that it is THEIR RISK to take, and it is NO ONE'S FAULT BUT THEIR OWN if someone else comes along and buys the item out from under them as a result. They can set the price of the item to its real replacement cost. They can work to ensure private access while they do the transfer. It's still a risky practice until LL gives them their screwdriver. Mitigate the risks and accept the responsibility of practicing them. That's the mature thing to do, in my opinion.



Perhaps. Like I said, the situation needs to be considered on its individual merits. For example, when I came into SL over a year ago, I went around freebie-hunting. There were a few places I happened upon which were not advertised as yard sales, but were a bunch of various objects for sale and not for sale sitting on a plot. Some were in plain view, others weren't. I bought a few items there, though they were set to "buy copy", not "buy originals". I had no idea as to the real worth of the items, but they were cheap or free. No one ever complained, and I noted that I was not the only one there buying stuff. I have seen stuff put out in a similar fashion which is set to "Buy Original", but it usually is no-copy, and I tend to avoid stuff like that because of the potential for loss, just on principle.



No, I make 99% of everything I own/use. I do have a LOT of freebies from my early collecting days, but the majority of stuff I use on a day-to-day basis was well-bought-and-paid-for.



*shrug* Save your pity. You can't judge my level of sensitivity towards others from a set of opinion posts in a text-only forum. In fact, you shouldn't be judging me at all, unless you are willing to make a real, concerted effort to get to know me.

OK, fair enough. But fortunately you didn't fall into the pity category anyway.


No they weren't. The 'for sale' feature was used for a different purpose, and in most cases quite obviously so. This is the hub of where we disagree.

I look at the purpose for the act, you look only at the act.

An interesting difference.

bladyblue is correct on this one. I do not specialize in criminal law but I do know that the actual definition of what is and isnt a burglary tool can be hotly debated in the courts, but common sense tells one that if looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its probably a duck. Does that mean that everyone who has a screwdriver is a burglar? Noooo of course not.

Here's the point of my posts. ESC, for whatever reason, has created and enabled a tool that makes it much easier for thieves to steal things. They know about the problem and, yet, seem unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

Yes, I believe and continue to believe that ESC and those who misuse their product are thieves or at the very least accesories to theft. Do I believe that those who diagree with me in this forum are thieves or unintelligent? No. I do not. That even includes Telarus, unless he is an ESC using burglar, which I have no knowledge of.

Suzy, I don't blame ESC for the shortconings in the program. I blame them only for releasing an untested, defective program, on the community at large, without any notice or warning, and of being astonished when pointed out to them. I also feel they used por judgement in their plans. I'm sure more than "5 or 10' people are upset at this (the word outraged is one of the most overused in the world right now). whatever the number is, don't you think some of them have discussed this in world with people who don't read the Forums. I have. Some are disturbed by it, some aren't. But alienating even 1 potential customer is not a good practice.

"But your honor... I was just playing an online game. I was playing by the rules as they were published, and legitmately aquired this fine set of chairs from a hidden room in some weird teapot. How the heck was I supposed to know that was someone's private residence? There was no mailbox out front, no street address, no locks on the doors... and the stuff deliberately made purchasable by the rightful owner.

I had a very reasonable expectation that my actions were not just legitimate but specifically welcomed by the person who now accuses me of theft."