Op/Ed: Who Are You Again?
by Pixeleen Mistral on 05/05/07 at 6:51 pm
Ah! But how do I know who you REALLY are?
by Inigo Chamerberlin
Ok, here we go again. What’s waiting for me on Saturday morning but another brilliant Linden Lab initiative – announced, as always, on a San Francisco Friday with the office about to close. What a surprise. This time it’s Daniel Linden posting an entry on the Linden blog called Age and Identity Verification in Second Life.
This initiative demands that I, someone who’s spent tens of thousands of dollars with Linden Lab using the Visa card which I originally used to verify my age and ID when I first took out a trial membership (remember those days?), ‘verify’ my age and identity.
Of course, it’s not (quite) compulsory (yet), if I don’t care to ‘verify’ myself – and trust me, I don’t, not bearing in mind the sentence above – I can no longer wander and explore Second Life freely – certain areas will be denied to me, based on whether the landowner has any declared ‘adult’ content (with no definition of ‘adult’ provided please note) – something Philip publicly said he absolutely refused to do to anyone, it was his reason for REMOVING all forms of verification and allowing anyone, regardless of age, sex, geographic location, etc, etc free access to Second Life! Nothing at all to do with producing totally unrealistic ‘signup’ figures of course – oh no!
Not ‘bits of Second Life’ – he never said that. Not ‘just the nice bits, not the naughty ones’. He said he was determined to allow everyone access to Second Life. No conditions. Really? Well how long did THAT last Philip?
So, ignoring what this tells us about Philip Rosedale’s integrity and suitability for his position at Linden Lab for the moment – why the sudden change? What exactly has happened to cause Linden Lab to make such a sudden change to the access arrangements for Second Life?
I can see two likely explanations at present – one is in some way connected with inworld gambling. It still continues, though somewhat curtailed. Could it be that Linden Lab is concerned at the possibility of someone underage gambling inworld and causing the wrath of the US, or some other, more restrictive, government to descend on Linden Lab? Possible I suppose, but it seems a bit of a long shot to provoke this reaction – though we did have that recent clamp-down on casino advertising recently.
Another possibility is that Linden Lab is already facing investigation concerning subsequent real life events which were initiated with the meeting of an adult resident with an under-age resident in Second Life. This could be a more likely explanation for the rather precipitate announcement of a new feature in such a short timeframe.
Sadly, this one seems more plausible. Hopefully it hasn’t yet happened, someone at Linden Lab, after all there must be some sensible people there, is trying to head off the possibility maybe?
Ignoring for the moment the fact that neither of the above scenarios would be so likely to have occurred, nor any others more fertile imaginations than mine might conjure up, IF our respected CEO hadn’t become obsessed with ‘signups’ and allowed all comers, with no verification whatsoever, to enter Second Life. Something fairly drastic must have prompted this sudden change. Unless it’s just another Linden Lab whim.
Still, it’s a typical Linden Lab poorly thought out messy compromise ‘solution’. After all, we can’t upset Philip by quietly dropping unverified signups, can we?
So, let’s approach it ass backwards by attempting to segregate Second Life, create ghettos.
Brilliant idea!
Yet again, Linden Lab appears to have fallen foul of one of its own CEO’s questionable decisions. A decision every responsible adult in Second Life at the time protested for reasons that now may be coming home to roost – and was, as usual, ignored.
Meantime, who has to live with the consequences? Yes. As usual. The residents.
Fresh from having Cory tell us the bugs were all OUR fault for not using Beta more – right after admitting Beta was ineffective as it couldn’t replicate main grid loading – we are now told we are legally and morally responsible for what happens on our land.
Going to enjoy hanging out on your land 24/7 and acting as a ‘morals policeperson’ to cover Linden Lab’s corporate ass? Hmmm, I must try and get a response from Anshe on that one.
It seems to me of late, that besides hiding in a corner with their corporate fingers in their ears and the phone off the hook, Linden Lab are now seeking to avoid any and all responsibility or liability for any aspect of Second Life, and offloading everything onto their customer’s shoulders.
One can’t help wondering just what they think we, those of us who DO pay our way, are actually paying them for?
Or are they just laughing? All the way to the bank…
Daryl
May 7th, 2007
“This may legally protect LL, but it’ll be roundly ignored by the citizens of the game. Why oh why would any SL firm that sells anything set itself to refuse sales to anyone?” – Shockwave
I agree with you 100%. It will be almost completely ignored. How many “residents” even read the damn blog to even know about age verification? hmm… 2% I think is generous. And as you pointed out, it makes absolutely no sense to ban prospective customers.
I seriously doubt a landowner can be held legally responsible for anything that occurs on LL’s own servers. Ultimately it will end up on their plate. I think the threat of being “morally and legally responsible” is just designed to make people behave and to allow Philip to sleep better at night since when all is said and done, he’s left holding the bag.
Daryl
May 7th, 2007
It’s hilarious how they’re always turning comments off on the blog. “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU, YOU’LL GO AWAY IF I PRETEND YOU’RE NOT HERE”
Obscure Doodad
May 7th, 2007
Well, I’ve just checked a few places. Completely unscientific survey. Talked to ppl who work at adult locales. Not the owner, but the ppl I talked to suggested discussions had already occurred.
The places WILL set to Adult to protect themselves legally.
