Jump to content

Question about the "Common Wisdom" regarding IM sharing.

Pandora Nova

By Pandora Nova,
in General Discussion Forum

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1009 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Pandora Nova

Pandora Nova

Posted
Posted

So, we all know the common wisdom of "can't share IMs according to TOS" and all the silly "no u" picks people have, but I got curious and actually looked up the relevant part of the TOS and found it is written infuriatingly vaguely:

Quote

Sharing personal information about other users, either directly or indirectly, without their consent—including, but not limited to, gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual orientation, alternate account names (including account statuses, such as whether it is on hold, suspended, or active), and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their user profile—is not allowed. Except for the purpose of reporting abuse or any violation of policies to Linden Lab, the remote monitoring, posting or sharing of conversations without a participant’s consent are prohibited.

This is a direct copy and paste from the TOS and I only bolded the part I want to point attention to. The clarification I am seeking is in the wording of that last part. As written, the wording implies you need consent from a participant. Not all participants. A participant. This wording is also very similar to real world one party consent laws. This would mean that the common wisdom is wrong and that this part of the TOS isn't about sharing conversations, but about spying on conversations as a third party.

I would like it if a Linden could chime in and clarify, and after clarifying that they would change the wording from "a participant's" to "all participants" if my reading is wrong, or to change it to "one of the participant's" if I'm reading it right. The current verbiage is just vague enough that it could be both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pandora Nova

Pandora Nova

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

1. That only applies to LL controlled sites. 

2. A participant would be the other party in the conversation. Obviously you can not give consent for someone else.

1. I know and that was not the question. I am well aware that the TOS is basically worthless.

2. I disagree. When I'm in a conversation with you, you are a participant and so am I. We both count as "a" participant. One party consent laws exist and are written in a similar way. My point stands that the TOS is written in a vague way and it should be clarified. Vague rules make for uncertainty.

Edited by Hana Nova
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alwin Alcott

Alwin Alcott

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Hana Nova said:

 My point stands that the TOS is written in a vague way and it should be clarified. Vague rules make for uncertainty.

Quote

Disclosure that violates the Terms of Service

Three activities violate the Second Life Terms of Service and will result in a warning, ban, or suspension from Second Life:

  • Disclosing personal information about another Resident
  • Remote monitoring of conversations
  • Disclosing private Second Life conversations

    ...
    ...

    Disclosing private Second Life conversations

    Sharing or posting a conversation inworld or in the Second Life forums without consent of all involved Residents is a violation of the Terms of Service.

    NOTE: This does not include posting of chat to social media sites or other websites. Posting such logs on web pages, emailing them, or printing them out and posting them on utility poles in the "real world" -- are all actions beyond the scope of the Second Life Terms of Service. ; while that might be illegal, but those laws must be enforced by the proper law enforcement agencies.

    "Conversation" means text that originally came from Second Life chat or Second Life instant messages. If it's totally unattributed, then it isn't considered disclosure. Additionally, Residents are not punished for sharing or posting a comment such as "Bob Resident said, 'You're the greatest!'"

it's pretty clear to me .. btw remember you don't only agree to the TOS, but also all other guidelines.

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Residents'_privacy_rights

Edited by Alwin Alcott
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drake1 Nightfire

Drake1 Nightfire

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Hana Nova said:

1. I know and that was not the question. I am well aware that the TOS is basically worthless.

2. I disagree. When I'm in a conversation with you, you are a participant and so am I. We both count as "a" participant. One party consent laws exist and are written in a similar way. My point stands that the TOS is written in a vague way and it should be clarified. Vague rules make for uncertainty.

Right, see how worthless it is if someone steals your IP. 

California does not have one party consent, it is illegal in California to do so. Therefore that part of the ToS isnt vague. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigmoe Whitfield

bigmoe Whitfield

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Right, see how worthless it is if someone steals your IP. 

California does not have one party consent, it is illegal in California to do so. Therefore that part of the ToS isnt vague. 

define ip?  ip address is public information,  intellectual property on the other hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pixie Kobichenko

Pixie Kobichenko

Posted
Posted (edited)

11.5 The applicable law and venue is in San Francisco, California.

You agree that this Agreement and the relationship between you and Linden Lab shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to conflict of law principles or the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods. Further, you and Linden Lab agree to submit to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in the City and County of San Francisco, California, except as provided in Section 10 regarding arbitration. 

- So I would err on the side of CYA & follow California 2 party consent.

Edited by Pixie Kobichenko
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kathlen Onyx

Kathlen Onyx

Posted
Posted (edited)

Disclosing private Second Life conversations

Sharing or posting a conversation inworld or in the Second Life forums without consent of all involved Residents is a violation of the Terms of Service.

NOTE: This does not include posting of chat to social media sites or other websites. Posting such logs on web pages, emailing them, or printing them out and posting them on utility poles in the "real world" -- are all actions beyond the scope of the Second Life Terms of Service. ; while that might be illegal, but those laws must be enforced by the proper law enforcement agencies.

"Conversation" means text that originally came from Second Life chat or Second Life instant messages. If it's totally unattributed, then it isn't considered disclosure. Additionally, Residents are not punished for sharing or posting a comment such as "Bob Resident said, 'You're the greatest!'"

 

Easy solution is to just post the conversation on a blog and direct people to the blog or some other platform other than Second Life or the forums.  Unless the conversations involved real names along with illegal activity I doubt law enforcement would even get involved or care and even then I doubt real world action would be taken. If someone is that worried about their conversations getting out then only have those conversations in voice, on another platform. I'm sure that could be prosecuted more easily if recorded without your consent than some written conversation where there real names of the participants are not even revealed. People worry too much about inconsequential things.

