Jump to content
  • 0

Is it ever permissible to share IMs?


Veronika Larsson
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3165 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Question

  • 0

This is the Community Standards statement that says you can't share IMs:

Disclosure

Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about a fellow Resident --including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, and real-world location beyond what is provided by the Resident in the First Life page of their Resident profile is a violation of that Resident's privacy. Remotely monitoring conversations, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without consent are all prohibited in Second Life and on the Second Life Forums.

 

Link to Community Standards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

This is the Community Standards statement that says you can't share IMs:

Disclosure

Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about a fellow Resident --including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, and real-world location beyond what is provided by the Resident in the First Life page of their Resident profile is a violation of that Resident's privacy. Remotely monitoring conversations, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without consent are all prohibited in Second Life and on the Second Life Forums.

 

Link to Community Standards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

if i encountered such a bold statement as that and really felt like being anal about it i would in fact AR the person that had that in their profile, on as many alts as i could muster to the cause.  i can't think right now exactly what ToS clause i would use but i'd think of something.  sooner or later something would be good enough to get one of those famous uninvestigated banhammers to drop on her head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This person put that statement in her profile because many people have filed Abuse Reports against her for sharing IMs (private chats)--now she is claiming that if you IM her, you have "consented" to share those IMs because she put that disclosure in her profile.

I read the Terms of Service, including Community Standards, three times and couldn't find anything resembling that exception she is claiming in her profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I recently had this argument with someone, either here on in the forums, I can't remember which.


I still maintain it is against TOS, unless they tell you, and you agree to having it shared. It doesn't matter what is in their profile, many people do not read profiles (and reading a profile does not mean you accept what is stated in it)


Just my 2 Lindens worth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

What's even worse than the fact that she freely shares private IMs without other people's consent, but is notorious for altering the notecards (by either adding or deleting the words of other people) to make them look bad.  She has caused a lot of friends to fall out with each other by altering notecards and then sharing them in this way.

And yes, she has MANY Abuse Reports filed against her, but to my knowledge hasn't even gotten a suspension from Second Life.  Not sure what it takes to get the Lindens to act on that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Just think of it as another way of saying openly "Don't say anything to me past 'nice weather we're having' and "have a nice day -insert smilieface here' because i can not be trusted with anything else"    Really, the only person she's screwing is herself - nvm looking foolish while doing so.  When they finally get ARed into oblivion they'll look sooooo surprised and they'll wear it well.


In the meantime it's just comedy, someone wearing a kick me i'm stupid sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

More likely they did nothing to you because of the nature of the information you were sharing and for the reasons.

Stating that you can share IMs in your profile and that such a statement clears them of having to abide by the ToS in regard to discloser is akin to saying I can shoot you because you walked on my lawn and because I have a sign posted about said actions it doesn't matter if I own private property or if I live in downtown.  Notifying people doesn't excuse me from the fact that what I did (shared IMs/shot someone) breaks a rule/law it just makes it really easy to find the culprit.

If prior notification, and "passive consent", is all that's needed to abuse the law then the US legal system is even more screwed up then I ever imagined possible.  Now please hold while I edit my profile to exonerate me from griefing and copybotting because after all, if you read my profile and it says "I'm going to steal your stuff now" or "I'm going to annoy the hell out of you" that's passive consent to let me break ToS and do so.

/me rolls her eyes

 

(For those to slow, this is sarcasm to prove a point)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

You are a lawyer?  That is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Terms Of Service. 

 

Sharing IMs doesn't break any US laws, it violates the Terms Of Service.  No one who shares IMs faces criminal or civil penalties under the US justice system for doing so, but they do face sanction by the Lindens for violating TOS.

 

Sorry, but I think your reasoning is misapplied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

ToS only states that "sharing personal conversations without consent is prohibited." In our awesome capitalist society we have law exploits, and passive consent is one of them. Therefore, by stating "Sending me an IM means you agree and consent to your IMs being shared under second 4 of the Community Standards" they either have two choices. 1) Don't IM me. 2) IM and consent. And no, I am not a lawyer, but I was a campaign manager for a US senator so I know whats legal, what isn't, and how you can "twist" the legalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I am not a lawyer, of course, but the example of "passive consent" (called "acquiescence" by American lawyers) is that I make an mp3 player and call it an "iPod", which is an infringement on Apple's trademarked and patented product.  Apple knows of my iPod but fails to object to the use of that name for a long period of time, and so in legal terms has "acquiesced" (consented by silence) to allow me to use the trademark.

That is very different from stating "if you IM me, you consent to have your IMs shared."  Or do I have to insert a statement in MY profile, "if I IM you, I do NOT consent, passively or actively, to having my IMs shared?"

Isn't that getting a bit silly?

It seems to me the Terms Of Service are clear on this point.  "Consent" means active consent:  the other person asks, "May I have your permission to post our conversation or share it with someone else?" and you say "Yes."

The only case in which there might be "passive consent" is if I know the other person is sharing IMs and I do not object.  However, it doesn't matter what US law says, really, it says what the Linden Labs' Terms Of Service says--the TOS is "the law" that governs in this case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Lylani.Bellic wrote:

If prior notification, and "passive consent", is all that's needed to abuse the law then the US legal system is even more screwed up then I ever imagined possible.  Now please hold while I edit my profile to exonerate me from griefing and copybotting because after all, if you read my profile and it says "I'm going to steal your stuff now" or "I'm going to annoy the hell out of you" that's passive consent to let me break ToS and do so.