Those are places unverified will not be able to go. I think at this point that most places, even without adult content, will have to set themselves to adult to limit their own liability of unverified kids coming on their land and meeting predators. When the lawsuit is filed, even a marginally smart attorney will simply name everyone in sight as a co-defendant, just to increase the eventual award or settlement. So landowners WILL have to set adult to save themselves, and that will leave most of us with nowhere to go.
shockwave yareach
May 7th, 2007
– If LL is overtly passing along liability to landowners, and land owners recognize they are RL financially liable for things that happen on their land with kids, they must out of self preservation set their land to Adult — even if they have no intended adult content on the land.
All of Second Life is supposed to be 18+ years of age. It says so right in the ads, the TOS, everywhere. So no, nobody has to set any age limits of their own, because the Lindens have already set the entire main grid as “adults only”. If the Lindens don’t want to bring back verification and leave their butts hanging in the breeze, that’s their biz. But the legal requirement doesn’t fall on me just because LL doesn’t want to do it. And any suit — silly and unlikely a thing as that is — can be laughed out of court by simply asking how a) a cartoon sex act is the same as a real sex act, b) I’m liable under the laws of state X when I don’t live or work there, and c) I can show anything naughty to someone underage when nobody in the main grid is supposed to be under 18?
Obscure Doodad
May 7th, 2007
shockwave, I don’t know if you’re American, but you may not understand how the system works. Lawyers file lawsuits on behalf of some child who got on the grid when he should not have and some predator made contact there. LL points to all the measures it took to safeguard kids and mentions that the landowners were also instructed to set to Adult if there was any chance of anything happening. If it happened, then there was a chance of it happening.
You get named co-defendant. It doesn’t matter if you win the case. It doesn’t matter if it’s laughed out of court. You have to pay a lawyer $300/hr for however many weeks the case takes — and for something this new and complex, it’s not going to be fast. You’ll pay to defend yourself that whole time.
The only way a landowner can reduce or eliminate that expense is by setting Adult. If you’re not American you don’t understand how many lawyers there are in the US. They are tripping over themselves, and they all have to eat. They love stuff like this that has multiple defendants, all of whom can be approached and offered a settlement.
LL has to come up with a better plan or the majority, who will NOT place themselves in a database of admitted porn seekers, will be excluded from most areas of SL and will just leave.
shockwave yareach
May 7th, 2007
Obscure, if a lawyer or a prosecutor wants money, fame, attention or political gain, whether the facts justify a suit or not is irrelevant. They will come after you. There is a Judge suing his drycleaners for 65Million right now. I don’t live in fear of the lawyers because they don’t need facts to sue you. So there is no point in worrying about it.
I like verification, but not the way it is being implemented. If you want to verify age, do it at the outset of account creation. Don’t make the users have to do your work for you – it just pisses them off. And with the growing disconnect between LL and its users, combined with their utter disregard of our pleas for stability, people are starting to say SL is not worth visiting anymore and leave.
I will not verify if they need my social security number or any part of it. Period. That info can instantly enable someone to impersonate me over the phone to my bank, my insurance, anybody. If LL drops that, then I’ll consider verifying. But some business, somewhere in all of SL is going to be open and free of verification, no matter what. I belive the earlier description of “Speakeasy” is apt. People who implement the Adult tag will lose sales whereas people who do not will increase sales. Under those conditions, I give it two weeks, tops.
Obscure Doodad
May 7th, 2007
I think verification of children is a great thing. I think LL should spend the money to find the children. How? That’s their problem. It’s supposed to be their problem. Not mine. Them trying to make it mine is where the disaster has unfolded.
You may be right about one thing. If I was LL, and seeking to make money, and eliminate my own liability, I probably would try something like this and sit back and wait to determine if my customers are all morons who would enter such a database, or if a landowner, assume this risk. So it’s two weeks tops if the money dries up and that’s the only test criterion.
If I was LL and I found my customers won’t play along, and I see that they won’t by a decrease in tier income as ppl cash out, then I will reverse myself and change the rules somehow — and hope like hell that the ppl I angered return. It’s a big risk by LL in that regard, but their terror of lawyers and lawsuits (which you feel is not warranted (though LL clearly does)) may have forced them to try this.
They should have done this differently. They should have researched it more carefully and found a way to achieve nullification of liability rather than transfer of it. I suspect that would have cost them more money, so they decided transfer was brilliant because it costs them nothing up front. We’ll see.
Hornswaggled
May 7th, 2007
Does anyone know a lawyer? I’d really like to know if a land owner in sl is “legally responsible” for what happens on Linden Lab’s servers. Can anyone give us a definitive answer to this?
I’m so pleased to be giving these people 75 dollars a month and now also have the great honor of policing their online world.
Anonymous
May 7th, 2007
>>Does anyone know a lawyer? I’d really like to know if a land owner in sl is “legally responsible” for what happens on Linden Lab’s servers. Can anyone give us a definitive answer to this?
I’m so pleased to be giving these people 75 dollars a month and now also have the great honor of policing their online world.<<
*Paging Katykiwi Moonflower and Jake Reitveld*
(they are both RL lawyers who play SL, would be nice to hear from one or both of them on this matter.)
And yeah, it’s a farce that LL is trying to pass the buck onto us for the fallout of their asinine registration changes they made last summer.
Schmucks, the lot of them, I have zero confidence in them anymore. None. Not that I had much to begin with, they’ve slowly eroded that trust over the past few years.
Tabatha Dagger
May 7th, 2007
I agree with age verification. I will do it becuase I have an SL job in adult entertainment. But should a credit card be enough?
Untameable Wildcat
May 7th, 2007
A lot of us believe so, Tabatha. Many of us believe that if we have our own credit cards, which would not be offered to those under 18, that should indeed be enough, because what parent in their right mind would allow a credit card of theirs to continue to be billed by an internet company if they hadn’t given their express consent in the first place – and why would they do that, if SL was a risk?