7 hours ago, Hana Nova said:

I would like it if a Linden could chime in and clarify, and after clarifying that they would change the wording from "a participant's" to "all participants" if my reading is wrong, or to change it to "one of the participant's" if I'm reading it right. The current verbiage is just vague enough that it could be both.

LL isn't going to spend money to change their TOS, a document that was surely vetted by their attorney, because a resident finds it "vague".  

Edited by Sam1 Bellisserian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doris Johnsky

Doris Johnsky

Posted
Posted (edited)

It appears to me you are trying to find a way to skirt the TOS for some reason.

 

Let's look at it another way, shall we?

You, myself and 5 other people are having a discussion in a community chat.   You say "That Bill Schmoe that comes to our region is a dork and waste of our time." 

So I ask one of the OTHER 5 people in the conversation, "Say, Maxine, what Hana said about Bill is an awful thing to say. If it's ok with you I'm going to copy that part of the conversation and send it to Bill."

Maxine says, ok and I send the relevant part to Bill. Who then jacks you up for talking behind his back.

See the issue here?

It is always better to err on the side of caution.   

Edited by Doris Johnsky
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arduenn Schwartzman

Arduenn Schwartzman

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Sharing or posting a conversation inworld or in the Second Life forums without consent of all involved Residents is a violation of the Terms of Service.

Many people's Profile Picks: "Except as per when you read (or not read) this disclaimer, in as much, and notwithstanding."

Edited by Arduenn Schwartzman
Added extragratuitous legalese expensive words
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silent Mistwalker

Silent Mistwalker

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, bigmoe Whitfield said:

My bot years and years ago, used to have his own blog, where he would email his im's with people to the website for posting,  had a few people get mad, but the prevision in the tos allows it.

I'm curious as to the purpose and if the website was open to public viewing? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silent Mistwalker

Silent Mistwalker

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Doris Johnsky said:

It appears to me you are trying to find a way to skirt the TOS for some reason.

 

Let's look at it another way, shall we?

You, myself and 5 other people are having a discussion in a community chat.   You say "That Bill Schmoe that comes to our region is a dork and waste of our time." 

So I ask one of the OTHER 5 people in the conversation, "Say, Maxine, what Hana said about Bill is an awful thing to say. If it's ok with you I'm going to copy that part of the conversation and send it to Bill."

Maxine says, ok and I send the relevant part to Bill. Who then jacks you up for talking behind his back.

See the issue here?

It is always better to err on the side of caution.   

Doing what you described here is a violation of the ToS/CS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silent Mistwalker

Silent Mistwalker

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Hana Nova said:

So, we all know the common wisdom of "can't share IMs according to TOS" and all the silly "no u" picks people have, but I got curious and actually looked up the relevant part of the TOS and found it is written infuriatingly vaguely:

This is a direct copy and paste from the TOS and I only bolded the part I want to point attention to. The clarification I am seeking is in the wording of that last part. As written, the wording implies you need consent from a participant. Not all participants. A participant. This wording is also very similar to real world one party consent laws. This would mean that the common wisdom is wrong and that this part of the TOS isn't about sharing conversations, but about spying on conversations as a third party.

I would like it if a Linden could chime in and clarify, and after clarifying that they would change the wording from "a participant's" to "all participants" if my reading is wrong, or to change it to "one of the participant's" if I'm reading it right. The current verbiage is just vague enough that it could be both.

Let's see if this won't help get a response.

@Kirsten Linden

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finite

Finite

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Hana Nova said:

1. I know and that was not the question. I am well aware that the TOS is basically worthless.

2. I disagree. When I'm in a conversation with you, you are a participant and so am I. We both count as "a" participant. One party consent laws exist and are written in a similar way. My point stands that the TOS is written in a vague way and it should be clarified. Vague rules make for uncertainty.

California is a 2 party consent state as well as 10 others states. 

Edit: Reading up on this it appears party consent laws don't apply to messages sent over the internet. The courts view it as leaving a message on a voicemail. One of the articles I found was from 2000 (very early in the internet age) and the other was undated so it's possible this has since changed. There are also reasonable expectation of privacy laws to consider which I didn't research or anything before typing this. But from at least the two articles I read no legally you wouldn't be violating any party consent laws but you'd still be violating SL's TOS. Meaning they can still warn or ban you for sharing convo's verbatim. If them doing such causes you some financial harm (which is possible) you could probably take them to court but I'm pretty sure the TOS agreed to when signing up would hold up.

Edited by Finite
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Polenth Yue

Polenth Yue

Posted
Posted

Something to note with this, it does not apply to copying a private conversation to send as part of an abuse report. I say that because this was tried by someone who was trolling a group by IMing abuse to random people. When he realised I was filing an AR, he thought he could scare me out of it with that gem. Someone who was unsure of the rules might fall for it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pussycat Catnap

Pussycat Catnap

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Polenth Yue said:

Something to note with this, it does not apply to copying a private conversation to send as part of an abuse report.

On that note. I did that once, and the Linden responding to my report told me I was in violation for sending them the log...

I've since taken to paraphrasing and noting the time, and letting their own screenshot with AR tool capture whatever - but I'm also not sure if any report I've sent in the years since has involved chat. As they don't get involved in 'personal disputes' there are very few examples where an AR would need a chat log.

 

Edited by Pussycat Catnap
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silent Mistwalker

Silent Mistwalker

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

On that note. I did that once, and the Linden responding to my report told me I was in violation for sending them the log...

I've since taken to paraphrasing and noting the time, and letting their own screenshot with AR tool capture whatever - but I'm also not sure if any report I've sent in the years since has involved chat. As they don't get involved in 'personal disputes' there are very few examples where an AR would need a chat log.

 

I had that happen once. I simply quoted the TOS back at them and that was the end of that stupidity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1009 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...