Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rizzy Khaos

Revoke the use of Security Orbs in Mainland

Recommended Posts


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

Further, there would not be the scripting ability to eject or teleport home if LL objected to that.

 

This seems a category error. Scripts can do all sorts of things that violate ToS. They can implement a slot machine, a bank, or paint prims with explicit images on G-rated land. What we know is that under some circumstances, those underlying LSL functions must have been considered valid or they wouldn't exist.

I don't know of anything in the ToS nor its various attachments that specify conditions under which a landowner may not eject or even, god forbid, teleport home an intruder, so as far as I know, landowners are permitted to be complete jerks about those particular functions -- with complete impunity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

The permission I was referring to was that of the
avatar being teleported.


I think I outlined where this permission comes from, but it's also mentioned in the Wiki. It's bestowed upon scripts owned by he landowner, or deeded to the land-owning group. The function deliberately has no room for the targets consent, as this is partially tied into the land permission named "Eject and freeze residents on parcels" - functions that also do not need the consent of the target because they're for land management purposes.

Which, in short, suggests that landowners get this permission out of a need (seen by Linden Lab) to control activity on their land. It has a very narrow use-case, it's hard to imagine any other purpose for it continuing to be accessible via LSL.


Theresa Tennyson wrote (with my underlining):

A security orb can teleport an avatar home when the avatar enters that particular parcel even though the avatar
may not realize
they're even
entering
the parcel. Even if you turn lot boundaries on they're useless if you're in the air or water covers them.


So, to clarify, you're saying that this is an information issue? You'd be happier if restricted parcels were clearly visible to travelling avatars, instead of a functional change to script (or landowner) behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Freya Mokusei wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

The permission I was referring to was that of the
avatar being teleported.


I think I outlined where this permission comes from, but it's also mentioned in the Wiki. It's bestowed upon scripts owned by he landowner, or deeded to the land-owning group. The function
deliberately
has no room for the targets consent, as this is partially tied into the land permission named "Eject and freeze residents on parcels" - functions that
also
do not need the consent of the target because they're for land management purposes.

Which, in short, suggests that landowners get this permission out of a
need
(seen by Linden Lab) to control activity on their land.

Theresa Tennyson wrote (with my underlining):

A security orb can teleport an avatar home when the avatar enters that particular parcel even though the avatar
may not realize
they're even
entering
the parcel. Even if you turn lot boundaries on they're useless if you're in the air or water covers them.


So, to clarify, you're saying that this is an information issue? You'd be happier if restricted parcels were clearly visible to travelling avatars, instead of a functional change to script (or landowner) behaviour?

It's the information I want - I'd prefer a short time-out to making things visible. Even if you turn off parcel public access with an avatar on the lot the system gives them fifteen seconds to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to look into some of the laws of the US, seeing as LL is based there and in the TOS it states you have to abide by them in SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

It's the information I want - I'd prefer a short time-out to making things visible. Even if you turn off parcel public access with an avatar on the lot the system gives them fifteen seconds to leave.


Okay, thanks. :)

I'm not aware of any existing instruction WRT teleport behaviour (save the informal 'polite ask' of 10 seconds posted earlier in the thread). Given its links to land management, I see why the function was implemented in the way that it was.

However I'd totally support a feature request to bring a change in behaviour either to the viewers display (for visibility) or delay to bring llTeleportAgentHome into line with other, similarly-used behaviour.

I think I'm all clear, appreciate the time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:



Your splitting hairs.

The TOS says nothing about most everything in SL.  The TOS explicitly allows certain things and forbids certain other things. 
Everything not forbidden is allowed.

For example: Where for does the TOS allow pixel bumping?  Where does it allow you to 'kill' someone resulting in a TP home?

Further, there would not be the scripting ability to eject or teleport home if LL objected to that.

 

Think very carefully - are you
sure
you want to say that? Are you
really, really
sure?

For us in the U.S. that's Constitution 101.

The Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:



Your splitting hairs.

The TOS says nothing about most everything in SL.  The TOS explicitly allows certain things and forbids certain other things. 
Everything not forbidden is allowed.