I can appreciate where that puts people like you, who have SL jobs that would be classed as mature – and I hope you can appreciate my point of view that I don’t want to have to give very personal identifying details. I’m lucky, I don’t have a job like you do. For me – at present – there is still a choice, although I do firmly believe LL intend to force the same choice on me further down the line.
You are forced to make that choice immediately – surrender your details, or quit your job.
A credit card SHOULD be enough. A credit card and verifying address should be enough. Hell, I’d settle for a letter to my registered CC address to be stamped by a government office and returned at my expense… but I’m not prepared to put my personal details on some database someplace governed by a third party who I don’t trust, and that’s final.
Big Dave
May 7th, 2007
After reading the Linden comments and the blogs, I have a clarification the Lindens need to make. It looks like, at least from their comments that, you submit the data, the data base syncros with their records and if it gets a bingo, the data is good, you are verified. The data is only compared with stored data and Linden or the user gets a code that they have been verified. If this is the case, and it is handled over a secure connection the risk is minimal. I bank online, and I am willing to bet most of us shop over the net. Linden needs to do a step by step on what happens with the data.
If I am buying something over the net and shipping it to me, I have to give out my name and address to get it delivered. That data gets stored in a data base. The last 4 digits of your SSN are not useful to an identity thief, they are using it to match information ALREADY STORED NOW.
What I wonder is are they using this to merge the teen grid, which my child describes as small and really boring. With this kind of tag, kids could be allowed on the adult grid.
Inigo Chamerberlin
May 7th, 2007
Just spotted Daniel’s latest – ‘More on Identity Verification’. Now why did I read it as ‘Moron Identity Verification’?
Obscure Doodad
May 7th, 2007
No Dave, that’s not what it says. It says they aren’t storing the data. More importantly, in fact, most important of all, it DOES NOT SAY that third party provider will not keep track of the fact that you asked to be part of a database of people who are requesting access to porn.
And beyond all that, it does not matter what some flunky from Linden Lab, LLC has to say. They have to put their guarantee in writing and that guarantee has to spell out financial penalties that LL will endure if their 3rd party provider ever discloses your presence in such a database. There is no way LL will ever stipulate their own guilt over someone else’s database.
They need a new plan. This is not going to work.
Big Dave
May 7th, 2007
Dunno, lets ask the question, and see what they say. They haven’t said either way, and everyone knows how great Linden is at getting the story straight the 15th time.
VTOR - Virtual TO Reality
May 7th, 2007
Maps, virtual bouncers and trademark dispute rumors
Second Life near the Noob Sea?
Map of Online Communities: I wonder why the artist in the picture to the right chose to place Second Life near the Noob Sea? Especially considering that a common complaint from new people is that Second Life is anything b…
humanoid
May 7th, 2007
Yes Tabatha, a credit card should be more than enough to play SL. Nobody at Valve has asked me for a scan of my ID in order to play Counter-Strike. And Valve doesn’t even have a way to control the content of the individual ‘sims’ on their system. Somebody could set up an ageplay map, and there wouldn’t be a damn thing Valve could do about it. It’s anarchy I tell ya.
Prokofy Neva
May 8th, 2007
I fail to understand why you can be “mad with Philip”. He is not responsible for Real Life. He’s responsible for Second Life. Yes, Real Life intruded on Second Life. Well, that’s life in the big city. It got big, it got noticed, and just as everyone theorized, the vice squad decided to take note. It’s not his fault. If anything, he kept it at bay for an amazingly long time, and has a very clever device to keep it at bay even more.
>Prok: you yourself stated that the definition of “explict” included “visible.” Your distinction between common law and civil law based countries is humourous because in the United States, even though it has a common law basis, has a definition section for every statute. Meaning that any law necessarily includes what defines the bad act. The Lindens are not including that defintion and instead are being amazingly coy about it.
That’s silly, Jessica, because just because an offense is *defined* in the U.S. Code doesn’t mean a judge and a jury will rule that there is evidence presented that the crime took place, and they will look to precedents to guide them.
It’s good the Lindens are amazingly coy. If they weren’t, you’d all have to worry about this a lot more. They are leaving it to the discretion of people on a sea of 8000 sims to figure out and define, and leaving it to the authorities to sort and pick their way through that in order to take action. Good luck!
Asking them to define it more is to bring the ban hammer down on yourself, and that’s why I’m amazed that all these people whining are asking for better definition– they all assume they’ll be on the right side of this definition lol? What are they nuts?!
>And while I may have the ability to define what is “explicitly sexual or excessively violent” on my own parcel, that does not mean anything. The ultimate decider of what is and what is not allowable are the Lindens, of which each individual Linden may have a personal view as to what is and what is not objectionable.
Of course it means everything. And that’s why you’re going to be doing it and taking responsibility for it. The Lindens won’t be deciding shit. They will be handing the police your RL information — at best — and saying “Go talk to those people over there if you have any concerns”.
From their perspective, it’s the only sane preparation for open-source/host-your-own — of course they should have done it AFTER they gave everyone REAL rights to private property but at this point, as a company just barely profitable with a tough road ahead, they have to limit their exposure to liability. And so they did. Good work on their part.
>Prok, your statements as to let the Linden’s decide afterward is bad policy. If this is truly “Your world, Your imagination”, then the residents did not sign up for vague warnings and requirements that affect the enjoyment of their Second Life and what can possibly come down to censorship.
