Is spying legal?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

The

Linden Lab Official: Residents Privacy Rights

seems quite unequivocal on the subject, Perrie; whether it's public chat, IMs, or group chat, if you've not got the consent of all parties involved, you're not supposed to share it inworld or in these forums.    They say, in terms, you can post it anywhere else you like -- SLU, Facebook, the New York Times -- but not here or in-world.   

I'm not sure how vigorously that's enforced but them's the rules.

---

Thank you Innula. 

I don't know when this clarification was added but it's nice to see it.  The issue of posting chat here with names redacted has been wondered about also.  This leaves no doubt.

"Conversation" means text that originally came from Second Life chat or Second Life instant messages. If it's totally unattributed, then it isn't considered disclosure. Additionally, Residents are not punished for sharing or posting a comment such as "Bob Resident said, 'You're the greatest!'"

 

[Sassy Romano]

It's also inevitable that in the course of business operations (among other things) that conversations will shared.

Bob Resident: "Hi, I had a delivery problem, please can you redeliver?"

"No, I cannot relay that message without your explicit permission so you either have to grant that or ask my partner directly."

Not going to happen.  I sort of feel that the whole essence behind the disclosure is to protect privacy.  There's a world of difference behind sharing something private about someone vs relaying something such as above or just funny events.

While LL don't make a distinction and rightly shouldn't otherwise it's a bigger can of worms, I'd be surprised to find anyone that has NEVER shared a single comment that they might have received, just as all those who say "I never exceed the speed limit" are very likely to have done so while adhering to the essence of the speed limit at most times.  1mm past the sign that proscribes the limit is speeding if you're anything over by whatever fraction at any time.

[Innula Zenovka]

Agreed, and I suppose part of it is that Bob Resident is never going to know, or care, whether you've notecarded the request to your partner or paraphrased it.

Having said that, though,  I've asked our customer service manager not to n/c stuff to me, not because of the ToS implications but because I know that if it's a problem she can't resolve herself, I'll have to ask the customer some questions anyway, so it's far quicker for me if I'm simply told "Bob Resident can't get the whatever it is to work.  I've told him to check such and such, and he says he has, but it's not doing any good.  Can you IM him?" than to read the whole conversation.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

It's also inevitable that in the course of business operations (among other things) that conversations will shared.

Bob Resident: "Hi, I had a delivery problem, please can you redeliver?"

"No, I cannot relay that message without your explicit permission so you either have to grant that or ask my partner directly."

Not going to happen.  I sort of feel that the whole essence behind the disclosure is to protect privacy.  There's a world of difference behind sharing something private about someone vs relaying something such as above or just funny events.

While LL don't make a distinction and rightly shouldn't otherwise it's a bigger can of worms, I'd be surprised to find anyone that has NEVER shared a single comment that they might have received, just as all those who say "I never exceed the speed limit" are very likely to have done so while adhering to the essence of the speed limit at most times.  1mm past the sign that proscribes the limit is speeding if you're anything over by whatever fraction at any time.

---

While it does appear from the Wiki that LL does take intent into account, "Additionally, Residents are not punished for sharing or posting a comment such as "Bob Resident said, 'You're the greatest!'  I for one would not push the issue. 

 

[Sassy Romano]

Indeed.  I would expect them to take it into account but from their standpoint it's just easier in the ToS to list "don't share" than it is to try to list the exceptions where common sense would prevail.

As it is we already have issues with people trying to interpret and override what they've agreed to with disclaimers that carry no weight.

[Poenald Palen]

I think the issue of IM's is copy and paste, verbatim ect. If you say 'Bob says you are basically great' then you are NOT copying any of his text, so you are safe. I imagine it my be considered to be heresay on some level, but more or less it is a bit odd but there is a reason wiretapping is not allowed and it is basically to do with expecting privacy and so on. But, a person saying something that is thier own words...well, what can you do unless you have a NDA or some other legally binding agreement. Then you go after them for espionage or breach of contract and it gets ugly.

I could be wrong, maybe they mean no gossip at all? I can't see how a persons own words would be stopped. But, this is a private company and you don't have freedom of speach in SL, as far as I understand it. You can be kicked out if they want to.

