ToS Warning - According to Linden Labs.....

[0seagypsy0]

I don't disagree with you there. The disclaimers would not be considered reasonable notification for any conversation to be recorded. But as it is, if the conversation isn't posted in world... there isn't much LL will likely do. Of course i think if it is some serious hard core harrassment there are antibullying laws out there in some countries/regions that would supercede any LL tos.

In my case, i have posted the conversations with this designer because she threatened to slander me to other designers and to show them the conversation. Since she altered the conversation before posting it once already, without my concent or notification and within LL scope of authority, i decided to post the conversation in it's entirety on my own blog. That way people can see everything that was said by both of us and make up their own mind who was out of line.

Merchants need to be held to the same standard we would hold brick and morter stores to. And brick and morter stores will record your phone calls to them. To ensure quality of service. I did for the same reason. So people can see the type of customer service she provides and know that I am not lying or making things up.

 

[Heart Brimmer]

---

0seagypsy0 wrote:

I don't disagree with you there. The disclaimers would not be considered reasonable notification for any conversation to be recorded. But as it is, if the conversation isn't posted in world... there isn't much LL will likely do. Of course i think if it is some serious hard core harrassment there are antibullying laws out there in some countries/regions that would supercede any LL tos.

In my case, i have posted the conversations with this designer because she threatened to slander me to other designers and to show them the conversation. Since she altered the conversation before posting it once already, without my concent or notification and within LL scope of authority, i decided to post the conversation in it's entirety on my own blog. That way people can see everything that was said by both of us and make up their own mind who was out of line.

Merchants need to be held to the same standard we would hold brick and morter stores to.

And brick and morter stores will record your phone calls to them. To ensure quality of service. I did for the same reason. So people can see the type of customer service she provides and know that I am not lying or making things up.

 

---

There is no way YOU can do this, anyone knows that chat logs of any kind can be altered. Therefore, by doing this, you are still breaking the TOS. IF you have a problem with someone, the best thing to do is contact LL and have them review the logs, that way, nothing is tampered with. Just sayin'

[0seagypsy0]

I don't know what makes you think ANYONE can't do this. The TOS does not police what you post outside of Linden Labs websites. I know chat logs can be altered and faked. She would have to take me to court for slander and then our accounts would be supeonad (that's if the court doesn't throw the case out for being stupid and childish). In any case if they required the original chat logs the courts could get them and they would see that I altered nothing and that her claims of slander would be false. They also would see that what she posted on LL Marketplace, would have amounted to slander since she altered the conversation she posted there. However, LL already removed what she posted there without me even having to send in a report. I am not certain, but I think after she posted it, she tried to report my review of her product and LL did't see anything wrong with my review (because that is still there) but htey did take down her comments that included an altered chat log.

 

So when you used the word "can't" I don't know if you meant that I was incapable of it or that I would get in trouble for it. but whatever the case may be. She whined and moaned to the Lindens plenty, according to her, and they never contacted me at all. I received no warnings, and nothing of mine was forcibly removed from public view.

 

[Qie Niangao]

There's a two month gap in posts to this thread; I don't know why it's again top of mind. In any case:

---

0seagypsy0 wrote:

You can record a conversation if you have a sign blatantly posted in the area hte conversation takes place.

---

Where did you get that idea?

Such a sign might prevent the conversation-poster's account from being deleted -- although getting explicit consent would be much safer -- but that doesn't keep LL from deleting the posted conversation from their services.

As far as I can follow the claim here, you posted some chat to your blog, and somebody else posted some possibly doctored chat to a Marketplace review. The latter was taken down. Of course the Lab isn't going to go after your blog, and of course they're going to remove a chat log from their Marketplace site -- whether or not it's a true record, and whether or not it was collected under some warning sign.

Thing is, you got this part exactly right:

---

0seagypsy0 wrote:

they can, that's true, but they would lose revenue if htey did that. 

