Are IP Address Trackers again being used in SL?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Marcus Ansia wrote:

The one really frustrating aspect to this fascical situation is that I am not allowed to actually name and shame this person on this Forum.  Pity, because it would serve to then warn many others how he chooses to conduct his business practices in here and shows a distinct lack of good moral judgement when dealing with his customers.

Too many think they are not bound by the same moral code of conduct that is (or at least should be) basic human nature in the real world.  To be fair and courteous to everyone we come into contact with.  But sadly that is often lacking in Second Life, because it seems to be more a case of, 'thanks for your money now get lost attitude'.

 

---

I wouldn't worry about the naming and shaming.  If he treats his other customers as bad as he purportedly has treated you he will quickly have no customers any ways.

[Katia Clifton]

Did this sim's owner begin with the letter "D"?  If so, it's possible he blocked you because he STOLE all the "donations" and rental fees from a sim he shut down.  The sim, name withheld, had vans you could rent to sell your gacha items.

[Marcus Ansia]

Unfortunately Kat, if I disclose any personal information on this post, it will be removed.

I do know who you are referring to and I am aware of the incident in question, but the avatar I had dealings with was not the same avatar you are talking about.

[Kae Ceriano]

There is a gridwide sploder that collects IP addresses of people who play it (they have to go to a website and 'verify' before they can enter).  If more than one person from your address is playing, they label you a "bot" and ban your IP address.  They also will ban if you disagree with the creator of this sploder or his team for any reason.  The ban is not only for the land you are on, but for every single parcel that uses this sploder or other associated products.  Perhaps that is how you got banned?

[Marcus Ansia]

Hello Kae,

I understand your line of thought on this, but I'm quite sure it won't be for that reason.  I don't go to clubs or any other gambling sites that use these sploders, and evcen if I did, I would most certainly never play one and sure as hell will NEVER go to any web site and register my details.

Personally, I still think LL should be far more proactive in their approach and rules regarding any device like this.

One of the prior comments to this post explained how every time you enter a sim and activate the music stream there you are allowing your IP Address to be collected.

The thing which annoyed me the most (which I have previously explained) was how indifferent the owner of the location was.  He really couldn't care less if I had been banned incorrectly or not and had no intention of even trying to find out..... or, in my opinion, he did and realised if he was to admit what had happened, he'd then have to admit to using an IP Address tracking device, which I'm sure would not be too popular if people using his Yard Sale were to be made aware of this.

[Perrie Juran]

Just a comment in general here.

It sometimes amazes me how much people can live in oblivion to how the Internet works.  Now I don't mean that they need to have a deep technical understanding.  But that they don't understand that for data to flow two computers need to 'shake hands,'  that somehow Computer A needs to know where to send the information that Computer B wants eludes me.

Now as far as what this company is doing, yes it would piss off a lot of their customers.  But it is not a violation as long as they don't share it.  Linden Lab could make a rule that tracking IP's is a violation.  But from a practical point of view enforcing it would be nuts. 

[Marcus Ansia]

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will just say.... well this is how it works, therefore we have to accept it.  Actually no, we don't have to accept it.

Obviously for two (or more) electronic devices (the emphasise being on the devices) to be able to communicate a connection has to be established.  Does it mean the person using one of those devices then has the moral right to use some additional software to be able to 'hack' into the data to then capture the Real World location of the device his/her device is then communicating with.  Currently it is only illegal if you then pass that information on to someone else, but perhaps it should be illegal to even be able to capture and retain that information in the first place!  Just because something currently works in a certain way, doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue.

If you make a phone call a connection has to be established so you and the person on the other end can then speak to each other, but does that give the other person the right (unless you have previously agreed) to then record and hack into that data stream in order to find out exactly where you were when you made that phone call to them?  And I'm taking about the average person, not someone connected with a law enforcement agency, who has obtained a warrant/court order to be able to utilise such information for lawful purposes. 

Rules, regulation and laws are things that have been created my human beings in order to establish what is deemed to be right and wrong.  But how often are these rules, regulations and laws changed because it's then realised they themselves are not right and are allowing peoples basic human rights to privacy to be breached and in worse case scenarios, putting people at risk without them even being aware of what is happening.

I'm sure there are those who in their ignorance are oblivious to how many things do work, but there are also those who are not.  Yet some of those (who are more knowledgeable) are still happy to sit back and do nothing... why? because that's just how it is, or that's how it works, is the excuse often given.  But some, do have the balls to stand up and say what they believe to be right and wrong.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Marcus Ansia wrote:

And yes, you are correct that only if personal information is then disclosed to a 3rd party is the person providing that information then in breach of privacy laws.  But does the law not also state that each individual is entitled to be provided with the details of any information that anyone holds on them, in whatever format it is held?  Therefore, if I ask why I was banned and for any personal information that is held about me to be provided, is that not a legal requirement by the holder of such information?