For example: Where for does the TOS allow pixel bumping?  Where does it allow you to 'kill' someone resulting in a TP home?

Further, there would not be the scripting ability to eject or teleport home if LL objected to that.

 

Think very carefully - are you
sure
you want to say that? Are you
really, really
sure?

For us in the U.S. that's Constitution 101.

The Tenth Amendment:

"The
powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
states
, are
reserved to the states
respectively,
or to the
people
."


Ayup, combine that with the Commerce Clause, the "Necessary and Proper" Clause and the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments and it's all clear as a buttonhook in a well...

...full of paint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

You might want to look into some of the laws of the US, seeing as LL is based there and in the TOS it states you have to abide by them in SL.

Not sure it is really relevant, but so far as I can see (from the couple of articles I googled) under Californian Law landowners have a duty of care for Trespassers ie the way they protect their property should be proportionate and minimum necessary. Also, accidentally going on to their property, where for example there are no walls to designate the boundary would not be considered trespassing in a misdeamenor sense anyway.

Applying those principles to SL, would require land owners to put up walls where they have banlines and orbs, or give reasonable warning time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:



Your splitting hairs.

The TOS says nothing about most everything in SL.  The TOS explicitly allows certain things and forbids certain other things. 
Everything not forbidden is allowed.

For example: Where for does the TOS allow pixel bumping?  Where does it allow you to 'kill' someone resulting in a TP home?

Further, there would not be the scripting ability to eject or teleport home if LL objected to that.

 

Think very carefully - are you
sure
you want to say that? Are you
really, really
sure?

this is a jurisdictional thing and is pretty interesting. It comes about historically thru how law is seen and evolves in different societies

i first learned about this reading Prokofy's blog a while ago now. And has made quite a lot of sense to me as I read up further on it. Other academic and legal papers and writings also since

+

in countries that evolved from english common law (since the change from feudalism, Magna Carta) then the common law principle is Proscriptive. Meaning that all things that are not proscribed by law, are legal. Might sometimes not be moral, but when not proscribed are not illegal

other countries/societies that never changed from feudalism in the same way, retained the principle of Prescriptive law. France and Russia are examples of this, and there are other European examples as well. Altho all these societies are evolving to the Proscriptive Principle as well, just not at the same pace as others

when revolution came to these societies and the power was stripped from the Lords and given to the Commons, the Commons assumed to themselves, expressed thru their Parliaments, the Presciptive Principle once exercised by the Lords/Crown/Royalty

Prescriptive Principle. Meaning that everything is illegal unless specifically granted by law. In practice this meant in the olden days we could never do anything unless we got a Royal Assent warrant to do so. And when the Royalty was depowered (or abolished) then the Commons (thru the Parliament) said that by law we have to get a Permit to do stuff, a permit issued by the State

the USA in the main, follows the Proscriptive Principle, given that its legal history draws largely from english common law. The implications for SL is that the proscriptive principle also applies inworld, given that LL are subject to US law, both literally and in principle

 

eta. typso

and add

i think a difficulty that we can sometimes encounter in SL is the technical permissions system

that we can sometimes see and equate the technical permissions system as the equivalent of a Permit

the implications of this are the powers that a State permit carries. Meaning that the possessor of a State-issued permit is backed by the power of the State provided that the possessor observes the requirements of the law governing the use of the permit

the deeper issue is that the law, and what can be done with the power of a Permit when the law is set aside, are not necessarily the same thing. A reading of the ToS and Linden-written standards and explanatory guidelines, shows this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another off-topic post from me. :P

You (Phil) might remember the recent nonsense about banning legal-highs in the UK, in an oxymoronic effort to limit fun that served nobody. Of course, it ended up failing to ban the primary intended target and didn't change UK law from its basis in common law.

The contention from social conservatives has always been that the ability to "sell first, legislate later" - they've argued - has always left the population open to risk from untested chemicals created by altering existing illegal chemicals into just different enough mixtures that then become legal (because new chemicals have to be explicitly banned, which takes time). In reality of course, widespread abuse of this principle has never occured and the opportunity to disrupt without seeking approval from authority is something that drives innovation and creativity.