---

... but you didn't take the conclusion quite far enough. The Lab really, really does not care about any spats between Markeplace merchants, customers, etc. The Marketplace sales commissions make only a razor-thin margin over the cost of keeping the service running (such as it is), so the Lab can't afford to spend any more time policing it than is absolutely necessary to keep the masses comfortable continuing to use Second Life. And that's even more true for non-Marketplace abuse reports.

It's all well and good to have principles, but there's no more motivated Libertarian than someone for whom enforcing the rules is a cost of doing business.

[Phil Deakins]

---

0seagypsy0 wrote:

You can record a conversation if you have a sign blatantly posted in the area hte conversation takes place.

---

You're making it up about the sign idea. There is no such thing.

However, you can record a coversation anywhere. The viewer includes the logging of them, and I believe it includes local chat - doesn't it?

[ObviousAltIsObvious]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

0seagypsy0 wrote:

You can record a conversation if you have a sign blatantly posted in the area hte conversation takes place.

---

You're making it up about the sign idea. There is no such thing.

However, you can record a coversation anywhere. The viewer includes the logging of them, and I believe it includes local chat - doesn't it?

---

0seagypsy0 is correct. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Residents'_privacy_rights#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.

[Phil Deakins]

I'd never come across the sign idea though. Even so, everything can be saved to disc, and I believe that includes local chat, so the sign idea is a non-starter, since the viewer facilitates us doing it - and a great many people do just that.

[Qie Niangao]

But isn't that a different rule, though? It seems to be about remote monitoring, not about sharing chat logs via Linden (or other) services.

(In case that's not an obvious distinction, consider how they also distinguish between collecting IP addresses for the landowner's private fetish of banning suspected alts, vs making public the landowner's suspicions.)

[Phil Deakins]

Good grief! This is the 3rd attempt at writing this. I've no idea why the last one didn't post. I assumed it had.

I hadn't come across the sign idea before but it's meaningless anyway because the viewer facilitates the logging to disc of conversations, including local chat, and it's turned on by default, so a great many people do it, whether they know it or not, and there's no need to inform anyone that it's being done. The logging of conversations is a given - it's assumed.

ETA: And, of course, that's about remote recording, as Qie pointed out. In those cases, a sign really should be put up to say that local conversations here are being monitored or recorded.

[ObviousAltIsObvious]

it ends up to be the same as a practical matter. if a conversation is being monitored by parties who are not a part of the conversation, it is being disclosed, and no longer a private conversation. the next paragraph of the policy makes that distnction, that disclosure is about private conversations.

[Phil Deakins]

The only way to monitor a public conversation is to either be there, in which case the participants know you can 'hear' what they are saying, or to do it remotely, in which the participants don't know that anyone can 'hear' them. If you're there, there is no need for a sign because they know you're there. If you're not there, there is. It's that simple.

If people chat in public with other people around, they know they are being heard and logged. So that sign idea is for remote monitoring, as your copy-paste says it is.

[Qie Niangao]

I think there's a difference, though. The warning sign is apparently enough to keep the poster's account from being deleted for merely recording the text without being present during the chat -- and I agree that such remote monitoring is a kind of disclosure inasmuch as the chatter has lost control of who might see the chat (assuming the sign need not specify all parties to whom the remotely monitored chat may be disclosed, lacking any guidance about the sign's required contents). But that immunity from account termination wouldn't guarantee the poster a right to make public that chat log in a Marketplace review nor other Lab-hosted services.

Could a chat log collected under a warning sign be disclosed privately in-world, as in IM, without violating ToS? I think even that is open to debate, given the wording of that KB article. The section about disclosure is pretty direct about requiring "consent", not merely "knowledge or consent" -- but then later it further constrains scripted remote monitoring or logging to require consent, too, and I'm not seeing the distinction between that and the earlier remote monitoring that was somehow kosher just for having some unspecified but "clearly visible" sign.