Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Automated Burglary

Elex Dusk
Bunneh
Join date: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 800
04-18-2007 09:04
From: Rock Ryder
To my mind, this is automated burglary.


Please peruse the following link:

Private Island Tools - the Region/Estate window
http://secondlife.com/knowledgebase/article.php?id=097

Specific section:
Estate Tab

Specific paragraph:
'Public Access - when checked allows access to the island without being specifically on the "Allowed Residents" list.'

Specific phrase:
'[W]hen checked allows access

In the future you might wish to uncheck the Public Access checkbox while having your manager place out objects and furnishings priced at L$0.

To my mind, it was your own damn fault.
Atashi Toshihiko
Frequently Befuddled
Join date: 7 Dec 2006
Posts: 1,423
04-18-2007 09:06
I find the whole thing to be particularily disturbing and depressing. The opt-out nature of it, the fact that it wasn't announced till after everything had been scanned, the fact that it is barely publicised at all, the fact that people are using it to take advatage of others...

I just did a scan of my island and found dozens and dozens of things listed. I am confident that (with the exception of stuff in the mall that's supposed to be for sale) everything on the list was listed by accident or because when you buy an object (buy copy) and it's set to no-mod, you can't turn off the 'for sale' option.

Sure we can ban their avabot from our parcels or estates, but who's to say they don't have 8 or 10 other bot-names that they haven't publicised? Or that there aren't 8 or 10 other groups doing similar things? And opt-out is always shady to me. Like spam email -- opting out is the biggest trap of all since it confirms to them that your email address is live and valid and active. Opt out of one spam and you get a thousand more. Who knows what list you go on when you opt out of this? Will ESC blacklist your av from other future activities, keep you on a list of 'troublemakers' to watch out for, or what? Even if they don't do it today, they have the information, they can do what they want with it tomorrow or next month.

The other thing I found most hypocritical and ballsy, is their own terms and conditions on the search site. They don't want anybody automatically scanning their database but they don't have a problem doing the same to our property and prims. (Maybe if you don't want me to automatically scan your search database of stuff that was automatically scanned from my property, you should come to my island and opt-out in person?)

In the end this just adds yet another level of discomfort for me. I love SL a lot but it seems like every week something else comes up adding to the feeling that LL doesn't give a damn about the individual users... either they're caught up in "gosh thats cool what else can bots do" or they're gearing up to sell to diz-nee or whomever. Whatever it is, it makes me feel a little more sad about SL.

-Atashi
_____________________
Visit Atashi's Art and Oddities Store and the Waikiti Motor Works at beautiful Waikiti.
Tebow McMillan
Registered User
Join date: 3 Apr 2007
Posts: 15
04-18-2007 09:09
From: Kitty Barnett
That's tasteless beyond words.

Perhaps... But a very accurate analogy.
poopmaster Oh
The Best Person On Earth
Join date: 9 Mar 2007
Posts: 917
04-18-2007 09:09
It's not stolen. It's not theivery. It's your fault. Live with it. and hopefully learn something
_____________________
InSL u find every kind of no-life retard you could possibly imagine as well as a few even Tim Burton couldnt imagine u find 12yr-olds claiming to be 40 men claiming 2 be women, women claiming 2 make sense and every1 claiming 2 have ideas that are actually worth a damn if only someone would just listen to their unique innovative and exceptionally important idea
Accurate Archer
Hidden Hippie
Join date: 4 Apr 2005
Posts: 4
04-18-2007 09:12
Why not just set the price at the original purchase price? If they get bought unexpectedlly you can simply buy a replacement. Granted you would have to have the extra $L on hand to make the transaction, but it would be transfered right back.
Sys Slade
Registered User
Join date: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 626
04-18-2007 09:12
From: Ceera Murakami
Another possibility would be a field for "Sell only to...", where you could specify an avatar name. That, I think, would be the best option for single-item transfers.

That still leaves transfers relying on a mechanism designed for sale, and you can bet we'd have the same problems there as people who sell land at 1L$ without naming the buyer.
It would be useful in things like auctions though, where you want to actually sell the item to a specific person instead of transferring. People running regular auctions would be a lot less likely to make silly mistakes.

From: Ceera Murakami
If I open the door of my car and start to hand my mate the keys, and some other person snatches the keys from me before they can take them, and drives off with the car, that's still a thief stealing my car. I shouldn't have to give my mate $20,000, and then charge my mate $20,000 to take the keys from me, just to let them drive the car. Anyone who takes advantage of this 'service', manually or with a bot, to take things at far below market value, IS a thief.

