using firestorm and the "nearby" tab

[Ashlyn Gedales]

does anyone know what the little dollar signs mean when you look at people nearby?

what is thte difference between 1 dollar sign and more or less. Are there 3 dollar signs?

I have 2,000L in my account. What would it say for me?

[Tari Landar]

Here you go..

http://wiki.phoenixviewer.com/people_nearby_tab

 

[Alwin Alcott]

i am very sorry but you are over  8 yrs in SL and have this question about 2000 L in your account?.. even if i try, i can't take that serious.

 

 

[Aethelwine]

I only ever paid any attention to the range and never wondered even for a fleeting second what the other columns were for. Interesting to be directed to the page that says even if the graphic only seems to be showing anything going on in some of the columns.

[Ashlyn Gedales]

thanks for the answers. I joined in 2008 and never played. I  just got back and if you read my other questions, you'll see im a noob. I just got firesttorm because everyone said it was better.  :-)

just wanted to say i had money in my acct because i didnt want it to seem like i was looking  for people with money to give me. just wanted to know what this means.

[Tari Landar]

If you check the link I gave it explains the nearby tab, but you an also check the rest of firestorm's wiki for more information too. They have an inword group, though truth be told I've never used it, lol, since I can usually find what I'm looking for with a quick google check or forum search

 

[Ashlyn Gedales]

Tari, yes tysm for that link and the info that theres a group, because theres all these features that i dont know how to use.

Really appreciate it.  

[Nalytha]

---

Alwin Alcott wrote:

i am very sorry but you are over  8 yrs in SL and have this question about 2000 L in your account?.. even if i try, i can't take that serious.

 

 

---

I'm confused by this post. 

[Nalytha]

Why does LL feel it's important to let everyone know you have payment information on file? 

[Bobbie Faulds]

Some places won't let you in if you don't have payment info on file. They see this as a way to screen out griefers where age of avi would work better. It's info you can see on anyone's profile so it's not like it's a secret.

[Nalytha]

---

Bobbie Faulds wrote:

Some places won't let you in if you don't have payment info on file. They see this as a way to screen out griefers where age of avi would work better. It's info you can see on anyone's profile so it's not like it's a secret.

---

I totally get that people use a feature that is available. What I'm wondering is why it is available at all. I can't think of many things where I announce to everyone my payment information is available. Displaying who is a premium member isn't as bad because that doesn't necessarily mean your payment information is on file currently. It simply means you are a premium member. 

 

I did a Google search for Second Life stolen payment information which garnered thousands of results. Of course those aren't all true, but I can't imagine that some are not true. 

 

The sign between Premium member and payment info currently on file is subtle, but it is there. What I think would be better is to not have those dollar signs at all and instead only show if a member is premium in their profile and ONLY if the user checks some sort of agreement for it to be. It should be an option. 

[Perrie Juran]

This subject (PIOF) comes up a few times a year it seems.

You need to go back to 2006 when LL introduced free basic accounts to really understand the background behind it.  Residents and especially Land Owners were concerned that the free accounts would be an open door for hackers and griefers.  This old blog post will shed some light on it.

http://secondlife.blogs.com/change/2006/06/update_open_reg.html#more

 

[Nalytha]

Thank you for that link. It provides interesting context, though many of the comments voice the same concerns I did. =(

[Pamela Galli]

Just a FYI, 99.99% of people who report they have been "hacked", it turns out have actually been phished, or given their passwords to a trusted friend (who cleaned them out).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tari Landar]

---

Nalytha wrote:

 

 

I did a Google search for Second Life stolen payment information which garnered thousands of results. Of course those aren't all true, but I can't imagine that some are not true. 

. 

---

I wouldn't bother trying to link the two concepts of payment info stolen, and the fact that people can see in one's profile that, at some point, they had payment info on file. For one, once it is there, it is there, and there is no removing it, lol. Even if you no longer have payment info on file, you once did, so it remains.  

As for payment info stolen, that happens so often in rl and even on websites, it's unreal. The odds of it happening because of sl are not even minimal, slim to none comes to mind and slim just walked out the door, having the piof indicator does not in any way, increase those odds. More likely than not, in the instances of it *actually* happening(ie, that payment info gets compromised in some manner) it is largely, if not entirely(and it nearly always is)due in part to something the account owner did to lose access to his/her  own account(commonly referred to as being hacked, although that's not even the term I'd use).

Really, there's no correlation between the two, no matter how much people want to make it so. One could make the same correlation of someone getting robbed in public, due to carrying a wallet/purse, and then losing his/her bank card/credit card/etc to that thief, except in that case, the correlation makes sense. Odds are if someone has a wallet or purse on him/her, he/she has money, in some form. 

The visual representation of an avatar, at one point or another, having payment info on file is not a current representation in many cases, and certainly far less likely to result in getting that payment info "stolen" than carrying your wallet or purse on you in public..anywhere. 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Nalytha wrote:

I did a Google search for Second Life stolen payment information which garnered thousands of results. Of course those aren't all true, but I can't imagine that some are not true.