Jessica, you just can’t grasp that this is no different than real life. Club owners in Manhattan have to take responsibility for what is lewd or promotes drugs or has loud noise or whatever on their property. They have a basic ordnance about clubs to deal with, they have their liquor license and their fire rules and such, and they interpret them and abide by them or try to get away with scoffing them. It’s exactly like real life.
In censorship matters, the best press law is *no press law at all* of the sort like “Congress shall make no law…”. To definit it is merely to open up the door for numerous discretionary censorious acts by authorities. To keep it broadly defined means that the person expressing himself can always say “But this is what I meant by it”. And then the struggle will go forward to define by precedent. Not a single case of a club in a virtual world has yet hit the courts in which a person was tried for obscenity and lewdness in a virtual world. We have NO idea if any authorities will be able to make this stick.
However, the one thing that can really discredit SL with or without a court case is the presence of children be exposed to things like BDSM with their violence and nihilism and vulgarity. And that will make media, politicians, soccer moms, etc. really rally against SL and become a force to conjure with even without a court case. So LL is in fact limiting that liability through this method of making each and every parcel owner decide himself the level of adultness and risk he wishes to assume.
Absolutely. I have no choice. It's not my game. I don't make the rules and don't really own the property. This policy could completely devastate and completely demolish the rentals business, especially on the mainland, making everyone have to conform to some really strict PG notion of socializing and remove the reason many people come into SL and I'm well aware of that. But I don't ask for any more definition or any more control of this situation or responsibility for it than they are giving.
If Linden Lab assumes the power of definition and the power of discretion, they will be forced to lower the common denominator down to the lowest tolerable thing which will be PG-13. And that means no one will be able to rez a pose ball.
If you keep them out of it, if you keep the definition from being formed by them, then some parcels have a hope of staying open even if they are explicit if they just follow the rules, and all the people doing adult things on their property have a hope of being ignored if they aren't outside with their attachments hanging out.
>Hoping for the best helps no one. I believe that posts like mine, no matter how much you see it as hammering for a silly point, will help to narrow down a definition from someone.
A definition should only be hammered for you yourself, on your parcel, in your jurisdiction. Stay away from me and my parcel, please, because I don’t need you to force a definition, and force the hands of the authorities or the Lindens on this. They’ve made a concept of “broadly offensive” and “sexually explicit” which is generally understood everywhere, and which in any event is in the process of sliding downwards everywhere. When I see what explicit stuff is in teen mags today by contrast to what we had in them 35 years ago, I’m amazed.
>A definition is needed here. You cannot be in compliance with a vague policy and hope for the best when business is involved. This policy can change drastically the sex industry in SL without giving guidelines on how to be compliant.
Well, my business *is* involved. And I know one thing I’m QUITE sure about: I don’t want YOU or any other busybody or Internet lawyer or Nervous Nelly at the Gate defining what is explicit. I’ll do that myself, thank you.
>In many posts, the chance of finding a Linden to appeal if you feel that you are being banned unjustly is described as slim to none. So instead of saying that this is like a court system, what is being presented is “here’s a rule. It needs to be defined more. If you violate it, you’ll be banned, but you’ll know better next time. Or make everyone pay to come to whatever you are presenting as content.”
This is just crazy hysteria. The Lindens have always warned first before banning. They warned ageplayers with cards. They said stop the advertising, which came to light more with their own mess-up with the search tool when it was broken for awhile. They cleaned up some of them but trust me, there isn’t a drop less of ageplay in SL as a result, it is just moved out of sight.
>Additionally, when you go to a bar or club in real life, you don’t hand over your ID. You show the bouncer an ID. He doesn’t keep the data in anyway. (Covering the temporary storage or the possible long term storage of information.)
This obsession with this entity that is going to check ID is really childish and moronic. These companies can’t be in the business of reselling private information without having a million groups all over their ass with lawsuits and media exposure. Have a little faith in the system and don’t pretend you are powerless and the Man is going to take over your life. The Lindens say they will not be retaining the data, and have explained it at length in a blog, and it sounds satisfactory. The ID leaks have been far worse in SL itself and from LL’s database than from this company they will be using.
Untameable Wildcat
May 8th, 2007
Okay – I’m starting to find enormous holes in this. The first is that it isn’t legal for any resident accessing Second Life from France.
LL’s terms of service state “If any provision of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, void, or for any reason unenforceable, then in such jurisdiction that provision shall be deemed severable from these terms and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions.” basically meaning that if a French court specifically holds that a clause is illegal, it overrides the California law under which the rest of the ToS is valid for any resident that lives in France and therefore under the legal jurisdiction of a French court of law.
With me so far?
Now, here’s where it gets fun. the French Data Protection and Freedom of Information Act (Loi informatique et libertés no. 78-17 dated January 6, 1978), a translation of which can be found in PDF format at http://www.cnil.fr/fileadmin/documents/uk/78-17VA.pdf states in section 24 the method by which the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés should make a decision on how the automatic collection of data can be used. Any organisation (Linden Labs in this case) that hasn’t complied with Section 24 in making itself certified, falls automatically within the rules that section 25 governs. Section 25, subsection 4 covers “automatic processing which may, due to its nature, importance or purposes, exclude persons from the benefit of a right, a service or a contract in the absence of any legislative or regulatory provision;” – surely what we’re discussing here falls within that scope?
So, in other words, any organisation that has not got certified by the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés cannot discriminate against a French citizen by using any automatic processing which may, due to its nature, importance or purposes, exclude persons from the benefit of a right, a service or a contract in the absence of any legislative or regulatory provision – and since what LL is doing is new, there IS no such legislative or regulatory provision yet as it’s never been an issue.