It's not quite the same though. Because you are using a sales mechanism, it's more like advertising a free car in the local paper and leaving the keys lying around for the first taker, then crossing your fingers in hope that your friend beats everyone else.

From: Ceera Murakami
This still requires the content owner to manually place each thing roughly where it needs to go. Try doing that with 40 sets of pose balls, or 20 homes worth of furnishings. Then ask why you need to bother paying someone to fine-tune the position of each thing.

Say you are building something like a house. You could ask them to simply place the walls, roof, stairs etc in a big pile. You are using your building skills to build the thing, they aren't left wondering what they are paying for.
In the case of positioning poseballs and furniture, is that really the job of the builder anyway? The fact that they are hiring someone to do it in the first place means they don't have the time, or are too lazy to do it themselves so they aren't likely to quibble over paying someone they hired. They can place everything in one position, and the person arranging it can still move it into place easily enough. Dragging or editing x and y coords isn't a massive amount of extra work.
In the case of the OP, it would be a good idea to have a group set for the estate managers anyway. If they are likely to interact with the objects, why not have them shared with the group to give the managers mod rights.

From: Tebow McMillan
Let me guess... you're a botter, right....

Someone displays some common sense, and they must be a botter? If you leave things for sale at 0L$, they will be bought, and not necessarily by bots.
This is also not like having your house robbed. This is like leaving the door wide open with neon lights pointing the way to "free TVs".

I agree that the whole thing would have been better for being opt in rather than opt out, but it would eventaully have been someone else scanning without the option to opt out. The best that can be done is to lobby LL for a proper "transfer in place" tool.
Sys Slade
Registered User
Join date: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 626
04-18-2007 09:15
From: Tebow McMillan
Perhaps... But a very accurate analogy.

Not in the slightest accurate. Being able to buy an item at 0L$ requires your participation, a rape doesn't.

So, tasteless and inaccurate.
Ceera Murakami
Texture Artist / Builder
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 7,750
04-18-2007 09:15
From: poopmaster Oh
It's not stolen. It's not theivery. It's your fault. Live with it. and hopefully learn something
Oh, right... It's our fault that Linden Lab gives residents no rational way to transfer ownership of in-world content. I completely forgot that! It's our fault that there is no "Sell only to..." option on prim content. It's our fault that a process that worked fine for years, the only process available to us, can now be hijacked by any scammer with low enough ethics that they would take an obviously expensive no-copy item for a fraction of its value. It's our fault that people other think it's OK to rip people off.

Pardon me. I need to go take a bath. I feel so dirty from having been near so many ethically-deprived posts.
_____________________
Sorry, LL won't let me tell you where I sell my textures and where I offer my services as a sim builder. Ask me in-world.
Tebow McMillan
Registered User
Join date: 3 Apr 2007
Posts: 15
04-18-2007 09:21
From: Sys Slade

Someone displays some common sense, and they must be a botter? If you leave things for sale at 0L$, they will be bought, and not necessarily by bots.
This is also not like having your house robbed. This is like leaving the door wide open with neon lights pointing the way to "free TVs".

I agree that the whole thing would have been better for being opt in rather than opt out, but it would eventaully have been someone else scanning without the option to opt out. The best that can be done is to lobby LL for a proper "transfer in place" tool.

No... "someone" who champions this means of exploitation, as justifiable must be. The "best" thing to do, is NOT advocate that someone's mistake is EVER justification for being taken advantage of. Common sense??? How about some common DECENCY!

As a society, we shouldn't have to depend on the regulatory systems (in any form) to dictate the parameters of right and wrong. Inherently, they should be built in... That's MY point.
Vi Shenley
Still Rezzing
Join date: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 103
04-18-2007 09:21
From: Porky Gorky
The items were set for sale and someone bought them. This is called "trade". us humans have been doing it for thousands of years and the OP was naive to let this happen.

This is utter rubbish! If I agree to sell my car to my friend for $100 and NOT advertise the sale anywhere, I do NOT expect someone to materialise in my yard and buy it! I also do not expect someone to snoop to discover what sale agreements I have made with my friend, and expect to have the same rights and privileges.

The original poster had an agreement between him and his manager ONLY!!! He did not advertise the sale. If it were not for these bots coming onto his private sim, no-one would have known except him and his manager, so by no stretch of the imagination could it be said that he offered it for sale to anyone and everyone, and that plainly was NOT the case. As another poster has said, the option of setting something for sale to a named avi only, as with land, is not available with prims.

