Confusion

[EllieSueKaru]

EDITED 20-5-13

 

Basically I have a problem. With the new ToS I can't buy L$ via other exchanges (such as DutchX or WoozKash). I have read other treads otherwise I wouldn't post this. 

I know people may advice me to buy via Lindex but I wont. It's not that i trust them it's just that the feedback i hear from several people scare me of + as an European, i pay taxes on it (exchange from dollars to euros, transaction costs, etc.). This is not a personal problem, this can happen to others

I always bought my L$ via other exchanges because they had easy options such as paysafecards, call for your lindens, text message to get your lindens, ... This has nothing to do with trust or no trust but about how fast you get them, how much you pay for extra fees (in my case i paid low fees)

And now with the new ToS, I can't. I think and hope I'm not the only one who does this because those options were always handy and personally I NEVER had a problem with a 3th party exchange.

I hope all this sh.. With the new ToS will be solved ASAP because right now, I can't buy lindens so a big thank you to LL for messing all this up. 

Because of this, a lot of third party exchanges are closed. This has a good side and a bad side: The bad ones go away but the good ones too

FYI: Not everyone is able to buy from Lindex. 

[Sticky Pootawn]

there are some approved resalers

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Linden_Dollar_%28L$%29_Authorized_Reseller_Program

[Phil Deakins]

---

EllieSueKaru wrote:

Basically I have a problem. With the new ToS I can't buy L$ via other exchanges (such as DutchX or WoozKash).

I know people may advice me to buy via Lindex but I wont.

I always bought my L$ via other exchanges because they had easy options such as paysafecards, call for your lindens, text message to get your lindens, ... 

And now with the new ToS, I can't. I think and hope I'm not the only one who does this because those options were always handy and personally I NEVER had a problem with a 3th party exchange.

I hope all this sh.. With the new ToS will be solved ASAP because right now, I can't buy lindens so a big thank you to LL for messing all this up 

All I wish right now is a good explanation and that some 3th party exchanges who are trusted and safe to come back 

---

That's your problem. In other words, you don't have a problem.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

EllieSueKaru wrote:

Basically I have a problem. With the new ToS I can't buy L$ via other exchanges (such as DutchX or WoozKash).

Perhaps you should have read some of the previous threads on this topic.

I know people may advice me to buy via Lindex but I wont.

Why the hell not? You don't trust them?

I always bought my L$ via other exchanges because they had easy options such as paysafecards, call for your lindens, text message to get your lindens, ... 

You trust a TPE with your cell number but not LL?

And now with the new ToS, I can't. I think and hope I'm not the only one who does this because those options were always handy and personally I NEVER had a problem with a 3th party exchange.

I hope all this sh.. With the new ToS will be solved ASAP because right now, I can't buy lindens so a big thank you to LL for messing all this up 

Sure you can. You can use some TPE's to buy them again.

All I wish right now is a good explanation and that some 3th party exchanges who are trusted and safe to come back 

There was an explanation.. The US Federal Government changed how virtual currency has to work. LL is just following the new laws.  You can buy on some approved TPE's but not sell.

---

 

[Sidnella Riler]

For how long is this complain about TOS changes gonna last, PayPal people, please, you trust some random Xchanger with your details, but you cant use paypal? seriously, I guess until theres another TOS change to complain about, this will carry on and on

[Freya Mokusei]

---

SID Riler wrote:

For how long is this complain about TOS changes gonna last

---

 The answer is: not as long as people will be complaining about people complaining about the TOS changes.

So don't worry.

=]

[Innula Zenovka]

Virwox and Bulido are both exchanges listed as a member of the LL Linden Dollar Reseller Programme.  They both accept Paysafecard.   

[EllieSueKaru]

Thanks Inula and Sticky ! Well looks like someone is friendly enough to help inplace of just comment something with no sense  

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

EllieSueKaru wrote:

Thanks Inula and Sticky ! Well looks like someone is friendly enough to help inplace of just comment something with no sense

 

---

Ah, todays generation of "DO IT FOR ME!!!" reigns supreme. a quick search of the forums would have given you a hundred threads about ths topic and they all have the answers that were provided  to you here.