Other countries have similar laws, which I shall be researching too – but the way I read this, Linden Labs can’t hold French SL residents to age verification using this method because that’s discrimination by French jurisprudence.
Can anyone more legally minded comment on this?
Lorelei Mission
May 8th, 2007
Re “…any suit… can be laughed out of court by simply asking how a) a cartoon sex act is the same as a real sex act”
US law 18 USC 2257 specificially states that *depictions* of underage sex are as illegal as real photos. In other words, US law has made it illegal to create drawings, anime, and poser-art that appear to be underage sexual acts. This means that even if you make your avatar very short and cute in SL, and then you do poseball cybersex with it, it’s breaking US law. I’m not making this up.
Re “… b) I’m liable under the laws of state X when I don’t live or work there”
Second Life is based in California, U.S., and since it’s located there, everything it does is subject to U.S. law. If you want to hop onto the SL servers and do stuff in SL, then you’re subject to the law that Linden Labs are operating under. (If anyone doesn’t want to be subject to U.S. law, then sadly they have to stop playing in a world that’s hosted in the U.S.)
(BTW I really wish Linden Lab would just move the whole company to Tonga or something. US law is really nasty lately.)
Re “….c) I can show anything naughty to someone underage when nobody in the main grid is supposed to be under 18?”
It doesn’t matter if a minor sees something in SL or not. Referring back up to the first issue, simply the virtual-avatar depiction of underage sexual activity, is illegal in and of itself.
Re Obscure Doodad’s “I agree with age verification… But should a credit card be enough?”
Unfortunately, U.S. law does not regard possession or use of a credit card to be proof of adult age. (Many card companies issue cards to minors in various situations.) Some comments here suggest that SL used to do that (this was before my time). If, at some point, SL thought credit cards were verifying age, then someone gave SL incorrect legal advice.
Inigo Chamerberlin
May 8th, 2007
Here’s today’s example of why we won’t trust ANY third party with our personal information:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/07/tsa_loses_hard_drive/
Remember,this is a division of the laughably named ‘Homelans Security Deepartment’ we are talking about too…
TT
May 8th, 2007
“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.”
Lookie here: http://www.wired.com/print/politics/security/news/2003/12/61543
Inigo Chamerberlin
May 8th, 2007
TT:
Jesus WEPT!
‘Although voter-registration data is a matter of public record, 22 states have laws restricting the purchase or use of voter lists. Yet Aristotle, based in Washington, D.C., sold lists online to anyone who wanted to buy them.
The company said it was not aware that its site was selling lists without verification.’
So this is Linden Lab’s idea of a safe and professional third party VERIFICATION service provider is it?
The sheer ineptitude of their choice would be comical if it weren’t so potentially dangerous to the residents they are trying to get to submit their details to this, now glaringly obviously inappropriately named, ‘Integrity’ outfit.
This is EXACTLY what many of us feared. Now, it would seem those fears were completely justified.
I also note LL has CLOSED comment on their both their ‘Verification’ blog posts – presumably to prevent this being revealed on their own website. Possibly a more appropriate choice might have been an announcement that the verification program is on ‘hold’ while Linden Lab conducts an investigation into HOW they came to choose ‘Integrity’ as a verification provider? And WHO was responsible for the decision?
Wait! Sorry there… I was thinking of what a competently run company might do under these circumstances. Silly me.
Untameable Wildcat
May 8th, 2007
And yet again they have not responded to my posts on the official blog asking for a firm statement saying this will NOT be extended to cover everyone rather than being restricted to “adult” content.
Not that I’d probably believe them if they DID say it, but that’s a personal issue. My point is that they WON’T say it. And until they do say it, I’m assuming that it’s planned across the board before long.
“Integrity” hasn’t got any. Aristotle sells details it gets hold of to the highest bidder, no questions asked. Linden labs simply want to cover their own butts. Who pays the price? We do. It’s not on, and I’m NOT going to do it. It looks like the only way they’ll learn is when premium account paying customers start leaving in droves, and IT WILL HAPPEN. If only 27% (by recent figures) of SL Residents are in the US, that’s a HUGE number who don’t want to be bound by US laws when it comes to detailed personal data.
Linden Labs could be looking at bankruptcy if suddenly all these users pulled out and ceased funding them. Their virtual stock market will crash, and their pool of development money will dry up – and they only have themselves to blame.
Obscure Doodad
May 8th, 2007
I think I was misquoted above by Lorelei, but it’s a huge thread and it was an easy mistake for her to make. I never claimed CCs were adequate checks of age, but no matter.
The synopsis is . . . folks don’t like this for several reasons. In no particular order:
1) They don’t like the 3rd party vendor. There is suspicion that company will use the data in some way, not purge it.
2) Promises of data security mean nothing from flunky employees at Linden Lab, LLC. There has to be some financial backing of these promises by placing explicit text in the TOS guaranteeing that the relevant data is purged immediately not just from LL’s possession, but also from the 3rd party’s possession, and LL has to guarantee this in the TOS with big money.
3) People don’t like the idea of having to pay for this, at any magnitude of money.
4) Landowner liability is a source of considerable concern by landowners. If landowners are RL financially liable for what happens on their land, even in their absence, then all of them, PG or not, will have to set themselves Adult in self defense against being named co-defendant in the upcoming lawsuits, and this would cut off huge numbers of their customers who will not verify (possibly most of the user base of SL). This destroys the LL verbage about non verifieds “enjoying all the non adult content of SL”. There won’t be any non adult content. The landowners have to protect themselves from the liability that LL just declared they were shifting to them.