---

That Google search brought up 4,040,000 results, which is not exactly "thousands". However, that's just an estimate by the Google engine. It doesn't mean that there 4,040,000 results. I'll explain how they estimate the number if you like. Onto the results...

The top result is about a theft of SL information, and the subsequent use of a credit card. I haven't looked into it, so I don't know the facts or truth of the matter.

The 6th result is about hackers making off with SL data back in 2006.

Those are the only results on the first page that are related to this sub-topic - except that page 2 of this thread is also listed.

You didn't look at the results closely enough, so your statement that "those aren't all true, but I can't imagine that some are not true." is somewhat misplaced. You didn't look closely enough at the results.

 

[Nalytha]

I give. I fold. You guys are fine with wearing a sign that says your credit card info is available. Fine. I get it. I don't have the energy to argue. It's obviously your world and only your world. Anyone who has a problem should see themselves to the door.

 

But really, I do fold today. I'm glad you guys are great with the status quo.

[Phil Deakins]

Well there's only 1 Google result about a person's payment info actually being stolen in SL, so it seems to me that the status quo is alright The chances are that that one result was due to the user's own actions. I don't see why anyone would be concerned that other users can know that they've paid LL some money. It's expected.

[Tari Landar]

---

Nalytha wrote:

I give. I fold. You guys are fine with wearing a sign that says your credit card info is available. Fine. I get it. I don't have the energy to argue. It's obviously your world and only your world. Anyone who has a problem should see themselves to the door.

 

But really, I do fold today. I'm glad you guys are great with the status quo.

---

Responses like this are why I have a difficult tie having an actual discusion with people about things. I like discussions, especially intelligent ones..but ...blah....then someone goes and ruins it.

I fully understand you don't LIKE the idea of having the indicator there, whether or not I share your sentiment. The part I, and perhaps others, don't udnerstand is the justification for why. You used a search on google about payment info being stolen, as a base on which to build up "you're just telling people you have money on file" argument. It doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps if you could explain it better, it would.

I'm not necessarily saying the indicator is a good thing, just simply saying the justifications I have sene people use to NOT have it, make no sense. Maybe if someone could come up with a reason not to have it, that doens't include "but someone could SEE that, and it would make my account vulnerable to being stolen", I could understand better. So far, no one, including you, has, though.

Again, I go back to my previous comparison. To take a wallet or purse out in public, is to indicate that you, likely, have some kind of money on your person. Does that exponentially increase your odds of being robbed? Probably not. Does it raise your odds in some fashion, probably so.

But the PIOF indicator does not do that, becuase it's not real, it's not accurate, it's not in real time. My account says I have payment info on file, it has since the day I opened this account. I do tno actually currently have a payment info on file, and I haven't, for a while now (changed cards, too lazy to update, lmao). But by some accounts, just having the PIOF status indicator there, makes me vulnerable...and it doesn't. Good luck stealing payment info that doesn't exist, lol. That's how a great many accounts actually are. Loads of folks will put payment info in, use it to pay for whatever they need, then take it back off again. It's actually quite common. So, being agaonst that indicator due to the potential for theft, doesn't make sense, just based on that fact alone. Now, if someone wants to give some other reason for not having the indicator there, that doesn't incldue that, I'd love to hear it. It very well may change some minds, or at least open up folks' minds to the possibility for other reasons. I haven't seen one yet, though.

 

[mikka Luik]

Was curious and yes it seems my build testing alt (which is rarely allowed out unaccompanied) does indeed have payment info on file. Which is news to me unless it secretly applied for a CC when I was asleep....

Yep, RealTime it is not - thats a hangover from the time I got it qualified to pass the mesh upload thing mostly for beta stuff.

[Pamela Galli]

What is real about it is that the account has given RL info to LL. So, for example, if someone decides to cause damage to intellectual property, through griefing or copybotting, it is easier to take legal action.

[Rolig Loon]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

What is real about it is that the account has given RL info to LL. So, for example, if someone decides to cause damage to intellectual property, through griefing or copybotting, it is easier to take legal action.

---

And that's the real justification for having the indicator, and why landowners will often filter visitors on the basis of PIOF.  It's relatively unimportant to know whether someone has money -- we all do, somewhere.  Once someone has PIOF, though, it means that there's a way for Linden Lab to go after them in RL if they cause trouble in SL. (Parenthetically, this is also one of the reasons why Linden Lab does not accept most prepaid "gift" cards as payment methods -- they can't be traced, so there's no easy way to get someone who skips out on paying a bill.)  So, displaying your PIOF status is roughly equivalent to saying that you have a verified ID on file.

All of this, of course, raises the question of how often Linden Lab actually does go after bad guys outside of SL.  We'll never know the answer to that one.  Still, if a potential griefer knows that he's not anonymous, that has to be some sort of deterrent.