Security orb height limits needs to be capped

[bebejee]

Will the lab address this issue, I was flying my blimp hundreds of feet above, could only see land patches here and there no details of anything, watching an interesting documentry on my TV no need to steer, crusing from point A to B in a straight line and after an hour some arse holes security orb gave me 30 seconds to scram, while trying to further raise the height of the blimp SL viewer started jamming maybe it was info overload for it, and eventually crashed.

Had the security orb not bothered me all would have likely gone well, might have reached the place, why would it have an issue with something flying at a height where you cant even see whats below you other than a land mass, this needs to stop, ban lines and securitu orbs should be skin tight around the property and not spread out even an inch nor go hundreds of feet into the sky.

 

 

[BarcodeBrian]

They have addressed the issue.

They have given land ownership and regulation controls for all parcels from borders to include all the space above. There is no free range depending on height. Furthermore, the places most people will want to secure will be around their skyboxes.

A lot of us would like to have seen a free range area in the air, but I think that ship sailed years ago. You can't truly blame the orbs or landowners when they are not the ones with the misunderstanding. Those with a 30 second warning are among the nicer ones.

[ImaTest1488314069]

Have you considered the possibility that you were indeed encroaching on someone's land? 

Some people do have things in the sky. Sometimes things they do not want others visiting.

Whether you like orbs or not, LL allows their use.

[steph Arnott]

"some arse holes security orb gave me 30 seconds" well as i pay over US$90 per week i think i have the right to be "some arse hole with a security orb".

[Aethelwine]

---

steph Arnott wrote:

"some arse holes security orb gave me 30 seconds" well as i pay over US$90 per week i think i have the right to be "some arse hole with a security orb".

---

I pay about the same and whilst i understand you have that right, I don't believe you should, because it spoils everyone elses enjoyment.

If someone bought the land next to me and put up banlines or an intrusive orb it would seriously affect the value of my land. Whilst they can do that, they shouldn't.

No one would allow such a thing on private land in real life, so why does or should Linden Lab allow anti-social behaviour?

[Qie Niangao]

---

bebejee wrote:

... why would it have an issue with something flying at a height where you cant even see whats below you

[1]

other than a land mass, this needs to stop, ban lines and securitu orbs should be skin tight around the property

[2]

and not spread out even an inch nor go hundreds of feet into the sky. 

---

1. This is part of the problem: When the "Parcel Privacy" setting was introduced, it applied all the way up, with the (unintended?) consequence that prying eyes can see all that was to be hidden if only they can get above the parcel at any altitude. That wasn't such a big deal back then because interest lists were driven by the avatar's location, not the cam's, so stuff thousands of meters below simply would not rez, but with the new (and much improved) behaviour of the interest list, it's a trivial matter to detach the cam arbitrarily far from the avatar and stuff will rez in front of it.
2. The actual response of a security orb really is limited to the parcel boundaries. There are, nonetheless, junk scripts that can be configured to spam passersby with idle threats. There's no penalty for incompetent scripting, nor for landowners making poor choices when shopping for gadgets.

As a scripter, one of the most frustrating things about the "privacy" and "security" features is that too few of them are exposed to scripts, and instead rely on the landowner's manual, often ill-considered settings. Hence parcels end up with hyper-paranoid "security" that combines the worst of scripts and manual settings -- and, significantly, there's no way for scripts to reverse the manual settings when the parcel's occupants aren't around. Scripts can easily recognize there's nobody around to "protect" and turn off their scripted intrustion responses, but there's no way for them to remove manual "parcel privacy" nor whitelist access restrictions.

[Aethelwine]

Often land owners don't even know what they have done because they are in the same group and don't see the effect until someone points it out to them.

[Alwin Alcott]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

I pay about the same and whilst i understand you have that right, I don't believe you should, because it spoils everyone elses enjoyment.

 

No one would allow such a thing on private land in real life, so why does or should Linden Lab allow anti-social behaviour?

---

it is the same old discussion, and it will go as always.... yes or no...

And in SL is it YES you can close your land for everybody else. YOU pay,,, YOUR land, YOUR rules.

 

And to your last remark?... try going to get a cup of tea at Obama's or Q. Elisabeth in London..or even the old woman two street away... wanna bet you find closed doors too?

 

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Often land owners don't even know what they have done because they are in the same group and don't see the effect until someone points it out to them.

---

they don't have to know... they want privacy, and if the orb only scans withing their borders they have the full right to it.

 

 

People who want to travel over...sorry but thats how it is

[Aethelwine]

They don't set up flashing banlines all year around that make their seasonal xmas decorations look tasteful though. They would not get planning permission.

Nor do they get to shoot down air traffic flying over their land.

 

And my point was in my experience when I have pointed it out a lot of the land owners have not been aware of what they have done and agreed they also complain about it when they see it on other peoples lands. The land settings are not as transparent about what they do as they should be.

 

And yes they are currently entitled. Just as I am to set up a screen on my border saying Warning Banlines in massive letters as a public service statement whether they like it or not. Neither situation is desirable, because landowners on SL are given priveleges they shouldn't be and that they wouldn't have in real life.

[steph Arnott]

Firstly RL land owners only has rights to 50 meters, above that it is owned by the government, secondly i do not use orbs (they are not that reliable any way) or barriers, but that is not the point. The "some arshole with an orb" comment sure is the point, why do some feel that passing out insults about those that do, after all they are paying for their SL land  and not this person complaining.