5) Foreign users do not seem to have any possible mechanism under the laws of their countries to comply with LL’s edict.
6) This explicit placing of oneself in this “database of admitted seekers of porn” will destroy the future of the people fool enough to do it. Divorce attorneys with subpoenas, government background checks, or possibly even mortgage loan application investigations could reveal your having requested access to porn. Frankly, this goes beyond the 3rd party purging your data. If just your name is retained by them as having sought to be in that database, you are forever tainted.
Big Dave
May 8th, 2007
I think the hysteria over a clearance is getting way out of hand. First, if most of SL is set to mature content as a defensive measure by property owners, and almost everyone signs up, the verified setting will be normal. IF there is a data base, all it will indicate is that you signed up for unlimited access. Government security checks are more interested in criminal records, unusual patterns of income and spending, or things that you could be blackmailed for, all legitimate security issues, they don’t ask if you like dirty movies. Divorce lawyers will use being signed up to second life now as evidence, all this is going on now with the current level of access.
Any information Linden is asking for is ALREADY IN SOMEONE’S DATA BASE. They say clearly they are comparing information. If Linden wanted to spend the effort, they could compare your existing transaction record or flag certain items in the record, which covers every transaction in SL, including that extensive collection if BDSM gear and weapons you bought. They could then go to your credit card number, run this backward through a credit bureau check and get even more information on you and then publish the whole thing. Or better yet, sell the data to RL providers of said equipment, possibly at a profit. I haven’t heard any evidence they have done this.
Untameable Wildcat
May 8th, 2007
You’re missing the point, Big Dave. Yes, the information is on somebodies database – the government or organisation that issued it in the first place. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
We’re talking about giving that information over to a third party who is totally unrelated to its original issue. We’re talking about taking (for example) a UK passport number and postcode, or driving license number and postcode, and giving these details to a not exactly whiter-than-white company in another country. These details identify the individual in such a way as they can, if they get into the wrong hands, be used to apply for supporting documents, to reconstruct a fake identity for the purposes of theft or worse.
What you’re saying is not accurate. A credit card company will NOT provide ANY personal details about the holder to Linden Labs or anyone else (except government and law enforcement). They will take the number (which they issued), the expiry date (which they issued), the CVN (which they issued) and the name on the card. With that they will give you either a “Yes, we’ll pay” or a “No, we won’t pay” but they won’t explain their reasons, nor can they be forced to, nor will they give personal information about their account holder away.
We are being asked to voluntarily give personally identifying information which will immediately be linked with “adult material” since this is the first excuse it’s being used for. And not only that, but the process is not reliable, if the person who reported they were able to get through an Integrity ID check using their Second Life name and some made up details is anything to go by. We’re being asked to give true and honest identifiable details for a process that doesn’t work, to undertake a process of age verification that won’t work in terms of stopping underage use.
No matter how you try to explain it away, the crux of the matter is the whole thing is badly thought out, and the only users are those residents prepared to roll over and provide their true and honest details without protest.
Untameable Wildcat
May 8th, 2007
I’d edit for spelling if it was allowed: Last paragraph should read “… and the only losers are those residents prepared to roll over…”
Prokofy Neva
May 8th, 2007
Untameable, there’s really nothing worse than an Internet lawyer, Googling, cutting and pasting and picking their way through snippets of law and things they think they understand here and there to bolster their hysterical claims.
Like the claims that it is “illegal” to use “the Social Security number for identification” which is a literalist take on something to be understood more broadly about ID checks, since obviously –duh? — banks and credit cards routinely, legally, and normally, ask you to use the last 4 digits of your SS# for verification.
Your notion about France is also off the wall. It hinges on the concept of “automatic” as anyone can see. There is nothing automatic about this collection of the verification to use adult parcels. It is manual, based on consent and manual faxing of information. Where’s the automatic? BTW, I’d love the French to try to exercise that law on Grid Shepherd and see how far they’d get!
Inigo, I refuse to get on the paranoia and hysteria bandwagon with you over the selling of voter lists. So? Like…that’s some huge problem? Voter lists are sold all the time *legally*. If 22 states made it an offense, there are probably 44 ways to get the same information from mail order houses of lists of people who like gardening magazines or something. There is nothing inherently evil in making and selling mailing lists. If you don’t like junk mail, get off the list or throw out the junk mail.
Contact Aristotle and throw a fit about it…except…ooops, Aristotle doesn’t have your address or personal information because…you’d have to consent, manually, to give it to them. And you’ll only be doing that if you need to go to explicitly sexual sites in SL. Oh, you do? Well, ok, then…send it and shut up? Seriously, I’m not getting the big hairy deal here.
The idea that the government is going to collect lists of people who “use pornography sites” is also a hysterical and silly one. For decades, the government could have done this by seizing Playboy subscriber lists or lists of those who registered by credit card on porn sites. Um…did they do that? I’m not aware that they have. If they did that, you can be sure they’d have a million civil liberties lawyers up their asses.
What all you paranoid freaks are refusing to understand is that when government encroaches in RL, RL attorneys and groups and congressmen and moms and everybody *fight back*. For every media story you read about the misuse of a mailing list try to grasp what this means: somebody cared, somebody fought back, somebody got it in the media, somebody stopped it.
