Question regarding 'legality' of IP banning on private regions

[Aethelwine]

.... or as Whirly Fizzle explained a page ago more likely is one person in the house got estate banned causing a temporary IP ban affecting everyone on the connection. A nice added feature to stop casual repeat griefers in their tracks.

I enjoyed the history of vehicles exhibition too. There were some omissions like motorloon but I suppose not every builder would want to contribute.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

The distinction is important, since it's impossible to stream music into SL without collecting the IP addresses of the members of the audience, though obviously the DJ or performer has no reason to store or analyse the collected addresses.

What it means, though, is that there's no prohibition -- at least not that I can see -- on collecting people's IP addresses and then using this information to ban people who share a particular IP address.  

What is prohibited is sharing their IP addresses with anyone else or sharing with anyone else the fact you believe a third party has an alt called  "Anne Alias" based on the fact the two share the same IP address (or even that you think so-and-so must live in or near London, based on her IP address, if she doesn't mention her place of residence in her profile).

---

Yes, this ^^.    I'm glad you covered that part Innula.    I DJ in SL, and am careful with other people's data.  I think I've only looked at the IPs twice, and it wasn't for any collection purposes. 

 

But, IP information can be used to compromise personal privacy.  I was in a club listening to another DJ, when to my great surprise, they started greeting people in voice on their stream, by announcing the towns, states, and countries we lived it.    So, I heard my hometown, and state, announced to the whole club.   I was more than a little irked.   I then proceeded to IM that DJ, and tried to explain that it's against the LL privacy rules to share personal information with others, etc. 

 

That DJ didn't seem to understand how announcing people's RL locations was an issue.  Not realizing, that when there are 15 people in the room, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which avatars go with which locations.   (I crossed that DJ off my list of people to listen to) 

[Randy Hellmann]

I unplug my modem and other electronics each night before I go to sleep each night by shutting off the powerstrip to darken my room and not have noise coming from my computer table.

This gives me a fresh new IP address every moring when I log on. I have read that unplugging your modem for half an hour will give people new IP addresses. So this ban by IP might work for a few minutes on the person who is causing problems.

[Innula Zenovka]

This depends on whether you have a dynamic or static IP address and, if your address is dynamic, whether it's sticky or not.  The adhesive qualities of your IP address seem to depend on your service provider, or at least in the UK they do.   I know friends who can change their IP address simply by rebooting their router, as you can,  but it I want to change my address I would have to ask my ISP (Virgin) to do it for me. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Randy Hellmann wrote:

I unplug my modem and other electronics each night before I go to sleep each night by shutting off the powerstrip to darken my room and not have noise coming from my computer table.

This gives me a fresh new IP address every moring when I log on. I have read that unplugging your modem for half an hour will give people new IP addresses. So this ban by IP might work for a few minutes on the person who is causing problems.

---

My ISP is Time-Warner Cable. I've unplugged my cable modem before going on vacations. Upon returning I've plugged it back in and found that I still have the same IP address. However, every time bring up a new Wi-Fi router (which will have a new MAC address) I get a new IP address. I have a large home and yard, and need two routers to get good coverage. One of them connects to the modem, the other connects to the first via Ethernet. If I wish to obtain a new IP address, I swap the routers.

[Vulpinus]

I have a /29 routed subnet here, so I would be stuck if I needed to change my IP more than six times. Don't want the hassle of having to memorise a new range after all these years. However...

If we ever go IPv6 though, good luck trying to IP ban the 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 IPv6 addresses I have registered.

Not that I plan on being that bad...

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Vulpinus wrote:

Good luck trying to IP ban the 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 IPv6 addresses I have registered.

Not that I plan on being that bad...

---

I may need to borrow some of those from you. It's not that I have plans, it's my nature.

[Vulpinus]

Well, I also have a smaller IPv6 /64 block (that's a 'standard' allocation of only 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses for those not versed in IPv6 notation) for backup, so there are splenty to go around. Yep, I collect them too.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Vulpinus wrote:

Well, I also have a smaller IPv6 /64 block (that's a 'standard' allocation of only 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses for those not versed in IPv6 notation) for backup, so there are splenty to go around. Yep, I collect them too.

---

It'll be tight, but I think we're okay.

[CheriColette]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

..................

 

That DJ didn't seem to understand how announcing people's RL locations was an issue.  Not realizing, that when there are 15 people in the room, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which avatars go with which locations.   (I crossed that DJ off my list of people to listen to) 

---

I hope you reported this too Celestiall

[CheriColette]

I attended the 'The History of the Vehicle in SL' and got the tshirt to prove it  

You are to be congratulated Sapphire on a job well done.  I went a few times because the lag was bad mostly and difficult to get around and see the lot. So I understand the need for restricting the number of exhibitors. 

Shame it  rebounded to you been banned.

[Prokofy Neva]

The theory of the "dynamically changing IP address" is the one of the standard geek fakeroos, invoked to imply that you can never ban somebody because then you can't succeed.

There are two fallacies here.

First, that every IP is dynamic or dynamic speedily. That is just not the case any more with American phone companies anyway. My IP has stayed the same for years -- so have others I see from looking at people who post to my blog.

It's silly to suggest otherwise. Even if an IP address changes dynamically -- slow or fast -- it still changes within a range of numbers, not to some wildly random thing, so ban scripts that allow for this could still keep them.

The idea that "all these people" are going to be affected by this is the second fallacy. They won't -- for the reason indicated in number one. But even if in hypothetical hysterical theory they are, there's another factor -- that they chances of the people affected 3 blocks away from you *would also be in Second Life and trying to log on there* then reduces it by a huge factor.

Theories like this reflect binary thinking, 0/1, all or nothing, "just because you can't do everything do nothing."

But real life is not like this. You can indeed ban by IP and have a very successful run with it because a) it's not dynamic and b) those people theoretically impacted will not be in SL.

If by some fluke they are, they can contact LL and complain that they can't log on for some inexplicable reason and LL can look up their IP bans, see that it cast too far a net and fix it. I bet this happens in 0 instances.

The court cases like that of the late Aaron Swartz who committed suicide rather than serve the 6 months in jail that he was only going to get circumvented his IP address repeatedly and spoofed them *for the purpose of stealing more than a million journal articles*. You have to do this circumvention for the sake of commiting a crime to get the attention of law-enforcement. Then it is a violation of the CFAA and that is a good thing, because you cannot access computers in ways not intended by the owner and cover your crimes. The 4th amendment doesn't protect criminal activity.

[steph Arnott]

This post is nearly a year old. Out of date to pre updates of system advances.Therfore, irelevent to 2016