Canoro Philipp Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 ------------------------------------------------------- collect and confirm the following account information from you: • Name• Date of birth• Address• Identification number we are required to obtain a copy of your government-issued photo identification (ID). If your photo ID does not display your address, you must also provide us with a copy of a current utility or telephone bill. we will place your account(s) on Administrative Hold until we receive such information. If you have additional accounts under which you transact with Linden Lab, we encourage you to provide the names of those avatars ------------------------------------------------------- is this part of the NSA plan to know the identities of gamers by forcing them to provide it? they tried having spies walking around asking people questions, they tried asking information for scientific research, now they are going to freeze accounts like if people were criminals and deserve the punishment? guilty until proven innocent seems to apply here, there shouldnt be any punishment until a person is proven to be guilty, and they are making now a reason of punishment to not unmask yourself to the data hungry NSA. this should only be required if the government has enough proof that the account holder is commiting a crime, and in that case, Linden Lab should provide them with the data they have in their database. this method is unnecesarly invading the users privacy. this should go to the EFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dresden Ceriano Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Perrie Juran wrote: Also, State regs (and my understanding is this is true in all States) forbid having two State Issued cards....when they got their Drivers licences they had to surrender the ID Card to the State. This is not the case where I am, Louisiana... I have both. ...Dres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Perrie Juran wrote: Also, State regs (and my understanding is this is true in all States) forbid having two State Issued cards....when they got their Drivers licences they had to surrender the ID Card to the State. Yeah, practices vary. Where I live, for example, driver's licence is not valid means of identification. So we have driver's licence and we have an ID card too. Only ID cards and passports are valid means for identification here. However when you are driving and if it happens that police stops you and asks for driver's licence you don't need to present your ID card to prove that you indeed are you who's driving the car. Weird. :smileytongue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Coby Foden wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Also, State regs (and my understanding is this is true in all States) forbid having two State Issued cards....when they got their Drivers licences they had to surrender the ID Card to the State. Yeah, practices vary. Where I live, for example, driver's licence is not valid means of identification. So we have driver's licence and we have an ID card too. Only ID cards and passports are valid means for identification here. However when you are driving and if it happens that police stops you and asks for driver's licence you don't need to present your ID card to prove that you indeed are you who's driving the car. Weird. :smileytongue: Here in the U.S. some of the wanna-be-god are pushing for a national ID Card. In the interim they have been trying to impose uniform standards on all the States for State issued ID's. The States have so far been pushing back against this. The national ID's are a very unpopular idea here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nika Talaj Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I'm bothered by the comments in this thread about having to email photo IDs to LL. As usual, LL was not clear enough, but just to be very clear, they are NOT asking anyone to email ID to them. They want people to attach the required ID info to your support case on secondlife.com, which provides a modicum of security at least. Please, no one send photos of your personal ID to anyone via unencrypted email! The echosign links seem to work fine for me. The "e-sign" act was passed in 2000, and finally the IRS is inching into the 20th century (they still have a ways to go to catch up to the rest of us here in the 21st) and working with DocuSign, EchoSign and one or two others to allow esigning of specific forms. LL is amazingly late in requesting this info, and less than clear about it, but it is legit request from LL. The tax forms they have to gather; I'm not sure about the circumstances under which they are absolutely required to validate identity. I wish they had quoted the passage justifying that. I also wish they had provided more explicit guidance for non-US citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzwellWayfarer Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 The thing that bothers me most is the way this is phrased. The rest of the world is sick of Americas s**t as it is without them trying to become the global internet police too. Start doing a decent job on your own country, and then MAYBE you can try to tell us what to do. Maybe……. Uncle Sam wont be getting any of my details willingly. They will have to steal it from me, like the quasi-Stasi criminals they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 OzwellWayfarer wrote: The thing that bothers me most is the way this is phrased. The rest of the world is sick of Americas s**t as it is without them trying to become the global internet police too. Start doing a decent job on your own country, and then MAYBE you can try to tell us what to do. Maybe……. Uncle Sam wont be getting any of my details willingly. They will have to steal it from me, like the quasi-Stasi criminals they are. Nobody is telling you what to do. The US wants to keep tabs on people who are cashing out Lindens in amounts large enough to get their attention. They want to collect tax on that cash. Also, since criminals can use SL as a way to launder money, they want to know who the people getting the cash are. Paying taxes sucks, most agree. I'm not fond of being known personally by any branch of the government, either. I've never cashed out a Linden and in all probability never will, so I'm not involved. If I WAS someone who cashed out amounts large enough to fall under this rule or whatever it is, I'd have to make a decision: submit the required documentation or stop cashing out Lindens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Tagging here out of convenience. The regulations only require that LL maintains (has) the records. Still technically speaking, in order to view them both the IRS and NSA need to have legal justification to view them. Basicaly speaking, in other words, a warrant. (And yes I am aware of how it has been tooooooo easy for them to get the warrants. I will agree whole heartedly that suxes donkey balls). My hope is that LL has the balls to tell them to get a Warrant. For all the flap about big corporations and the Telco's cooperating with the Gov't, it is still interesting to note how much info has only been handed over only after being presented with a warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Janus Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I remember the lack of support some US users had for European users when Lindens suddenly decided to impose v.a.t with a weeks notice..... So all I can say say about this is 'oh dear what a pity never mind' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Janus Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Complain to your government ...not Lindens.... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Maelstrom Janus wrote: Complain to your government ...not Lindens.... lol To which I'd add, COMPLAIN TO YOUR GOV'T about VAT, not us or LL. The same goes for your ISP that you don't have unlimited usage. COMPLAIN TO THEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Janus Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Hey Ive got a forum stalker once again getting his facts completely wrong too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Maelstrom Janus wrote: Hey Ive got a forum stalker once again getting his facts completely wrong too.... This rates as the second funniest post I have read all week. Try a little harder next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Core Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Maelstrom Janus wrote: Hey Ive got a forum stalker once again getting his facts completely wrong too.... Hmm, having lurked here long enough to have read that particular thread I can safely say that Perrie is one hundred percent correct where data usage is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Can you believe this? Just now I got another email from LL saying: Three days ago, we requested more information about your issue. The information has not been provided, so we believe the issue has been resolved and we are changing the issue's status to closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Core Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 That is an automated response, sent out when no actions are taken by an end user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Another example of LL's right hand not having the faintest idea what its left is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Core Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Not really. Unless you responded to the ticket with the requested information, the automated response would have been sent out. It's a machine Ms. Galli, programmed to respond under specific circumstances and applied to all Support Tickets equally. If you intend to respond to them, contact support and notify them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 My point is that whoever wrote the support ticket, with a 30 day deadline to respond to the ticket, was not aware that the ticket would be automatically closed in 3 days. Thank you for the instructions but I do not really need instructions about how to proceed, once I have verified the ticket is legitimate. Want to read more thoughts about how inept LL communication has been on this? Here ya go: http://modemworld.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/lab-issues-required-account-documentation-notice/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Core Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 The thirty day deadline is a legal requirement. The automated response is part of the support ticket system. The assumption on the part of the employee opening the ticket is that no one would go for three days without making some sort of response. You did not respond in any manner, not even to ask for clarification. Not using the support system. Reading your comment there I can only say this: Yes, you were supposed to provide the documentation or at least respond to the ticket when you found it. You were not supposed to contact the employee directly through e-mail. If the support line knew nothing about the ticket it is far more likely that you failed to give them the ticket number so they could look it up. Apparently, you did need instructions as you made assumptions that were quite unsound. Your "point" is nothing more than your personal feelings on the matter. I have filed a variety of support tickets with various services and found that the automated system (which is employed by many, using a slightly longer timeframe) is often assumed to not be an issue. Anecdotal and personal experience? Yes, it is. It does show however that service providers expect you to at least use their support system for inquiries about a support ticket. If we were discussing the government instead of a service provider, I'd agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Sorry, you misread the email. It says: 1) Please attach a copy of your identification to this Case. 2) You must submit the form and identification within thirty (30) days of the date of this request. They closed the case that they said I had 30 days to attach identification to. Not "supposed to provide the documentation when I found it". Not within three days. Thirty days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Core Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 There was no misreading done. You yourself stated that you had been given a case number. I am sorry that you lack basic reasoning and reading comprehension skills. I will now spell it out for you: The thirty day limit cited within the e-mail is a legal requirement. The three day limit for the automated system is applied no matter the case. You should have at least given a query response asking for clarification before that automated response was triggered. "They" did not close the case. The automated system did when you failed to even so much as attach a question. Own your mistake, contact support, get the ticket reopened and next time do not ask for clarification on a support ticket using an e-mail. In closing: Yes, the system should have had a longer time frame or been suspended for such a ticket. It was not and you should never have assumed it would be. Especially if you have actually used the support ticket system before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Lunar Core wrote: Yes, the system should have had a longer time frame or been suspended for such a ticket. Thanks, that is exactly the point I made to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Core Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Really now? That is not what you stated nor what you implied. "My point is that whoever wrote the support ticket, with a 30 day deadline to respond to the ticket, was not aware that the ticket would be automatically closed in 3 days." The above are your exact words Ms. Galli. So no, your point is as stated in the above quote, not what I stated should have been done. A point that has been pointed out to be a wrongful assumption on your part. Kindly do not attempt to rewrite your own post history next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 LL should have stopped the automatic system from closing the ticket in three days, Its just another example of LL's incompetence in how they have mishandled this entire thing starting out with blogging about the IRS requirement then sending an email stating it was Homeland Security and not even mentioning the IRS. To say it is Pam's mistake she didn't reply within 3 days is absurd in the extreme when the official communication gave 30 days and made no mention of a requirement to reply to the support ticket in 3. I also don't understand why you are defending LL in all this, other than to troll the forums in an alt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now