It is actually. When you signed up for Yahoo/MSN/AOL or any other website that has ever existed, you had to clicky a checkbox that said "I agree to Terms and Conditions." Did you read the entire thing? If yes, you gave active consent. If no, you gave passive consent. Remember Sarah Palin e-mail dude? Everything he did was arguably legal...do you know what he went to jail for? Violating Yahoo ToS. Hacking Yahoo was against its ToS, so they were able to press charges. Because legally, you can hack someone if they say you can. So Yahoo has to put it in their ToS "Dont hack us" so they can press charges if you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Ah yes, but the ToS never says consent meaning active consent, and assumptions don't hold up in a court of law.

 

The ToS only states consent. The law defines consent in many ways. Does this make sense to you at all?

 

Also something tells me this is one of those threads where its like "I have my opinion made up and I just want to see how many people agree with me. Other points of view and/or facts are irrelevant. I just want attention and praise"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Factitious argument.  Nowhere does anyone have to click "I agree" (thus not making it 'passive consent' as you previously stated) before they're allowed to IM said person.


Even if you click "I agree" without reading that's not passive consent, that's ignorant consent.  You activtly thought, for however long or short a time, about if you should click or not and chose to click "I agree" thus it was not passive.  If you know what you're agreeing to is a whole nother matter and is not related to this topic or the specific argumentative points I raised.

Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0


Lylani.Bellic wrote:

 

Factitious argument.  Nowhere does anyone have to click "I agree" (thus not making it 'passive consent' as you previously stated) before they're allowed to IM said person.

 

Even if you click "I agree" without reading that's not passive consent, that's ignorant consent.  You activtly thought, for however long or short a time, about if you should click or not and chose to click "I agree" thus it was not passive.  If you know what you're agreeing to is a whole nother matter and is not related to this topic or the specific argumentative points I raised.

Try again.

Wrong. And people click "I agree" by engaging in the IM and "I disagree" by not engaging. Ignorant consent = Passive consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

this gets asked more and more frequently and the answer never changes, the opinions posted never change, and the actual recourse never changes.  the ToS keeps saying disclosure is a no-no, the disclaimers keep being in profiles, it keeps being true that the only recourse is 'when in doubt AR and let the Lindens sort it out', and the results keep being a crapshoot of how the AR was worded and documented and what Linden you happened to get that day.

and it keeps being STUPID to worry about it because if you say anything in IM to anyone that has that disclaimer it is going to get shared no matter WHAT the damn ToS says because (extreme and impossible case to make a point) even if someone managed to code an automatic banhammer that would boot you from SL if it detected the same text in any other window that ever existed in any IM window, as per ToS, the same text can be posted in yahoo/aim/skype/twitter/blogspot/*.NotLindenSpace.* and NOT be a violation so wtf difference does it make?

 

i have a dog in my yard.  he will eat you whether you read the sign or not.  you might sue me if you survive but you still got chewed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0


Daria.Afterthought wrote:

Wrong. And people click "I agree" by engaging in the IM and "I disagree" by not engaging. Ignorant consent = Passive consent.

 

The US way of defining consent does not mean everyone elses.  Seeing as Linden Labs, as a company, has to abide by US law does not mean that their definition of consent has to extend to all those supported by the real world system.  Because so long as they, as a company, abide by the laws they can do what they want with their ToS and their game.  Thus what they count as consent may or may not include "passive consent" despite how much you want to argue that US law supports it.

If Linden Labs, and their ToS; which you agreed to, chooses to exclude "passive consent" as a valid form of consent then such is the way things will work in world and when dealing with Linden Labs property including these forums.  If such is the case then disclaimers in ones Profile or other listing spots may or may protect one from violating Linden Labs ToS by their actions in accordance with their disclaimer.

Linden Labs writes the rules, much as the US government; along with each government around the world, writes theirs.  It is not up to the individual citizen to choose which to abide by simply because they warn others of their otherwise illegal behavior.  As I stated it's not like I can get away with copybotting, or harassment, or shooting someone just because I place a disclaimer somewhere.  My actions still breach law/ToS of the reigning ruler (government/Linden Labs) and I don't see how a sign on my lawn or in my profile would get me out of court scotch free from shooting, or otherwise assaulting, someone who steps onto my lawn having read; or ignored, the sign I posted.

If such was the case anyone who wishes to steal, kill or any such sundry law breaking actions simply has to state their intentions before hand and those people who don't run away screaming clicked "I agree" and suddenly it becomes legal.  Much the same virtually, if I walk into a store and state to everyone around me and the store owner that I am now going to steal everything around me and if he doesn't eject/ban me in the time it takes me to copy things then that's his consent and Linden Labs can't do a thing to me for the theft I so boldly committed.

Anyone can see that that's a load of bullshit and would never fly in any court or hearing, be it with a real government or Linden Labs (or other companies that use ToSs).  You don't get to break the rules just because you tell people you're going to break them.  Rules are rules, follow them or be punished for breaking them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Technically, it does violate the ToS. Doesn't matter if people put it in their profile. All you have to say is, 'I didn't see their profile.' and then the whole 'passive consent' is thrown out the window.

Not to mention the sharing of private messages violates Internet Laws in both Canada and the U.S.A.

You're not allowed to share any sort of private conversation without direct permission from the person. How do I know? I've had someone related to me attempt to hand out private messages to family members to harm my reputation. Couple days later, he was charged.

All in all, a disclosure means nothing. Sure, they can say 'looking at it gives passive consent' but all you have to simply say is you didn't see theyr profile, therefor the 'passive consent' isn't valid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Abuse Report her.

 

You can't share them unless you get EXPRESS ACTIVE CONSENT from the party waiving their right to keep it private.

 

Like this:

A: gossip, gab, gossip, gab, gossip.

B: OMG, I so have to tell C about that. Can I?

A: Yeah, go ahead and copy the chat log.

 

- If you don't have that, you don't have consent.


Break out the abuse report function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3165 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...