[Jadeclaw Denfu]

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: "You trust a TPE with your cell number but not LL?"
European TPEs work under european data protection laws. These laws are much stricter than the US-laws.
A lot of what US-authorities can do, is prohibited under european law. Plus, if a TPE screws up something,
it is a lot easier to start proceedings under local or european regulations that to sue an american company.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I think, too, in many cases people don't so much distrust LL as they distrust PayPal.   I don't share their distrust but, if I may quote from another forum where I raised the question of why people in mainland Europe should find using Lindex so problematic when I, as a Brit, find it simple though not always convenient, 

---

A certain misconception might come into consideration for German users: in several cases, PayPal is seen as a secondary tool of eBay and probably less as a standalone. In other terms, they have quite a bad reputation of not being trustworthy for another number of users, or associated with a ton of paperwork.

Personally, I got both options linked, a bank account and a credit card. Years ago, when trying to link the first payment option, it was indeed a great hassle to receive the authorization code for whatever reason (summed up: the code was supposed to be on the CC's bill along with a deduction - it wasn't - complained - no replacement code - could have faxed half a biography of documents to identify - thought "screw them" and let the whole account rest for years - reactivated it when they started actually sending 1 Cent instead of taking money from you for authorization checks and happily ever after since then).

---

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Jadeclaw Denfu wrote:

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: "

You trust a TPE with your cell number but not LL?

"

European TPEs work under european data protection laws. These laws are much stricter than the US-laws.

A lot of what US-authorities can do, is prohibited under european law. Plus, if a TPE screws up something,

it is a lot easier to start proceedings under local or european regulations that to sue an american company.

 

---

I do understand that it may be easier for you to go to authorities there as opposed to here,if something should go wrong.  So I can accept that you choose to use Euro companies for convenience and because you know and understand your local laws regulating them.

That said, I take issue with people that claim Euro laws are better the US law though.  I am interested to know on what do you base your assertion?  Can you give specific examples of an applicable Euro law compared to a similar US law?  Seems to me that many Euro's think their laws are better but know nothing specific about  US laws so they really don't know what they are talking about.  They base their opinions on here say.  Its natural for you to think Euro laws may be better because you live there, but I can't agree with you.

I deal with a company that switched their payment processing to a Euro company a few years ago and  my bank refused their payment requests.  I called my bank to find out why and they told me that the processing company was red flagged by their security dept due to privacy issues, too many data security breaches and processing and sending too many fraudulent payment requests to US banks.  I had to go to my bank and sign a paper that gave permission to pay this company and assume all risk associated with that.

I don't claim that US laws are better than Euro laws because I don't know much about your laws.  But based on this actual personal experience as well as experiences with it during my 23 years in the financial services industry, it doesn't appear to me that Euro laws aren't any better than US law or if they are they are not vigorously enforced.

I also have no idea where you got your information about what the US Authorities can do. The US Constitution prohibits the government from accessing your account records without a warrant issued by a court of law.  They can't get such a warrant unless they show the court  probable cause you broke the law. A constitutional prohibition is considerably stronger than a mere law. The only exceptions to this is if you are suspected of planning terrorists activities to harm the US or its citizens.  Banks must also report it to the Treasury Dept. if you make a withdrawal or deposit of more than $10K USD to an account at one time.  The Treasury Dept. won't do anything with such a report unless they have reason to believe you are involved in criminal activity such as money laundering.  If you are not a terrorist or criminal, you have nothing to fear that any information will be given to US authorities unless you give it to them yourself.  I am also sure your government has a lawful way to examine your personal or account information if they suspected you were a criminal or terrorist too.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I don't know much about US data protection law.    However, I do know that US companies (Facebook, Google and so on) regularly find themselves running up against EU data protection law in that our law imposes very strict controls about sharing personal data with private companies.    I can be assured that if I'm dealing with a company in the EU, that company faces criminal penalties if it shares data about me with another company without my agreement.    

