Automated Burglary

1) I'm not just referring to you and me. It's inclusive of anyone concerned.
2) I said I see your STANCE as unreasonable; and only no less so as you seem to see mine. Learn the difference.



That's right; I said the exploits in the system are the problem and, beyond that, people misusing a system feature and not making appropriate effort to mitigate the risks involved in doing so.

That does not alter the fact that the exploits in the system for SOME bots need to be fixed to prevent them from exploiting the system further.



Because that doesn't follow from what I have said; but then, you'd know that if you weren't so busy looking for a nit to play "one up on ya!" with.

OHHH, right - you only said this.



My mistake. I shouldnt have paraphrased this into me being unreasonable.

That's the problem when all you are looking for is that next little nit. You miss everything else of substance in your monomaniacal drive to be "on top".

Keep trying, though. You'll get there someday.

Declining to comment things you feel are of substance which I dont, and missing them are not the same thing.

Edit - BTW i did get this quote you posted, it doesnt somehow magicly negate the other thing you said.

Thank you for your reply, Forseti.

I'd rather not talk about it in terms of "bad" or "good." Seems to me if you are sitting on a lot of data that tells all the objects every avatar owns, it would make sense to offer that as market research to your clients.

Back to the questions.

------------

Here are the questions we have had answered:

1. You won't consider opt-in service, and think that the searchbot would be useless if it were opt-in?

Answer: True.

-------------

Here are the questions that I believe have been at least partially answered - correct me if I'm wrong:

1. After people opt out, is their data [both items for sale and all items owned] completely erased, or does it stay in the system in aggregate? ... Does opting out mean one's objects are not scanned and recorded at all?

Answer:The data for all items is always collected and stays in the system, even when a person opts out from having it published. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

2. To what end, if any, to you plan to put the information you have gathered, besides publishing it or portions of it on your search engine web site? Will information (including any and all not published on the site) be collated and made available to your corporate clients for market purposes? Will you be selling this information?

Answer: We haven't decided our policy for this.

------------

Here are the questions that haven't been answered at all:

1. What are your plans ... to proactively let the residents know that their objects for sale are being catalogued and listed on this site?

----------------

I look forward to hearing the ESC's answers to these questions.

coco

Either way, I said nothing about you personally being unreasonable in either case. There's no ad hominem in either quote. Both points are about your argument (and how you presented it).

I don't know you personally, or claim to. You may be the most reasonable person in the world; it just doesn't show through in this particular debate, which is all I pointed out.

That's the important point you keep seeming to miss.

Are we there yet?

K sure

You can debate people whose ARGUEMENTS are more reasonable than mine then.

Have a nice Second Life.

Sure thing. You, too!

This one is pretty interesting - since it does seem to be what was said.

He didnt even claim they deleted it yet.

Very interesting. I admire your tenacity in this thread. While me may not agree on the specifics, we both believe in resident privacy and it's a valuable issue I hope will come up in the town meeting.

We have laws around pointing 1200mm lenses into people's bedrooms, you know.

but it is not your bedroom, its a bunch of pixels on a screen

If its not your bedroom, then its not your Second Life.

So it looks like ESC plans to market itself as the Google of SL. Wonderful. The insufferably arrogant jokers who brought us the world's worst designed searchbot are building a database that may potentially list full details on every owned prim in SL. And they "haven't decided" their policy for this, even after inflicting parts of it on SL Residents without their knowledge or consent? Is anybody at CBS reading this thread?

It's getting harder than ever to take these guys seriously any more. Their condescension toward SL Residents is becoming laughable.

Except that the consequences of their exploitive bungling can matter to a lot of folks in SL. Suppose they somehow actually succeed in building such a database despite the shocking apparent lack of competence they showed in designing their searchbot in the first place. Clearly, anybody in SL who has things rezzed in SL that they wouldn't want pored over by CBS and passed on to absolutely anybody or everybody else in SL or RL that would pay ESC a buck needs to guard himself or herself against this outfit. Today is not too soon to begin.

First, change the name and description on all your visible stuff to something meaningless to anybody but yourself. Misleading might be even better. Second, consider what you can keep in inventory and only rezz while you are using it. Third, do everything you can (within the TOS, of course) to throw monkey wrenches into this searchbot and any further ones that come to light. Decoy prims and other "false postiives" could be your first stop. Fourth, if a useful opt-in alternative appears for searching for-sale items in-world, patronize it. Fifth, ban this and any future such bots from any land you control and get any sim owner you can persuade to do the same. Sixth, spread the word.