---

If you mean EU data protection laws, they only apply if (oversimplifying a bit) the people collecting and/or using the data are based in the EEA or the servers on which the data is stored  are there.    

I went into this with the UK Office of the Information Commissioner when RedZone was still running, and it transpired that, because LL is, and RedZone was, both based in the USA, the Information Commissioner didn't have jurisdiction.

[Marcus Ansia]

Odd isn't it how a USA based company can insist on EU Country residents having to pay EU VAT, but will not provide the same level of protection those EU residents would expect to get and have access to in an EU country.

All it really needs is a disclosure clause to be included in LL Terms of Service.  If you are going to record and capture peoples IP Address information when they enter your parcel or sim/s, then each person should have the right to know that and then be able to make an informed decision if they wish you provide that information.  If not, then you don't go to that location.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Marcus Ansia wrote:

Odd isn't it how a USA based company can insist on EU Country residents having to pay EU VAT, but will not provide the same level of protection those EU residents would expect to get and have access to in an EU country.

---

Not really.  

It''s EU law that all payments for electronically delivered goods and services made to suppliers outside the EU are net of VAT.  That is, whatever we pay LL is deemed to include VAT at the current rate and  if LL don't pass on the appropriate sums of VAT they've collected, the local tax authorities can take measures to collect what they are owed  (by getting court orders to seize the funds while they're still in the hands of the payment processors, like PayPal, MasterCard and Visa, before they leave the jurisdiction.  

LL don't have any choice in the matter -- as far as (for example) the British Government is concerned, 20% of what LL invoice me for tier represents VAT at the current rate, and HMG will collect that from LL one way or the other.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Marcus Ansia wrote:

Odd isn't it how a USA based company [...]

---

I can make it even more clear as to how and why it works like it does.

VAT is how the government MAKES money. When you pay VAT, you put money into their coffers. Income is something any government is always anxious to generate and protect.

When they have to enforce protection laws, take foreign companies to court, and execute any sort of legal action it will COST them money. Expense is something that any government is always going to avoid if possible.

So, in the final analysis .. it boils down to "follow the money". Income sources get protected, expenses get avoided.

[nikita Jefferson]

Use a VPN, then you can log in from any country in the world with a diff IP address each time.

One day your from Russia, next, France , next Canada and so on

[Perrie Juran]

---

Marcus Ansia wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will just say.... well this is how it works, therefore we have to accept it.

 

Actually no, we don't have to accept it.

Obviously for two (or more) electronic devices (the emphasise being on the devices) to be able to communicate a connection has to be established.

 

Does it mean the person using one of those devices then has the moral right to use some additional software to be able to 'hack' into the data to then capture the Real World location of the device his/her device is then communicating with.

 

Currently it is only illegal if you then pass that information on to someone else, but perhaps it should be illegal to even be able to capture and retain that information in the first place!

 

Just because something currently works in a certain way, doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue.

If you make a phone call a connection has to be established so you and the person on the other end can then speak to each other, but does that give the other person the right (unless you have previously agreed) to then record and hack into that data stream in order to find out exactly where you were when you made that phone call to them?

 

And I'm taking about the average person, not someone connected with a law enforcement agency, who has obtained a warrant/court order to be able to utilise such information for lawful purposes.

 

Rules, regulation and laws are things that have been created my human beings in order to establish what is deemed to be right and wrong.

 

But how often are these rules, regulations and laws changed because it's then realised they themselves are not right and are allowing peoples basic human rights to privacy to be breached and in worse case scenarios, putting people at risk without them even being aware of what is happening.

I'm sure there are those who in their ignorance are oblivious to how many things do work, but there are also those who are not.

 

Yet some of those (who are more knowledgeable) are still happy to sit back and do nothing... why? because that's just how it is, or that's how it works, is the excuse often given.

 

But some, do have the balls to stand up and say what they believe to be right and wrong.

---

I didn't say that it was "right" that anyone collects or uses the information.

But I'd have to ask if there is not a two edged sword here.

People constantly ask why LL doesn't IP ban accounts, though they are under the false assumption just like the IP collectors that the IPs they are collecting clearly identify the user.

If IP identification worked, would it be a justifiable use to ban Griefers?

 

[Marcus Ansia]

My odd isn't it remark, was simply a facetious comment to emphasise the fact that money is of more importance (be it the real world or a virtual one) than morality.