This rolling over and playing supine, powerless, hysterical Internet freak is just unbecoming to democratic people in a civilized nation such as most of the people posting here on the Herald. You don’t have to be abuses and lied-to and exploited pussies. If you have some reason to think LL or Aristotle or the CIA will be exploiting your personal data, instead of ranting for somebody to stop verifying, take action against its misuse. Except…it was given voluntarily under terms that in fact specified it would not be stored or sold so there’s a limit to your complaining about it.
I agree with Big Dave that Linden Lab has a vast storehouse of blackmail material. Vast. I mean…vast. We don’t know at which point they will become corrupt and begin to sell this data, if they haven’t already. But…we see know evidence that they’ve acted in this way. I don’t feel there are sufficient protections against them misusing the vast storehouse of personal information they have but I think that at this point in time, they would be working in good faith with people concerned about this.
Obscure Doodad
May 8th, 2007
Dave is making reasonable points and perhaps has not seen divorce in action before, nor background checks.
Dave, it’s about money. A divorce atty could indeed investigate with subpoena and discover you are a premium at Second Life, and if SL becomes publicly tarred with the “home of ageplay” brush, you’re right, that in and of itself would cost you tens of thousands of dollars in divorce settlement adjustment. But so far it’s not. So far there is non adult content that you can “hide behind” as a legitimate reason to be a member of SL.
But you lose that cover with this new Perv Database that ppl are being asked to put themselves in. In it, there is no place to hide. If you do it, you are labeled. Forever.
Obscure Doodad
May 8th, 2007
re: when there is encroachment, people fight back
Yep, they sure do. And they pay $300/hour to a lawyer or lawyers, plural, each at $300/hour, to do so. I don’t personally envision the ACLU showing up to take on these legal fees to protect someone from a background check when applying for a job as teacher when the background check is looking for evidence that someone arranged for entrance into an ageplay venue.
Nor do I see the ACLU showing up to fund legal fees in a divorce proceeding.
In the US, when you have to get a lawyer for anything, you’ve already lost. You are going to be analogously fined . . . at least the amount of legal fees.
Untameable Wildcat
May 8th, 2007
>Your notion about France is also off the wall. It hinges on the concept of “automatic” as anyone can see. There is nothing automatic about this collection of the verification to use adult parcels. It is manual, based on consent and manual faxing of information.
Nice try, but no cookie. Integrity on their website say that the “Process takes under 5 seconds to complete from the time information is submitted.” So this is manual faxing, is it? This is all handled by manual entry? Um.. no. The information is submitted in a form Integrity requires, and is automatically checked against the databases they have access to in order to use a form of “credit scoring” method to reach a yay or nay answer. It’s done by computer, in seconds – it’s automatic, and it falls within the laws for automatic transactions as they’re given in the document.
And once again, you’re cherry picking the parts that you can form YOUR argument over, without bothering to answer the other parts of the argument. Yet again (how many times is this?) you’ve ignored MY main sticking point which is that soon it will NOT be optional because the optional system won’t work. And again, your arguments are flawed. I could, if I wished, use a neighbour down the road’s name that I happened to know, and Linden Labs would be none the wiser, save that (if I even bothered to put it on file) the credit card name would be different to the name they were given. So your argument about their “ton of blackmail information” doesn’t hold water, because there’s no way – at present – of them knowing they’ve got the right person to flag all that copious “blackmail information” against.
Incidentally, where did you get the idea that it’s being faxed? Since you never site YOUR sources, other than the vast mind of Prokofy (TM), I’m interested to see where the idea of documents being faxed comes from.
“it was given voluntarily under terms that in fact specified it would not be stored or sold so there’s a limit to your complaining about it.” you sneer yet again, ignoring the probability that soon information given won’t be voluntary, and also that it will be stored for technical reasons if no other for longer than they would like us to believe. And again, you haven’t bothered to address the concept that if one resident is under suspicion, laws could be used to require the ENTIRE database to be retained. There’s a mailing list. And, as I’m sure you’ve heard me mention before, where there’s a mailing list there’s going to be someone who wants a copy of it.
“And you’ll only be doing that if you need to go to explicitly sexual sites in SL. Oh, you do? Well, ok” you sneer, again totally ignoring that if it does become a mandatory part when they find it doesn’t work on an optional basis, adult themes aren’t going to matter… it will be everyone, regardless of their sexual tastes, who is required to hand over these details.
Hmm, come to think about it, it’s interesting that you have such an obsession with sexual activity in SL that you should judge others in that way… but I digress.
Let me put it in terms that even YOU should be able to understand.
My distrust over the whole thing spans from the fact that I CANNOT see this remaining a voluntary procedure indefinitely. In fact, I’d go so far as to say I can’t see it being voluntary in six months time. Once they’ve got the facility, the temptation will be there to cover their asses by using it across the board. Once it’s there, it’s there, and the temptation to widen the scope of its use is also there. Now, do you understand this or should I take you back to the beginning of this paragraph? Once you’ve grasped this very simple concept I can go on to say that when it does come in on a voluntary basis, I will remain in Second Life and simply choose not to use it, and I won’t miss the areas I can’t go into for one second. BUT, whenever down the line it STOPS being voluntary and becomes mandatory – then I’ll leave Second Life, as will a lot of people. Now, have you finally grasped what I’m saying? This isn’t going to stay optional.
I seriously don’t think any country is going to be bothered trying to enforce their laws on Linden Labs. In fact, Linden Labs are going to continue down this slippery slope until they reach oblivion. If you cared for Second Life the way you pretend to, you’d be worried that Linden Labs was sounding its death toll for the grid with this too. Optional? Tolerable. Let those who want to, sign up. Mandatory? We’re outta here.