Tell me something Porky. This 'trade' notion of yours. What would you think or do if you put a For Sale sign, for US$0.0 on an antique in your basement, did not advertise it. Locked up the house and went to work. And when you came home you found that the item had been duly purchased and was now gone. Would you call this 'trade'? Or would you do what most right-minded people would do, and call the cops and tell them that someone had come onto your property, without your consent, and removed some property, again without your consent. This is the definition of burglary, so I am 100% with the poster on this one. It stinks, and what do you think the motive was behind this so-call 'service' anyway?
Kitty Barnett
Registered User
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 5,586
04-18-2007 09:21
From: Sys Slade
Someone displays some common sense, and they must be a botter? If you leave things for sale at 0L$, they will be bought, and not necessarily by bots.
This is also not like having your house robbed. This is like leaving the door wide open with neon lights pointing the way to "free TVs".
When the grid's back up, I'll put a prim out for sale, you get a whole week to track it down and return it. You can decide how much your claim of "if you put it out, someone will buy it" is worth to you. If you find it, I'll pay you, if you don't you pay the OP the money.

*waits for the inevitable "but... but... but... apples and oranges!"*
Tebow McMillan
Registered User
Join date: 3 Apr 2007
Posts: 15
04-18-2007 09:23
From: Sys Slade
Not in the slightest accurate. Being able to buy an item at 0L$ requires your participation, a rape doesn't.

So, tasteless and inaccurate.

It was in reference to ES, and their "opting out" requirement...

How violating, and intrusive it is... get it NOW?
Isablan Neva
Mystic
Join date: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 2,907
04-18-2007 09:24
While it does suck that this happened, it also does fall into the category of the OP's fault. Like a few others who have posted here, I've done landscaping projects where I needed to transfer ownership of items to my client. Selling them the items for $0 has always been the way this is done. However, anytime I've transfered items in this way, I've always made sure my client was standing right next to me to buy said items. On a large project, it can take an hour to transfer everything in this way, but leaving things set to sell for $0 and walking away is an open invitation to anyone who wanders by to buy those items. The fact that the ESC search bot is listing items just speeds up what would naturally occur anyway the first time anyone stumbles around and discovers all this great stuff for free.

Even if the parcel/sim isn't listed anywhere, people still wander by - with or without a bot guiding them. I had 6 to 10 people dropping by The Botanical Gardens every day during the first phase of the build out - before the sim was listed anyplace. The bottom line is that if you set something for sale at $0 and walk away, you are asking to lose it.
_____________________

http://slurl.com/secondlife/TheBotanicalGardens/207/30/420/
bladyblue Bommerang
Premium Account
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 646
04-18-2007 09:25
From: Rock Ryder
Hi,

I was amazed to see that all the items were not there, nor at the next or the next. Emergency meeting. Inventories checked, Lost and Found folders checked. A lot of time was spent trying to figure out where all this expensive inventory had gone too.

I then asked her to check her account details. Then the truth was revealed. All the items had been 'bought' by not one, but by various people. This is despite the fact that the new sim had not been advertised, and had not even appeared in the sl map yet!

They had all found these items on the new Electric Sheep search engine. Invisible bots now roam sims looking for all objects for sale, and are listed in this search engine, and folk can just tp directly to the coordinates of the item for sale and snap them up, even if it is a L$14,000 sexgen platinum bed, set at L$0. It is of no concern apparently, that the sim they are entering is private, that the object is in someone's home, not a store, and that the objects have not been advertised for sale at all.

This new 'service' ought to be stopped dead in its tracks. There are already means for people to sell their unwanted objects, via the Classifieds, yardsales etc. Any service that produces tp links to directly into peoples homes, without their consent (and can you imagine being in a delicate situation with your partner, when someone tps directly into your bedroom, to buy up the very bed that you are on!). This must be in violation of the TOS, and if it isn't, it should be!

I can no longer engage the help of my managers to furnish homes now because of this new 'service' and will have a big cost/time impact for me. I shall be raising this with other large estate owners and directly with the Lindens.

To my mind, this is automated burglary.


Thank you for informing us of this new 'product'. I think Electric Sheep did not realize the immediate abuse this item would cause. My managers and I constantly set our Raster Radios to sale from group when adding new staff. One did disappear one day but we thought nothing of it and replaced it. At $1,900L a pop were going to have to be more careful. No more setting to zero to transfer items. I wonder what solution creators can have for us. We need to 'sell' TVs, DVDs and radios when taking them back from our groups. I can see this being a big issue. Linden Labs? Anything?.
_____________________
Beebo Brink
Uppity Alt
Join date: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 574
04-18-2007 09:28
From: Ceera Murakami
Another possibility would be a field for "Sell only to...", where you could specify an avatar name. That, I think, would be the best option for single-item transfers.