There's parallels for SL in this story. It's always interesting to me when someone criticises the freedoms enshrined in common law, and the angle from which they choose to do it. It's hard for me to imagine that SL was ever intended to be a prescriptive environment, given its history and background. I'd also work against any change intended to make SL less free, regardless of imagined intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:


the USA in the main, follows the Proscriptive Principle, given that its legal history draws largely from english common law. The implications for SL is that the proscriptive principle also applies inworld, given that LL are subject to US law, both literally and in principle

 


One wrench in that situation is that proscriptive systems are very rarely written in the way that says, "You can't do these five specific things; everything else you're good to go." Things that are prohibited are often quite vaguely stated to make it harder to exploit loopholes. This is particularly the case in something like a Constitution, which is meant as an overall framework rather than something specific - i.e. the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Annnnnd that's all you get. Not too useful for specific situations.

Usually Constitutions are backed up with a court system and set of statutes, which can be spectacularly specific (check out Second 602 of the California Penal Code, which is the section on trespassing.)

We can consider the Terms of Service to be the Constitution of Second Life, and they're equally as vague. For instance, Amethyst justifies the use instant-kick security under this clause of Second 4.8:

You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land must be consistent with these Terms of Service, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify these Terms of Service.

On the other hand, there's also the clause in the TOS that's used to proscribe griefing:

6.2 You agree that you will not post or transmit Content or code that may be harmful, impede other users' functionality, invade other users' privacy, or surreptitiously or negatively impact any system or network.

You agree to respect both the integrity of the Service and the privacy of other users. You will not:

[...]

(iii) Engage in malicious or disruptive conduct that impedes or interferes with other users' normal use of or enjoyment of the Service.

There is no list of what "malicious or disruptive" conduct is though. It could be argued that instantly teleporting someone home because they unknowingly crossed an invisible line between public and private property is disruptive conduct that interferes with normal use of the Service. Or it could be argued that it's simply controlling access to your land. In the absence of a statue and/or specific official statement there's no way of knowing whether it's permitted or not.

Incidentally, there's another clause we all agreed to:

Exercise common sense and your best judgment in your interactions with others (e.g. when you submit any personal or other information) and in all of your other online activities.

Like everyone's doing that one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes is defo a lot of mixing of the two principles. Most jurisdictions have a mixture of both. Is just that as generational time goes by, then what changes are made are more toward the proscriptive side

a lessening of any requirement to get permission from the others that make up our community/country to do what it is we want, provided that doing what we want does not cause harm to others

basically, with freedom to do as we please comes responsibility. Which when we take on ourselves the responsibility along with the freedom, then this leads to a lessening of prescriptive measures (by law) to regulate harmful behaviour. The more responsibility we take onto ourselves then the less harm we do

the outcome of this leads ultimately to no need for law at all. Freedom absolute

+

if we take the responsibility of freedom, and also accept the requisite obligation to do no harm that flows from this, then we would not shoot anyone who is crossing our SL water or land or sky, even tho it is in our power to do so

while at the same time, is in our power and a exercise of our freedom and responsibility, and is ok to do, to shoot those who would do us actual harm. Like a griefer for example

simply treating everyone on our SL property as if they are a griefer and shooting them out of hand is irresponsible. Irresponsible in the sense that we dont bother to take responsibility to identify our targets before unloading our weps on them. A such is antethical to freedom

antethical in this sense meaning that freedom and responsibility are mutually inclusive. That while we are irresponsible then we can never be absolutely free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing, in this thread, people throwing around the words rights, referring to US Constitutional rights, etc. First this is a privately owned company. Your tier is basically the rental fee for server space. SL is played by people all over the world.For land matters and how they are managed, some old lawsuits not withstanding, SL is basically a country of its own. So the "rules" are what LL says they are as they are the benevolent dictators of SL. 