 

[steeljane42]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

 

You trust a TPE with your cell number but not LL?

---

---

Not sure about USA, but here it's much easier to start another sim card, than CC.

Means I can have a sim card that's have no other purpose at all. In fact, I do have 3 of those (not just for SL).

I "top-up" them right before I'm planning to buy something and usually have than 1$ less left there after a purchase. They also cost nothing to maintain as long as you use them once every 6 months (1 minute call/1 sms counts).

So yeah, even if I **** up and something happens with that number, I can just get a new one 30 minutes later.

 

That said, I see there's a list of approved TPE already and I heard many more sent their app form to LL, so hopefully soon enough there will be even better choice of places where we can buy lindens without having to deal with LL and their weird rules.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

US law says that companies that collect personal data have to establish a privacy policy that they publish at least annually or when ever they change their policy.  They must abide by them too.  Any company that doesn't follow this law can also face criminal charges and you can also sue them in civil court.  With  services such as facebook and google, you agree to their privacy policies by using their services..  They disclose their privacy policies with a link on their main screen.  If you don't agree with their policies no one is forcing  you to give any personal informaton or indeed even use the service so you have complete control over your personal data. Your government can also block the service.  I don't use facebook or any other of the popular social networking sites because I disagree with the way they use my personal data to make money.

SL has a privacy policy too where it states that data is only given to third parties under limited circumstances such as when it is needed to provide part of the services connected to SL such as billing or services you request or to law enforcement authorities if they report a crime or a warrant is presented. LL couldn't just start selling data to another company without your consent or revamping their privacy policy and notifying you of it. 

Jade asserted that US authorities act in a way that would violate European laws.  She said  "A lot of what US-authorities can do, is prohibited under European law." implying she had no choice in the matter and that the authorities here would get her personal data.  That is simply not the case so long as she doesn't commit a crime or become a terrorist.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I don't know how US authorities act in general.   I do recall, though (because it caused so much annoyance here) that we had to change our data protection laws to allow EU airlines to comply with your Department of Homeland Security's requirement to be sent, routinely, information about passengers on transatlantic flights for which an EU government would have to obtain a court order.    

ETA -- You mention US law about Facebook and so on.   That's one significant difference -- in the EU, Facebook's policies don't really count.  What matters is they comply with our privacy and data protection laws, which are considerably tighter than their policies.   See, for example, this article from the end of last year.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

I don't know how US authorities act in general.   I do recall, though (because it caused so much annoyance here) that we had to change our data protection laws to allow EU airlines to comply with your Department of Homeland Security's requirement to be sent, routinely, information about passengers on transatlantic flights for which an EU government would have to obtain a court order.    

ETA -- You mention US law about Facebook and so on.   That's one significant difference -- in the EU, Facebook's policies don't really count.  What matters is they comply with our privacy and data protection laws, which are considerably tighter than their policies.   See, for example, this article

from the end of last year

.

---

 

---

Two interesting situations.

In the first, the US has a right to ask for passenger information because the people on the plane are coming here.  The US has a right to protect its borders and make sure all the passengers can legally enter the US and that none are suspected terrorists.  A choice had to be made to comply with the US's valid request, or accept that the US would allow only those with US passports to leave the plane and order the plane to take everyone else back.  I grant this is extreme reaction but a request for passenger data seems to me to be a very reasonable precaution given the terror incidents people have suffered in so many places.  Any Country has the same right. 

The second situation is a bit different.  That article discusses pending privacy laws and said it will be two year's at least before they can be put into effect so they are not in effect now.  I do agree with  the things they are attempting to do but wonder how effective they are going to be.  Just for the sake of argument, if in the end, Google and Facebook, both US Companies,  refuse to cooperate what will the EU do?  They have no jurisdiction over a company in the US using servers in the US.  People connect, use the services and give their personal information voluntarily.  The EU could block them so Europeans don't have access to these services I suppose but is that acceptable politically?  Wouldn't many Europeans find ways around this just as other's who live in countries that censor the internet do?