That option is already part of the land sale interface and residents routinely ignore it, then scream "robbery!" when their land is sold out from under them. So if it were added to the object sale process, I'm sure people would ignore it there too.

I had never sold land before, and didn't have a clue that bots existed, when I decided to sell my parcel to a neighbor. As I began to set up the sale, I immediately noticed the option to sell to particular person and used it.

Just how much hand holding can LL be expected to provide when the current interface is clear and simple? I have a feeling that no matter how many safe-guards are implemented to protect residents from their own mistakes, someone is always going to find a way to ignore them.
_____________________
www.BrazenWomen.com
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
04-18-2007 09:31
From: Beebo Brink
That option is already part of the land sale interface and residents routinely ignore it, then scream "robbery!" when their land is sold out from under them. So if it were added to the object sale process, I'm sure people would ignore it there too.

I had never sold land before, and didn't have a clue that bots existed, when I decided to sell my parcel to a neighbor. As I began to set up the sale, I immediately noticed the option to sell to particular person and used it.

Just how much hand holding can LL be expected to provide when the current interface is clear and simple? I have a feeling that no matter how many safe-guards are implemented to protect residents from their own mistakes, someone is always going to find a way to ignore them.



Wrong thread Beebo - this is the OBJECTS being stolen Scanner Bot thread. Theres no sell only to .. for objects.
bladyblue Bommerang
Premium Account
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 646
04-18-2007 09:40
From: Accurate Archer
Why not just set the price at the original purchase price? If they get bought unexpectedlly you can simply buy a replacement. Granted you would have to have the extra $L on hand to make the transaction, but it would be transfered right back.

If your buying a group-owned item the funds transfer to each member of the grop. You never get your money back.
_____________________
Meade Paravane
Hedgehog
Join date: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,845
04-18-2007 09:43
From: Beebo Brink
That option is already part of the land sale interface and residents routinely ignore it, then scream "robbery!" when their land is sold out from under them. So if it were added to the object sale process, I'm sure people would ignore it there too.

From: Colette Meiji
Wrong thread Beebo - this is the OBJECTS being stolen Scanner Bot thread. Theres no sell only to .. for objects.

Beebo's right - setting land for sale to a single person is already in the land sale dialog and people still screw it up. If they added it to the object sale process, people would screw that up, too..

I voted for the JIRA suggestion then changed my mind and pulled my vote off.. Sorry but there are already (less convenient) ways to get objects to people and adding this would add more complexity and, probably, asset traffic.
_____________________
Tired of shouting clubs and lucky chairs? Vote for llParcelSay!!!
- Go here: http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1224
- If you see "if you were logged in.." on the left, click it and log in
- Click the "Vote for it" link on the left
Kitty Barnett
Registered User
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 5,586
04-18-2007 09:45
From: bladyblue Bommerang
We need to 'sell' TVs, DVDs and radios when taking them back from our groups.
You can return a group-deeded item, and it will return to the last 'real' owner, but then you run the risk of loosing the item, or having to wait for it to return because it's not always instant anymore.

(Edited to add that returning a group-deeded 'no transfer' item would cause that item to just get deleted, but in that case you can't set it for sale, but just for completion's sake :p)
Yiffy Yaffle
Purple SpiritWolf Mystic
Join date: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 2,802
04-18-2007 09:46
Setting ANYTHING for sale as $0 (if you don't plan on it being given away to anyone for free), is a nono. If you want to give someone a item, make sure they are standing right next to it with nobody else around before you try that. If it's land, then just sell it to that person only. This kinda makes me wish you had the same control over selling of objects as you do for land. The ability to set the object only buyable by so and so.
_____________________
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
04-18-2007 09:47
From: Meade Paravane
Beebo's right - setting land for sale to a single person is already in the land sale dialog and people still screw it up. If they added it to the object sale process, people who screw that up, too..



The difference being that when you list land - It goes automatically into search

When you sell an object it doesnt. There is no LL search all objects for sale system.

This search bot adds this for you - without your consent.

I dont think that we need a "sell object to" either - but theres a big difference between selling objects and land becuase of the global search.
Sys Slade
Registered User
Join date: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 626
04-18-2007 09:47
From: Tebow McMillan
No... "someone" who champions this means of exploitation, as justifiable must be. The "best" thing to do, is NOT advocate that someone's mistake is EVER justification for being taken advantage of. Common sense??? How about some common DECENCY!