[Ticee Nansen]

That is correct, they have all rights to perma-ban you if the boss is having a bad day, or he doesn't like your new sneakers. Usually they'd probably try to go with a principle of fairness, as to not scare all the customers away. ^-^

I'd guess the  'Bob says you are basically great' example is just to say, use your common sense. In most cases it's rather easy to tell the difference between systematically spying on someone and referring to some random statement a person made. But of course there can be greyzones in some cases

[Phil Deakins]

Oops. I hadn't noticed that Serena's "No it's not" was a reply to Innula. My mistake :smileysurprised:

[bejjinks]

This whole subject will always be a gray zone. There will be clear cases of spying that ought to be reported but there will also be cases that are questionable.

For example, one time in a fast food restaurant, an employee had a loud conversation with his boss right in front of the table where I was sitting. Then the employee accused me of eavesdropping as if I had the power to not hear their loud discussion.

Basically, we must always take intent into account. If someone listened to a private discussion, was the person intentionally spying. If someone shared information that may or may not have been private, did the person have good intentions or was the person intentionally gossiping.

Even the question of group chat is a gray zone because some groups are more private than others. But it is nearly always a bad idea to share something learned in one group anywhere outside of that group.

[Perrie Juran]

---

bejjinks wrote:

This whole subject will always be a gray zone. There will be clear cases of spying that ought to be reported but there will also be cases that are questionable.

For example, one time in a fast food restaurant, an employee had a loud conversation with his boss right in front of the table where I was sitting. Then the employee accused me of eavesdropping as if I had the power to not hear their loud discussion.

Basically, we must always take intent into account. If someone listened to a private discussion, was the person intentionally spying. If someone shared information that may or may not have been private, did the person have good intentions or was the person intentionally gossiping.

Even the question of group chat is a gray zone because some groups are more private than others. But it is nearly always a bad idea to share something learned in one group anywhere outside of that group.

---

I don't think that this leaves any grey zones:

 

Remote Monitoring

Remotely monitoring inworld conversations (text or voice chat) without the knowledge or consent of all parties involved is a violation of the Terms of Service. If you feel recording a conversation is necessary, post a clearly-visible sign in the recording location so that all Residents who enter can see it.

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Violating_other_Residents%27_privacy_rights#Disclosing_private_Second_Life_conversations

 

What the Grey Zone seems to be is in the area of Enforcement.

To me the bottom line is this, if I don't want something repeated then I am best off not saying it to begin with.

 

[Sassy Romano]

Group chat and local are a potential grey area for the reason of being overheard already mentioned.

While the ToS states " Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited.",

Surely the key point is without the participants' consent

If it's said in public, while there's no explicit permission granted, the sheer fact that others have been forced to receive the information, it's naive to believe that the information thus shared should remain private.  I'm not suggesting it's right to rush off and post on a website some are able to make better moral judgements on what to do with information than others but if it's really something that should remain private... USE IM!

[Perrie Juran]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

Group chat and local are a potential grey area for the reason of being overheard already mentioned.

While the ToS states " Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited.",

Surely the key point is

without the participants' consent

If it's said in public, while there's no explicit permission granted, the sheer fact that others have been forced to receive the information, it's naive to believe that the information thus shared should remain private.  I'm not suggesting it's right to rush off and post on a website some are able to make better moral judgements on what to do with information than others but if it's really something that should remain private... USE IM!

---

"....it's naive to believe that the information thus shared should remain private." 

I think it might be more accurate to say,  "....will remain private."

But I do agree with you that it is naive to think it will.  If there is any one sad axiom about the Internet and life in general, people don't always behave the way we expect them to behave.  While I expect people to abide by the TOS in SL, I am never surprised when they don't.  I screw up at times also.

Still, I think the best advice is if you don't want something repeated, don't say it to begin with.

 

eta to correct typo

 

[Melita Magic]

Yes it is against SL TOS. Also, California where LL is based is a two party consent state (both parties must be aware of and consent to recording.) Not sure if that matters though as far as TOS goes.  TOS is TOS.

There are still tons of listening devices sold on MP and in world though, which is what's odd, to me. I guess they can claim it's for cases where everyone consents but how often does that happen?

It's always safer to turn off build ability in your land (group tag wearers can still build) but also be sure to put a 1 in the Object Return box in another land tab. (That way any non-group-tag/unpermitted builds will or should poof.)