The fact is that the law is only now starting to catch up to technology.  The US is also looking at passing more laws to protect data privacy and allow the consumer control over it in cyber space. It is a tricky thing though to do this effectively and not violate our constitutional right to free speech, free press, and freedom of association to name just a few of the big ones.

In reality the internet by its very nature is truly international and any one country or minority group of them can't really control it.   It is going to take a majority of countries coming together, through perhaps a treaty, and agreeing on certain universal legal principles to protect data and define who controls it when, while allowing as much freedom as possible to use the internet to its full potential.  Model uniform laws that are effective and enforceable are needed to guide the law makers.  '

To me this is a very interesting topic and I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss it. Everyone here should be keeping an eye out and speak up about these issues as they will effect us all sooner or later.

[Phil Deakins]

Just a little comment...

If the EU blocked Google and Facebook, nobody, or a very few people, would shed any tears. Not for long, anyway. Facebook is a part of people's socialising but Google is a search engine that people use, and there are a few equally good alternatives. Many people use Gmail, of course, but there are excellent alternatives and they would need to rearrange their email.

I would welcome Google being blocked in the UK. They've been up before the government here more than once (the latest was just a couple of days ago) because they cheat our tax system by making billions here (they admit that) but paying a very few millions in tax. They are not the only big U.S. company that's cheating the tax system here out of nothing other than sheer greed.

[Innula Zenovka]

You asked for an example of the difference between US and EU privacy laws and i gave you one.   I'm not questioning the right of the USA to act as it did.   All I am saying is that, in asking for these details it was acting in a way that would be unlawful for the British government to behave, under laws the British Parliament passed to enact the EU law locally, towards American carriers flying into Heathrow.      To obtain that data in the normal course of events, a government would have to get a court order, and a court wouldn't issue an open-ended order like that covering all passengers on all incoming flights until further notice.

Like I said, I am not questioning the right of the USA to do it.   I just provided it as an example of how our respective laws differ, in that it required a change in EU law to remove some of our normal rights and protections in order to prevent airlines being prosecuted in the EU for behaving as the US goverment required them to.   

As to your question, 

---

Just for the sake of argument, if in the end, Google and Facebook, both US Companies, refuse to cooperate what will the EU do? They have no jurisdiction over a company in the US using servers in the US. People connect, use the services and give their personal information voluntarily

.

---

that's precisely it. If Facebook or Google were to decide EU privacy legislation was too irksome and completely relocated to outside the EU, taking their datacentres with them, then they wouldn't be subject to EU law.

However, while they do have their European headquarters in the EU, both in Dublin, in order to enjoy the practical and tax advantages that being companies operating in the EU bring them, they have to obey EU law. Which is why Facebook is allowed to collect and sell a lot more information about its American users than about its EU users.   So if they refuse to cooperate, then they have the same choices as would a foreign comany in the US that didn't like American law --  either they relocate or both the companies and local executives face prosecution and criminal penalties.

There's no question of blocking access to Google or Facebook.   The question is purely to do with how they and their employees behave while under the jurisdiction of EU law.   

 

[Jadeclaw Denfu]

 

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

US law says that companies that collect personal data have to establish a privacy policy that they publish at least annually or when ever they change their policy.  They must abide by them too.  Any company that doesn't follow this law can also face criminal charges and you can also sue them in civil court.  With  services such as facebook and google, you agree to their privacy policies by using their services..  They disclose their privacy policies with a link on their main screen.  If you don't agree with their policies no one is forcing  you to give any personal informaton or indeed even use the service so you have complete control over your personal data. Your government can also block the service.  I don't use facebook or any other of the popular social networking sites because I disagree with the way they use my personal data to make money.

SL has a privacy policy too where it states that data is only given to third parties under limited circumstances such as when it is needed to provide part of the services connected to SL such as billing or services

you

request or to law enforcement authorities if they report a crime or a warrant is presented. LL couldn't just start selling data to another company without your consent or revamping their privacy policy and notifying you of it. 

Jade asserted that

US authorities

act in a way that would violate European laws.  She said  "A lot of what US-authorities can do, is prohibited under European law." implying she had no choice in the matter and that the authorities here would get her personal data.  That is simply not the case so long as she doesn't commit a crime or become a terrorist.