As a society, we shouldn't have to depend on the regulatory systems (in any form) to dictate the parameters of right and wrong. Inherently, they should be built in... That's MY point.


And the post your response was to:
From: Dnel DaSilva

The sim was not private, it was freely accesable from anywehre in SL.

The items were set to sale for $0, so anyone can buy it.

Lesson: Don't set stuff for sale you don't want just anyone to buy. If you want to sell something to another av for ease of transfer (like furniture, so you don't have to place it again) DO IT WHILE YOU ARE BOTH THERE. Leaving objects for sale a L$0 for any length of time is just asking to have them bought by Joe Avatar, no matter wehre you hide them in SL, scanning bots or not.

That was not advocating people taking advantage of this, but highlighting that it would be naive in the extreme to believe that nobody would take advantage.
Yes, it would be nice if nobody took advantage, but there are always people who will. The fact that the objects showed up in this search means they must have been left for sale for a good amount of time, so the OPs naivety is as much to blame as the person taking advantage.

From: Tebow McMillan
It was in reference to ES, and their "opting out" requirement...

How violating, and intrusive it is... get it NOW?

So why not describe the ability to snoop with the camera in the same words? There is no opt out for that.
Sure there's no privacy in SL, but it's a game at the end of the day. Having your products listed in a search in no way compares to the years of pain rape causes.

From: Vi Shenley
This is utter rubbish! If I agree to sell my car to my friend for $100 and NOT advertise the sale anywhere, I do NOT expect someone to materialise in my yard and buy it! I also do not expect someone to snoop to discover what sale agreements I have made with my friend, and expect to have the same rights and privileges.

The fact is, SL lacks the ability to select the buyer in a sale. By setting the item for sale, you are opening the sale to anybody who can access that item. Only if LL implement a "select buyer" option would the situation be similar.

From: Kitty Barnett
When the grid's back up, I'll put a prim out for sale, you get a whole week to track it down and return it. You can decide how much your claim of "if you put it out, someone will buy it" is worth to you. If you find it, I'll pay you, if you don't you pay the OP the money.

*waits for the inevitable "but... but... but... apples and oranges!"*

Just because I bad mouthed cats :p

I didn't say I would find items for sale, or that I take advantage of items set to sell at 0L$. I also don't fancy spending a week snooping in houses and such, it's not my style.
If you set it out for a week though, there's a good chance it will be found by somebody.
I also didn't specify a time frame. Leave it out for 2 weeks and the chances that it is found increase. The point is that if you're going to do transfers this way, then do it quickly. Don't leave freebies lying around for weeks on end.

Besides, sexgen beds aren't one prim, they're not exactly hard to find if you're snooping, and if you happen to be one of the noobs who likes to use others beds, you may very well notice the text saying "for sale for L$0" while doing other things :p

I wonder if you'd be willing to flip the bet? Set a sexgen bed for sale at 0L$ and leave it somewhere with no time restrictions. If you put it out, someone will buy it (eventually) :)
Meade Paravane
Hedgehog
Join date: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,845
04-18-2007 09:51
From: Colette Meiji
The difference being that when you list land - It goes automatically into search

When you sell an object it doesnt. There is no LL search all objects for sale system.

This search bot adds this for you - without your consent.

I dont think that we need a "sell object to" either - but theres a big difference between selling objects and land becuase of the global search.

I was only commenting on the suggestion that LL add "sell only to.." support for objects. I think Beebo is right in that people wouldn't use it then complain that they'd been ripped off.

I also am not a fan of the searchbot.
_____________________
Tired of shouting clubs and lucky chairs? Vote for llParcelSay!!!
- Go here: http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-1224
- If you see "if you were logged in.." on the left, click it and log in
- Click the "Vote for it" link on the left
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
04-18-2007 09:51
The real issue is this Searchbot scanning everyone's land wihtout being asked to and putting it up on a website so that it can be accessed.

These people arent putting these items up in a store to be sold, these items just happen to be owned by them.

Its invasive, and its uneccessary.

I seriously question the ethics of the searchbot operator.
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
04-18-2007 09:52
From: Meade Paravane
I was only commenting on the suggestion that LL add "sell only to.." support for objects. I think Beebo is right in that people wouldn't use it then complain that they'd been ripped off.

I also am not a fan of the searchbot.


Yes, your probably right .

and Beebo also - sorry for being so quick to comment negatively on your post as well.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 45