[Marcus Ansia]

It would be impossible for LL to use IP Addresses to ban a griefer from SL.  I'm sure many are clever enough to not use their personal IP Addresses in the first place.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Marcus Ansia wrote:

My odd isn't it remark, was simply a facetious comment to emphasise the fact that money is of more importance (be it the real world or a virtual one) than morality.

---

You know, that is not really an accurate phrase.

Some people consider using deceipt to make money "Moral."

I know, we can get into a long tangent here.

It's a matter of what we as a society consider to be "Good Morals."

We have something referred to as the "Moral Majority" which many of us at times do not consider "Moral" at all. 

Fun stuff.

[Marcus Ansia]

This subject can be debated and go round and around indefinitely, because at the end of the day, each of us is entitled to our own opinion.

For me the bottom line is I went to a sim to shop.  I was then penalised, for doing nothing wrong except for buying some items.  I was ejected and banned.  I asked the owner for an explanation, but still have not been given one.  Now, if this were to happen to anyone of us in RL, what would you do?  You'd obviously never go back to that shop again and give them your money, but also, would you keep the incident to yourself, or would you tell your family and friends about what happened and how badly you had been treated?

My point in all this is in RL, it most probably would never even have got that far.  Because no self respecting company would want to allienate its customers and risk bad publicity, but here in the virtual world, it seems that many traders really couldn't care less because they think there are plenty more residents willing to hand over their money to them.

Until people start to stand up for themselves and demand to be treated with more integrity and respect, then things won't change.

It didn't need to go this far.  Al the trader needed to do was to look into the incident and then simply apologise and it would have been the end of the matter.  But, like most people who have something to hide, they cower away trying to sweep things under the carpet, hoping it will all simply be forgotten and they can continue to use their devices unchallenged.

[Innula Zenovka]

It's not that money's more important.   It's a question of jurisdiction.   EU law says VAT must be paid on electronic goods and services supplied to EU residents, and gives national governments ways of enforcing that.    EU data protection law gives EU residents certain rights and protections, but only where they are enforceable.   That's perfectly normal and proper, it seems to me.   EU law applies in the EU, and US law applies in the US.    If the proprietors of this sim are are EU-based, or if the data is stored on servers in the EU,  then you may well be able to persuade your local Office of the Information Commissioner to intervene. 

There's something about this that puzzles me, though.   From what you say, it certainly seems as if something is detecting your attempts to tp into the sim, noting your IP address, and then preventing your daughter from TPing there.  

My question is, how on earth is it doing it?   I mean, when I ban someone from a sim, there's no way I can find out -- at least not that I know of -- that they've subsequently tried to tp there, let alone what their IP address was when they tried.   Similarly, there's no way that I'm aware of that they could determine your daughter's IP address when she attempts to teleport and before she arrives on the sim.     If you were both arriving at the sim and then being immediately ejected, I can understand how a scripted object could do it, but the only people capable of detecting your IP address other than the owner of the sim you're currently on are LL.

I am wondering, then, if LL haven't at some point quietly changed the way region bans work to include an IP ban, which is something they've often been asked for to prevent mass attacks by griefers using throw-away accounts.     It's the only way I can make sense of what you describe.

[Marcus Ansia]

If you have read this post in it's entirety, and fully understood the sequence of events, it really is quite obvious what took place.

For whatever reason, I was banned and am now unable to teleport back to that sim.  I am not on the parcel ban list (that has been confirmed by more than one person).  After that initial event took place, anyone trying to teleport to that sim was not allowed to.

I then changed my IP Address.  Anyone (except myself) was then able to teleport to that sim, until I then made another attempt to do so.  After that, anyone attempting to teleport to that sim from my IP Address (which had been changed) was then unable to.

Each time I changed my IP Address and then attempted to teleport there, it resulted in anyone else also from my same IP Address being blocked.  therefore the only possible conclusion is the sim owner is using software that records an IP Address of anyone that has been placed on a specific list. 

[Marcus Ansia]

And as for LL being involved with what you describe as 'quietly' changing how region bans work to include an IP ban.  I would very much doubt such an occurance took place, because you then run the risk of banning anyone using that same IP Address which may well be a public place or a college or University for example.  IP Address banning is as ludicrous now as it was when RedZone was in force.  It's inherently flawed because it's whole concept is based on the assumption that anyone using the same IP Address as the original banned person must be one of his/her alts.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Am I correct in thinking that you haven't been able to teleport to the sim, no matter what your IP address, since the ban was first imposed?    

If that is the case, I simply don't understand how anyone other than LL can be detecting your IP address when you attempt to teleport and then, subsequently, stopping your daughter from teleporting there after your new address has been detected.