Oh by the way, do keep checking your stuff to make sure the for-sale option hasn't been activated without you knowing it. The searchbot has made that necessary. Isn't this fun?

Oh my god! I just found out people can see things I own in RL too!

First, tape newspapers to your windows to prevent people from looking in.
Second, build a wall around your front yard to prevent people from seeing your garden gnome.
Third, don't forget the wall around the back yard, your neighbours can see your patio.
Fourth, actually, just build a dome over your roof, you don't want people to see your house, do you?
Fifth, put an invisibility shield over the dome, you don't wan people to notice the dome itself.
Sixth, put up a sign next to your house saying "there is no house here, I swear!"
Seventh, hide the sign.
Eighth, If you absolutely have to go out, go out naked except for a (hidden) sign around your neck that says "I'm not really here, and I own nothing".
Ninth, spread the word, and try to convince people they actually need this lunacy.

OMG I just found out people have NO privacy in RL too -

First - put all your personal family pictures in your front lawn

Second- Next to that put all the videos you rent and books you read

Third- Put out all your birth control and sex toys

Fourth - Put out all your lingerie

Fifth- Invite your neighbors over to get a good look.

Sixth - To get a bigger audience advertize all this stuff in the newspaper.

Seventh - Put it up on a website, and give a standing invite to all veiwers to come on over.

Eighth - Be comfortable in knowing no one except those who own private countries have any privacy.

Wow, the things you assume I would be embarrassed about...

Except my birth control, that would require people to stuff a camera up my intimate parts

The point is, you are demanding even more privacy than you could ever have in real life (unless you buy a country, that is), while Second Life is not real life. Nobody is going to walk in and see you in your nightie. Nobody is going to see anything even vaguely resembling pictures of your actual family. You don't really have a dildo the size of a fist, so nobody seeing it will be left wondering what hole you put it in. Nobody is using the bed and sheets you actually sleep or have sex in. It. Is. Not. Real. Yet for some reason you apparently are so embarrassed by those few pixels, that you need far more privacy than you could ever afford to have in real life.

Second Life is not your space. And it is not my space. It is essentially public space, unless you buy a piece of it and designate it private by banning others from entering, also known as 'locking your door'. Sounds unfair to you? Sounds very fair to me. As fair as not demanding privacy if I put something in my real life front yard, or even out on the street for all to see.

But you have no privacy in this case

Unless that piece is a private Island.

Thats the part of the problem.

I agree. Nothing I do embarrasses me, either here or in Rl. However, in both places, it seems there are self centered, dictatorial busybodies, who are concerned with what other people do, even if it doesn't affect them. We've seen it here, with various ban this ban that threads. You suggest buying a piece of land. I did. And lock my doors.I did. And close the blinds. It still doesn't keep anyone from looking in with cameral tricks, or other assorted workarounds. . Most people advocating this don't wish to impose it unilaterally on every resident, unlike a certain company tried to do with a certain piece of software. At least I don't. All I want to know is it possible to be done in game, IF we want it? If it isn't technically possible, I'll drop the matter and work with what we have. If it's due to some Philisophical tenant the Providers have, fine too. I'd be intersted to hear that as well. But don't on one hand put "Your World, Your Imagination" without a disclaimer somewhere.

Who are we to say people shouldnt be allowed to do things in private that would embarass them in public?

I never had much respect for the "Why? Are you hiding something?" argument.

My response is "Why do you need to know what people are hiding or not hiding?"

See, here's a case of being right about one thing - and then orbiting oneself right out of the ballpark.

Suzy is right about one thing: There is no such thing as guaranteedprivacy in SL. If someone is really determined to, he can violate your privacy, such as it is. That is the problem. Exactly. Because, you see, we have somebody in-world who is really, really6 determined.

Now here comes the orbit:

That is supposed to mean submitting to a cataloguer - call him, oh, say, ESC - from across town who comes into your house and scans every damn thing you own? Without your permission, and in the beginning at least without your knowledge? And if you catch on and ban him and you don't own a whole sim he can stand outside your ban lines and do his cataloguing anyway? And if he catches you with a for-sale sign still on something by accident or because it's a necessary work-around with your builder, you're not supposed to mind that he puts it on a website where he invites everyone in the world to come over and play Gotcha? And you don't know what he is going to do with all the other information he has collected that he didn't put on the website, but you do know he has a nasty disposition and an exploitive and contemptuous attitude toward you and your neighbors?