BTW, if you fly over another country without permissions they send a missile or 3 at mach 5.  .

[Aethelwine]

---

steph Arnott wrote:

Firstly RL land owners only has rights to 50 meters, above that it is owned by the government, secondly i do not use orbs (they are not that reliable any way) or barriers, but that is not the point. The "some arshole with an orb" comment sure is the point, why do some feel that passing out insults about those that do, after all they are paying for their SL land  and not this person complaining.

---

Because if you are flying around enjoying yourself well away from anyones builds and you get shot down by someone with an orb or in real life a missile over their land their calling them an **bleep** is, to my mind, and I would think any reasonable persons, pretty well descriptive.

[Aethelwine]

---

steph Arnott wrote:

 

BTW, if you fly over another country without permissions they send a missile or 3 at mach 5.  .

---

You don't get 1024m2 countries in rl.

If you want to run land with the priveleges of a country, get yourself a private sim, and get off mainland.

[steph Arnott]

"well away from anyones builds" well what makes you think it is not well away from my builds?

[steph Arnott]

"You don't get 1024m2 countries in rl." and you do not get a Tardis complex at 3900 meters in RL.

[Alwin Alcott]

---

Aethelwine wrote

If you want to run land with the priveleges of a country, get yourself a private sim, and get off mainland.

---

no,.... if you want to fly go buy a private sim ... the ones that fly want freedom, or go to a community area that allows it,  orb owners want privacy on land they own...

[Gingir Ghoststar]

There are plenty of no fly zones, IRL too. And with the now very cheaply bought Drones, you're going to find that privacy and no flight zones get relooked at IRL too. So your argument is invalid. 

[steph Arnott]

"get yourself a private sim, and get off mainland."  mine is a private sim, another assumption of yours.

[Aethelwine]

Quite clearly from my context the you was used in a general not a personal way.

[Aethelwine]

Indeed you don't. And a security system around your sky build is fine. No one is objecting to about them. What is a problem are low time limit orbs that extend the full height of the parcel obstructing air traffic for every other user and owner on the mainland

[Aethelwine]

Mainland is a community that allows it and over 99% of the owners there get that. It is the 1% that don't that spoil it for everyone else

[Phil Deakins]

I'm glad that this thread appeared. We've gone through it all in the past, although not for some years, and nothing will come of it except that we will argue the toss from various points of view. The reason I'm glad though is because I very recntly updated the security orb that I sell, and I forgot to include the option of having it auto-turn off when there is nobody to 'protect' within its range. I'll add that now.

[Phil Deakins]

Security orbs used to have scan limit of 96m (radius), and could not affect anyone outside that range. This same discussion was had, in depth, back then. Now that they can cover the exact parcel at any height, the discussion is even more relevant, and the objections to quick-acting orbs are much more justifiable, so, even though nothing of the SL system will change, I do think it's a worthwhile discussion to have, because it can inform people who use the orbs how they can affect people who they had no desire to affect, which may cause some to extend the warning period.

I've certainly been affected by it, as I said in my previous post. It's also caused me to add another facility to my security system - that of covering the exact parcel but only up to a user-settable distance, possibly with a maximum. If it does nothing else, this thread has caused some positive changes in the system that I sell.

[ImaTest1488314069]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Indeed you don't. And a security system around your sky build is fine. No one is objecting to about them. What is a problem are low time limit orbs that extend the full height of the parcel obstructing air traffic for every other user and owner on the mainland

---

OP probably was near a skybox, considering complaint history.

OP's viewer crashed before the OP could get away, because OP wasn't even looking at the damn screen in the first place.

A person wants to wander around in SL, it's a good idea to watch the screen.

In RL I've fences that surround all of my property. I've a right to remove you if you decide to try and go over them. They can even be electric if I want.

All of my neighbors have them too.

We need them because people believe they should be allowed to go where they want any time they want. 

I pay for my property. If you want access that isn't there, ask. Otherwise it's mine to do what I want within law. TOS in SL.

In SL I don't use orbs or ban lines. But if I want to LL lets me. Your opinion doesn't matter, LL's does.

There's lots of things I think people shouldn't do in SL. My opinion doesn't matter there either.

SL is big. It's not hard to find places where you can go. Kind of stupid to moan about places you can't.

 

 

[sirhc DeSantis]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Mainland is a community that allows it and over 99% of the owners there get that. It is the 1% that don't that spoil it for everyone else

---

Please source actual data for that figure - using that magic "1%" - really....

If you wish to try to bring in any RL aspect how about the one where you have to file a flight plan eh?

Or even, wow, how about asking the person who is paying for the land you wish to fly over if it would be ok beforehande and, now I know this is the hard part, actually waiting politely for a response and abiding by their wishes? Again, very Real Life.

I am a vehicle enthusiast (complete with adventures with crossings) but as primarily a ground user I stick to defined clear areas, ie roads - try as a 'kommunity' establishing safe corridors.

Or, as an alternative, petition the Lab to make, say, the top 1 k of airspace free passage - and then follow through by insisting they reduce tier by the 25% that opening this would remove from the payer control. Good luck with that.

(I have several custom made security systems BTW that do allow a free zone - experience has been that even with a polite info message informing anyone passing over they get ignored. Now, I have one that auto locks parcels whenever I am not there. Tough).

[Phil Deakins]

Why would you want to auto-lock parcels when you are NOT there? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way round.

Incidentally, there is no "top 1k". The 'sky' goes up and up indefinitely..