How is the sim owner detecting your IP address?   The sim knows your UUID is on the banned list, but from what you say, each time you attempt to teleport to the sim something is picking up your IP address, too.   How?   There's no way I know of to detect someone's IP address other than by using a scripted object that's on the same sim.      But from what you say, something is clearly detecting your IP address when you attempt to teleport to the sim in question, and then detecting your daughter's IP address on her subsequent attempts to teleport there.    

I just don't understand how anyone other than LL can detect the IP address of someone who is not on the same sim as a scripted object that can manipulate either parcel media or shared media on that sim.    Can any of the other scripters reading this help me?   

[Marcus Ansia]

Yes you are correct, I (Marcus Ansia) am unable to teleport to the sim, even if I change my IP Address.  Although, I have not even attempted to do so for some time now and have no intention of doing so even if the ban was lifted.

As I've previously explained, anyone else using my IP Address is able to teleport to the sim, unless I then attempt to do so.  This results in me then once again recieving the 'you are banned from this region' message and any subsequent attempts by anyone else is also then blocked.  This can only be because each attempt I make is then being noted and my then current IP Address is being recorded and anyone using that same IP Address is being blocked.  What other possible reason can there be for this sequence of events?

[Innula Zenovka]

I completely agree that it sounds as if there is block on anyone using your IP address entering the sim.

However, what I questioning is who is placing this block on anyone using your IP address.   You think -- logically enough, if you don't know how IP address trackers are made -- that it's the sim owner.  

What I'm saying is there's no way I know of to detect anyone's IP address unless they're on the same sim as the detector script, and that the owner of the sim from which you are banned has no idea you're trying to tp to his sim, let alone what your IP address is.    So your trying to TP to the sim should make no difference to whether other people using your IP address can TP to the sim.

The way I can make sense of what you describe is with the hypothosis that LL has quietly changed the server code to incorporate an IP ban when an avatar is banned from entering a sim, and when you try to TP to the sim, the server notes your new IP address and updates its ban list.     I just don't see how else it could work.    

How else does your unsuccessful attempt to teleport to the target sim prevent subsequent attempts by other people using your IP address to teleport there?   Since you never enter the target sim, there's no way I can see that  a script there can detect your new IP address, so something else must be detecting it.

[Sling Trebuchet]

OP,

You say:

"I then logged in and attempted to teleport there, but no luck.  I still got the message telling me I am banned from the region (still have no idea why though!).  My daughter then tried again to teleport there.  This time she received the message telling her she didn't have access to that location... Are we seeing a pattern emerging here yet???"

Yes. It's a very clear pattern.

You are not permanently on the parcel (LL ban list). If you were, you would permanently see the 'no access' when you try to TP. Also you say that others have inspected the parcel ban list and not found your name there.
You seem to be able to TP in again after some time has elapsed after your last ejection.
On arrival - or during the TP sequence as soon as an object in the sim can detect you -  you get a "Banned" message and get ejected.

"You are banned" or the like is not a LL system message.
You likely get it from an object (The name would be a link - which when clicked would the location of the object sending the message.)


This points to a system that maintains a private ban list - and most likely over a number of sims/parcels.
An object in the sim would scan incoming avatars against the private list. It does the eject by putting the avatar on the LL parcel ban list - but for a limited time.
The rationale for 'limited time' on the LL parcel list is this: Over time, the number of entries in the LL ban list could grow into huge numbers. This might begin to chew server resources. This would be compounded across multiple servers if the private system were to ban an avatar from all sims in a group if they are banned from any sim in the group.

How to reduce this effect on LL servers?
There is no date-stamping of the bans in the LL list.
A private ban list can 'prune' names off the based on time elapsed time since last detected.


As for the IP 'ban' aspect ....

I would guess that when an avatar is banned from a parcel (using standard LL methods) the LL servers put the IP on a system ban list for the parcel --- for a **limited time**  ( x minutes, hours ).
That would be useful to stop an alt from coming straight back in. This functionality was at the heart of RedZone. It would make sense for LL to implement it after banning RedZone because of the private information it revealed to users.
As IPs are not unique to RL individuals, this can only be a temporary ban.


The result of such a system - combined with the LL servers doing a short-term IP ban would be what you report.
You get ejected/banned - sent home. In the immediate aftermath, you then have 'no access' and anyone on the same IP has 'no access'.
After some elapsed time – set by LL – the IP ban expires.
Anyone on that IP can then TP in.
This includes you!  - But you get kicked out on arrival – and your IP gets temporarily banned (by LL) again.

Rinse and repeat.

[Czari Zenovka]

Just wanted to wave to Sling!!  Good to see you!  :matte-motes-smile: