IM Disclosure Consent

[Lance Swain]

Alright, so I needed to IM someone in regards to a business matter, and got greeted with this:

 (busy response): by speaking with this resident.
You full consent to your chat here being allowed to be copied and Shared
If you Continue this chat

I had no choice but to continue as it's work, no big deal. But couldn't help but think "This can't exclude them from TOS as I never consented, I have no choice as it's my job."

So please, I would prefer a Linden to respond as doing a search on the forums, many people have tried to interpret this the best they could, but with no confirmation from Linden Labs themselves.

[Roxy Couturier]

On 2/24/2019 at 4:08 AM, Nalates Urriah said:

Well, I think you are missing the point and RL courts have disagreed with you...

I think you're missing the point that people have won against ToS/EULA where the terms were unconscionable and abrogated the rights of the user. Especially where legal rights or issues of privacy are concerned.

The person that has this as a busy response wasn't around for RedZone. The RedZone creator also argued that use of the basic platform functions was consent. He was incorrect. Even actively asking was not sufficient. It requires an affirmation by the person whose rights are being curtailed. They have to proactively agree as a separate function.

Even still, with active consent (in that case to be scanned and personal info uploaded to a third party server), it was still the fact that it disseminated that info in SL that got the creator banned.

[Nalates Urriah]

Wow... Everyone seems to have forgotten the court cases over shrink-wrap and basic EULA website agreement acceptance clicks. Even the Linden ToS is a click to proceed to show acceptance.

If anytime you attempt to talk to the person you get the Busy Response with a disclaimer-notice and then proceed, you have given consent. The ToS and Shudo try to define how consent is given. Courts have decided how consent can be considered given. That is what we live with. In Shudo's example their is no visible action recorded that can be offered into evidence. With broken shrink-wrap and EULA clicks the requisite evidence is is there. In Shudo's example, if a combination followed in the text below and that combination were used... it might hold up as use of the combination would be proof of having read. The attorneys on both sides would likely have a field day with the combination use matter.

Having the same notice in the profile simply won't count. You can talk to anyone and never see their profile. As shrink-wrap and EULA's are things to get past that leave a recorded action and stand between the person and the software/whatever they are different than a profile notice that is likely never seen and simply does not stand in front of the one required to give consent. I think most are aware that posted speed limits and stop signs have to be visible to the average driver. If they are obscured by foliage or construction, the law can't be enforced. Profiles would seem to be in the obscured realm.

Basically, Nathrebel did ask... or more accurately warn and place a condition. Courts have decided that consent can be considered given if it can be shown the user saw the notice/warning/challenge and took some action that shows acceptance. So, opening the package, clicking Agree or OK on a ToS/EULA, and/or using the software.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Nalates Urriah

[nathrebel]

ok so he is refering to me 

lets clear this up a little 

1. not in picks or profile

2. i give a busy response when you IM me and that Busy response is me asking your consent

3 it again states if you carry on talking with me you are agreeing to said response

according to TOS i am asking consent and if you dont wish to then dont talk to me in IM

as Clearly stated by TOS i have to ACTIVELY ask for consent

There by i am not allowed to have it as a pick or in my profile as these are not ACTIVELY asking consent

According to a few Lindens what I am doing IS within the TOS rules by ACTIVELY asking consent

Edited February 20, 2019 by nathrebel
spelling