 

---

The difference (as Innula points out): Here in Europe, the law sets minimum standards for a privacy policy 
and an independent authority (e.g. data protection officer in Germany, the ICO in the UK) makes sure, the company
keeps in line with the law.

And in regard to the US-authorities, two examples: NSLs (National Security Letters), where the victim isn't even allowed
to talk to a lawyer. That would not only be unconstitutional in most european countries, these letters would also be a violation
of the relevant EU-directives. Luckily, the US-courts wised up on these and they fell out of favor with the FBI. And the latest
incident, where telephone records of a number of AP-journalists had been accessed. Without a court order. Illegal here in Germany.
As journalists, the clerical officials (e.g. priests) and lawyers too enjoy constitutional protection. As far as I know, in the US
only attorney-client communication/material is protected.

But don't get me wrong, not all in the US juidicial system is bad, the possibility to slap a recalcitrant company with punitive
damages is sometimes sorely missed here.

 

Oh, and by the way, I'm male.

 

[Perrie Juran]

First off, just replying in general, not specifically to you Jadeclaw.

Related to this privacy discussion this popped up in one of my news feeds today:

13 Ways to Know if the Government is Reading Your Email.

I am continually troubled by the intrusion of both Government and Business into our private lives.  Any one who thinks that they are not bedfellows should look again.  Most of the privacy laws are nothing but shams full of loop holes.  For every rule that secures your privacy, especially from the Government, you can find them writing exceptions into the Laws.

If this sounds 'negative,' yes it is.  But I consider it the duty of Citizens to not trust Government. 

In order to really understand this and what is going on, you have to look at a broader topic, The Beneficent or Benevolent Dictator.  This is what are current gov't (and the people in it) are attempting to become.  And it is a concept that was strongly rejected by The Founding Fathers and that they worked very hard to safe guard against.  The decisions or actions the beneficent dictator take are always stated as "for our own good," which may or may not be true.  That the rights of the individual be not infringed was very important to the Founding Fathers and they saw the inherent threats that the Beneficent Dictator posed to this.

One of the threats that the Founding Fathers also saw was that there was no guarantee that the Beneficent Dictators successor would be Beneficent too.  They also saw that in order to stay in power that the Beneficent Dictator would remove the tools that would enable us to remove him from office should we choose too.  I can't find it now and I'm paraphrasing, but there is a famous quote, "they may rule for our own good, but rule they will." So in order to protect us from a malicious dictator taking power, the Founding Fathers did two things:

Most importantly they gave us the Bill of Rights. 

The second thing was they set up was that two branches of the Gov't had to periodically be re-elected.  While it may be a huge pain in the ass, it was again to protect us from dictators.  They did also wisely see the need to protect us from all Gov't decisions being based on political expediency, so they balanced this by making the Supreme Court life time appointments.  After all, I think we all see that for most Politicians, their first concern is staying in office.  They may pretend to be ruling for our own good, but rule they will.

All of this above is what makes our Gov'ts activities very scary.  While presently it is being done under the guise of "for our own good," the danger of these things being turned against us to restrict our individual rights is too great for us to allow them to continue unchecked.  The more power the Fed takes, the greater the chance of it being abused.

That's the bigger issue that is at stake.

[Malanya]

It is an interesting topic because I believe right now our privacy policies (I remember when they came into effect in the healthcare field) have many loopholes and unless you actually read all the fine print they really aren't protecting us, many loopholes that allow them to share what they feel is allowed and if certain situations arise they can give your information to others. It will take awhile for it to be a more secure policy and rome wasn't built overnight as my father used to say.

I find it interesting, I no longer have a Face Book account, haven't for years because they can't keep information safe, how come so many people put that "creed" for lack of a better word, that they are stating to FB and the government their information can't be shared? I can't remember the whole long paragraph but I do remember seeing many people with that on their page.

I have also had red flags by a few of my financial institutions that didn't allow a transaction out of the US.