Well, okay, if that's the way you want to live, Suzy, that is certainly your right. Your world, your imagination. I'll see if I can fashion a nice big goldfish bowl for you to live in, that's the kind of goodhearted guy I am. [Starts looking for a proctoscope so the cataloguer can do an even more thorough job on Suzy.]

Now there are lots of people who don't feel that way. Their world, their imagination too. They want to be rid of this cataloguer and other cataloguers yet to come. Fortunately they have some things they can do about it. They have been called on to take responsibility for themselves. Okay, they can do so. Some of the things they can do to help get rid of this cataloguer have been listed a few posts ago. By me - like I said, I'm a goodhearted guy. There is probably more, and interested parties are invited to post them here.

SL will be far better off without this particular bot spying on it. Let's do this.

Our world, our imagination.

"Your world, your imagination"

"You" is plural, not singular, or selective.

It is Our world, Our imagination.

You can imagine you have... or deserve... privacy. It is an illusion.
If other's share that illusion with you, then your imaginary privacy is respected.

You can not force others to respect you, or your imaginings.

Furthermore, Secondlife was never designed to offer "real" privacy.
Private sims came well after launch, ban-lines don't grant privacy,
they just prevent avatar entry.

What you want does not exist... and, I'm really trying to avoid resorting to
condescending statements... but as a non-techie, you have absolutely no
idea how difficult it would be to change secondlife to incorporate it.

If you think there are bugs, lag and problems now... just wait until they try
to make the grid into something it isn't.

Well, hey. I haven't read all these posts since Forseti last posted, but I did just now read this last one here, from Rusty.

Seems to be predicated on the concept that there is no law; there CAN be no law (much less reasonable expectations or societal norms); and the ONLY law is what is coded.

Rusty gets points for being with Philip on that one.

But it does overlook the fact that there are simple mechanisms that could put an end to anything considered too intrusive. Those mechanisms are LL stating that such a thing won't be allowed.

Rusty, you could take the argument you just made (and probably made many times, but as I say, I've fallen behind in my reading here), and apply it to anything - for example, copybot.

But all the Lindens had to do there was say it was against TOS to copy other people's objects without their permission. They didn't have to make the program such that copybot could not possibly work.

As a techie, you have absolutely no idea how to do anything or accomplish anything except through code. That is myopic in the extreme.

coco

*SIGHS*

Okay - Rusty, Suzy, Talarus and whoever else is on this kick

Stop playing it like Im saying this is all about ME

I didnt say it was about me. When I speak up for MY rights. I also speak up for the right of everyone else to have those same rights.

I realize to give people rights you have to weigh them against the rights of others.

To have absolute freedom of information you have to weigh that against where it infringes on other's rights.

While you may not wish anyone to have any rights that prevent this freedom of information or freedom to bot, or script or whatever - Me wanting that does not mean I only want ME and people like ME to have rights.

I undestand completely well the rights of individulas need to be balanced against those of society.

Although I dont like to play "Rules of Logic" games- you are using a Straw Man argument. Becuase you are basically making it out that my posistion is in order for me to have rights I want to take them away from everyone else.

In addition I dont want a Nanny State - I have said nothing about heavy enforcement of anything in any thread , ever.

Yes- my suggestion would lead to a more clear CS that wouldnt be any more enforced than the current one. But it would be there in case of extreme Abuses, to protect the rights of Individuals, Including the rights of Coders, Techies, Bot Owners and everyone else. Just like the statements that are there do.

Yes- Id like Bots tagged as bots. While you may think this is a horrible infringment, it would allow people to refuse access to bots if they wanted. On their Land. While allowing other visitors. The same way you can deny access to No Payment on File people. Thus increasing the ability to OPT-OUT. Is there a better solution? Great - enlighten me - But I still think people should be allowed to blanket opt out of searchbots, spybots, crawlerbots.

By the way these are the entire two suggestions Ive made. I have no idea where you get me wanting to recode the whole grid from.

Now then - Im sure youll tear this post apart and say Im saying something I am not. But the whole "Im doing this for me" accusations are insulting.

When I support the Equal Rights Ammendment - Even though it would benefit me personally - It would also Benefit all women in the United States. No one accuses me of being selfish. (or of having a selfish argument)

Uhm I don't think you were too successful in that attempt. (and I probably have failed in my response as well)