Jessica Holyoke
May 8th, 2007
18 USC 2257 is for record keeping requirements when you produce sexually explicit images that involve actual human beings, or use a digitally altered image of an actual human being. Second Life is not yet at that stage to feature an actual human being.
oh fucking hell
May 8th, 2007
“How about take a nice cup of STFU? Go to Teen Grid if you can’t play “adult”.”
Hey Nacon, how bout you learn to read ya fucktard? They couldn’t go to the teen grid unless they got verified. Now take your own advice and shut yer goddamn yap, every stupid ass snarky post you make just further proves that you’re not nearly as smart as you wish you were. Fucking A just STFU already.
Big Dave
May 8th, 2007
Since it was questioned, I am VERY familiar with government security clearances, which is why I mentioned it. Linden already has my credit card number, doing a check through a credit bureau would not be difficult and will show what cards I have as well as other details. After all, they are granting me credit, and the number of offers I get for credit cards indicates credit givers apparently like me, and regularly check my ratings. This information is readily available to a business.
As for divorce lawyers, I would be surprised if they did not know you do SL with an unregistered account unless you managed to keep it really secret (why?? the lawyer asks) from your spouse. The client is on your computer and probably appears as an icon.
Then there is the US social security number. If they are comparing it to a data base, they already must have the last 4 digits of it, or it would not be useful. LINDEN NEEDS TO CLARIFY THIS, but think the process they are using is more like the public library. You check out a book, it appears on the library record, you return the book, the record is erased, permanently. The FBI got a surprise when they went fishing for library records and were told they had no way of telling who had checked out a book in the past. If they are validating via a computer data base, you put in the data, the data base matches it and spits out a validation code. No record of anything is kept, the data is compared with the data base and a match code is all that is issued.
One of the most important issues is what parcels will be flagged mature? My thought is that if you have a large mall you have 2 choices, get rid of the BDSM shop, or make the whole mall mature. It will be interesting to see which way the mall owners go. Obviously places like Eventide will probably rate the whole sim and be done with it. If a large number of places are flagged due to the owner worrying about liability for the actions on their property of individual avs, most of SL will be flagged and most people will verify to retain access. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Big Dave
May 8th, 2007
Do any of you know how registration works for the teen grid? My child is on the teen grid and we went through the process of registration.
Obscure Doodad
May 8th, 2007
Dave’s rational comment:
>>
If a large number of places are flagged due to the owner worrying about liability for the actions on their property of individual avs, most of SL will be flagged and most people will verify to retain access. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
>>
That is wishful (?) thinking. Far wiser and perhaps more likely is most of SL gets flagged as adult, the residents choose not to place themselves overtly and explicitly in the Perv Database, and businesses shut down. Then tier doesn’t get paid. LL gross revenue shrinks and their headcount will have to follow.
LL needs to sit down and think this through and just back away from the concept of restricting access of current members. Frankly, from a strictly business numbers perspective, they could probably lose less money by simply declaring that there will be no sexual or violent content allowed anywhere on the grid. Anywhere. In total. The whole grid will be PG and they will police it.
That would be horrible and offensive to all, but that would probably be a numerically superior solution to allowing the content, restricting it, and forcing residents to compromise their RL lives. People are just not going to do that. LL are going to lose a lot of tier money and premium money in either case. I suspect the squeaky clean path loses less.
Is there a solution for them that doesn’t cost them enormous revenue? Sure. They could strengthen the TOS and say more extensively, and more loudly, that kids are not allowed on and their parents are responsible for their kids if they do get on. And then fund a team of 2-3 Lindens to patrol the grid looking for child porn or ageplay. Remember, it doesn’t matter if the measures work. All that matters is that it looks like they made a good faith effort that they can present to a judge. If someone challenges them and says that it is not adequate, their rebuttal is that it is more than most PG places do and they are setting a new standard in the industry.
Remember, always, it doesn’t have to work. It just has to look good in court.
Untameable Wildcat
May 9th, 2007
STOP THE PRESS!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6638331.stm
Second Life is being investigated by German police following allegations that some members are trading child abuse images in the online world.
The investigation follows a report by a German TV news programme which uncovered the trading group and members who pay for sex with virtual children.
The police are now trying to identify the Second Life members involved.
Linden Lab, the creator of Second Life, said it would help identify users and pass on details to prosecutors.
JJ
Sep 7th, 2007
Many years ago there was some kind of system to verify identity for electronic signatures that did NOT involve storing personal information. I never did it, so I’m not exactly sure how it was done, but there were approved people that could confirm identity, and they had those people in a searchable database. We’d enter in our zip/address/city whatever and find which confirmer was close to us then look at their schedules, and how much they charged (usually not very much).
Then, IIRC, we’d meet the confirmer with our electronic sig, show our photo ID, probably have to sign a paper to show our written signature matched our ID signature, then they’d confirm us. NOTHING WAS ENTERED INTO AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE.
If there was a kiosk near me that allowed us to sign in under our SL account, then we could show our photo ID, sign a paper for signature comparison (which we’d keep afterwards), then the confirmer could verify our SL account, I’d pay for it.
But NO WAY would I hand over my personal info to be stored in an electronic database! It’s bad enough those databases are sold to marketing creeps, but even worse when a database is hacked, or some moron employee loses a laptop, or an outsourced employee sells the database.
I’ve provided personal info online for very important things like submitting my taxes, or renewing my professional license, but SL is not important enough for me to hand over my personal data. I don’t do cyber in SL, so it’s not going to happen, and if they force it, bye bye SL, onto another metaverse that’s not so creepy.