They grant  us permission to use the server space. Private islands are just that, private servers that are rented by that owner. They can make their own rules. Even if a person has a full sim on the mainland, they don't have the same rights as a private sim has since there are rules about what you can and can''t do on mainland sims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Security orbs come in all flavors: Sometimes they give you adequate warning, sometimes they don't. I ran into one yesterday (someone who bought land that had once been an inworld store that had moved to Marketplace) that just said "You are not welcome here." but didn't kick me off right away. That was cool, because I tend to freeze when I get a warning, or head the wrong way in panic.

What I would like, instead of an outright ban, would be some kind of app that would allow me to block access to my tiny parcel to anyone who sets up a security orb with less than a ten-second warning.  I realize that is a pretty pathetic revenge, since I suspect the folks who own the security orbs would never want to visit me, still, it would make me feel better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have one on my working platform. It has a 20 meter range set and you get 10 seconds to leave or get booted; 10 secons should be plenty. Mind you my platform is at 2K up so no reason for anyone to really be up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that as travellers then we should set up our own parcels the way we would like to be treated ourselves. Lead by example I think

when I do have a mainland then is always next to a public right-of-way, set up so that: no banline, scripts and object entry on, rez on, auto return 15 mins. And is always 30 LI spare out of my 117 for anyone who wants to rez a vehicle. The 30 LI spare I use to rez stuff I might get for myself anyways as well. So is not a biggie this for me

+

when I am home myself then I always have parcel visibility off, and if getting nekkid trying on skins and that, then my banline goes up as well. Altho I divide my parcel so that my dressing room area is 8x8 with a posestand in the middle and just banline that

to see me nekkid then a traveller has to be over my 8x8 and stopped and gawking. If they do stop then I will shoot them no worries (:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have many boats and either sail or motor boat on The Blake Sea and surrounding sims all the time. Many of the sims there have covenants that require residents to give passage for boats. I always respect a persons privacy, but on the other hand if your covenant says you may only have an orb for your residence then that is the way you should set it up. If I spend an hour sailing and enter a sim where an improperly placed orb boots me and returns my boat, then I am not a happy camper.

Why people rent these parcels not bothering to read the covenant is beyond me. I typically report orb violators immediately. I no longer send a friendly IM about the violation of water space directly to them. Having security orbs set so high takes away from what SL represents.

Having an orb on your residence is like locking your house. I totally agree with that. It is a shame that so many peeps who rent parcles and sims from other fail to abide by the rules set up by the landlord/owner. It ruins it for everyone. The whole idea of having property on a place such as The Blake Sea is for the water and the boating community.

I do agree that there are many who are here that will violate any rule that exists, thus I have an orb on my residence to keep peeps from (ahem) doing things in my home. LOL! Which seems to be a common problem in SL. As for my water area, it is open for boaters to cross to the next sim as it should be done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bobbie Faulds wrote:

I actually have one on my working platform. It has a 20 meter range set and you get 10 seconds to leave or get booted; 10 secons should be plenty. Mind you my platform is at 2K up so no reason for anyone to really be up there.

correct and agree. Is situational

is absolutely no reason at all for anyone to be flying round in skybox territory

+

sometimes a person can show up bc they have a LM to the previous owner/tenant's place. But they werent going to stay anyways. So whether they leave in 0 or 10 or whichever is no biggie. For sure some people get miffed when they get summarily booted in these situations, but I think is yanno really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bobbie Faulds wrote:

I keep hearing, in this thread, people throwing around the words rights, referring to US Constitutional rights, etc.
First this is a privately owned company. Your tier is basically the rental fee for server space. SL is played by people all over the world.For land matters and how they are managed, some old lawsuits not withstanding, SL is basically a country of its own. So the "rules" are what LL says they are as they are the benevolent dictators of SL. 

They grant  us permission to use the server space. Private islands are just that, private servers that are rented by that owner. They can make their own rules. Even if a person has a full sim on the mainland, they don't have the same rights as a private sim has since there are rules about what you can and can''t do on mainland sims.

You are mistaken. Yes, U.S. laws etc. have been mentioned, maybe accompanied by the word 'right' or 'right', but most uses of that word weren't anything to do with the U.S. laws/constitution. It's mostly been used in the following manner:- I have a right to do something because the entity in charge has given me that right - because I paid for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bobbie Faulds wrote:

I actually have one on my working platform. It has a 20 meter range set and you get 10 seconds to leave or get booted; 10 secons should be plenty. Mind you my platform is at 2K up so no reason for anyone to really be up there.

Rufferta is wanting a system that bans owners of security devices, that give less than 10 seconds to clear off, from her own land. What you wrote sounds like a security device, and not such a system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(First, I have to admit that I didn't read all topic)

As a sailor in SL, we commonly face these issues: ban lines or orbs that instantly send you home. Our approach as a community has been for years to contact the parcel owner, explaining our issue (our not theirs) and ask them to give a minimum time to get out of their parcel when inadvertdly we enter one. Most respond well, changing their devices, others don't. Well, we have to live with this.

So, for a communal cruise, we make charts as this one, with ban/orbs marked in red (cyan for rez places in case of returning from a crash). Even with this, sailing in a narrow channel as in NW in the map, it is easy to enter the red forbidden areas, but is the best we can do.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Vania Chaplin wrote:

(First, I have to admit that I didn't read all topic)

As a sailor in SL, we commonly face these issues: ban lines or orbs that instantly send you home. Our approach as a community has been for years to contact the parcel owner, explaining our issue (our not theirs) and ask them to give a minimum time to get out of their parcel when inadvertdly we enter one. Most respond well, changing their devices, others don't. Well, we have to live with this.

So, for a communal cruise, we make charts as this one, with ban/orbs marked in red (cyan for rez places in case of returning from a crash). Even with this, sailing in a narrow channel as in NW in the map, it is easy to enter the red forbidden areas, but is the best we can do.



It would be nice if the regular Linden Map included the security orb information. Banlines I can see, and usually avoid, but I never see the security orbs until they are right over me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks (:

+

when look at this map then can see that the number of red parcels is relative small compared to all the parcels on the route

is pretty much true this as well for most of the mainland grid. When we do hit a banline or get murdered by a orb, like more than once in a session, or have a bad run over a few days, then can sometimes seem that the whole world is out to kill us deliberately

+

when as you say, when asked, lots of people will respond quite positively when asked if they can put some time delay on greater than 0. Quite often people (particularly newish people) will get a orb and just plonk it down and press Go

same when they newish and put the parcel banlines on, to protect their skybox at 4000m. They just dunno what they dunno. So when they find out then they just go oh! sorry, and take the banlines down. bc they now know that the parcel banline doesnt do the job that they thought it did, and they go get a orb for their skybox

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly and sail a lot and this problem of orbs isn't so bad. It's normally only mentioned by new flyers. 

Boating isn't an issue with orbs, really, it isn't. I crash on sim crossings 100 times more than I hit orbs while sailing. Of course, if it's in the blake sea then I normally IM the estate owner to gently mention the parcel - because that's a zone that should remain clear.

Planes and helicopters, the orbs are a little more frequent. If you are exploring a new area in your plane then yes, it happens, just shrug and accept it, find a new rez-zone and keep going, make it part of the fun of exploring. But, if you are flying old well-known routes then your flightplan should be pretty much locked in and well travelled. You know your landmarks and you know where it's safe and where you must avoid.

 

 

What I suggest to get used to the OP is have a fun day one weekend, try the three continent sail/fly. Leave from Hollywood or SNO, fly north to continent 2, then right to continent three. BUT make a rule with yourself, try to make it at all costs. Sim crossing crashes, orbs, ban lines, friends IMing you so you run off world while sailing those silly little protected passages the Lab created... the lot. Make it a challenge and see if your skills are good enough to make it.

 

 

For my own mainland, I normally don't orb (or just when I'm home), keep my ban lines down, save 200 free prims, allow rez, scripts, and give 10 minutes return. Even put a dock on my river access for people to stop, relax and cuddle on if they like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...