Second Life Group Chat to Discord Integration?

[Wulfie Reanimator]

[something about "letter of law" vs "spirit of law"]

[bigmoe Whitfield]

LL needs to support this for those of us in large groups, since after 16 years and group chat borked most times for the large groups, it would really offset the issues .

[Henri Beauchamp]

11 hours ago, Ember Ember said:

Telling me to reread your message when you appear to have not read any of mine where I stated most of these factors already is extremely rude.

Whatever you wrote earlier is not the issue I reacted about (and yes, I did read your former messages, and even visited the sites you linked to).

What I reacted about is your dangerous shortcut in the very message I reacted to (what you wrote before this message did not shock me), and more precisely, the part in this sentence of yours I cited in my last post:

17 hours ago, Ember Ember said:

because it’s all public information the user already consented to sharing by agreeing to Linden Lab’s TOS.

This shortcut you did means ”LL TOS approval = Discord TOS approval”, and is all wrong. This is exactly what I reacted about. Period.

And there is strictly nothing ”rude” in my post, so please do not be ”rude” in your turn...

[Kathrine Jansma]

23 hours ago, Ember Ember said:

These tools abide by LL’s TOS, and I’m assuming that’s GDPR compliant, right?

GDPR compliance is not automatically transitive. Especially not when stuff like the complex US<->EU regulation with Safe Harbour/Default Contract Clauses, or what its called today comes into play.

You consent not to "data transfer" but to "data transfer for a certain purpose to a certain processor/party".

So bringing a new entity or purpose for data processing to the GDPR party usually adds trouble. And using Discord for group chat is surely either a new `purpose` or a new processor involved.

Thats a problem on-top of any issues with TOS differences between Discord and SL.

[Ember Ember]

13 hours ago, Henri Beauchamp said:

This shortcut you did

You speak to me like I’m a villain for implementing these tools that are well within GDPR (because if they weren’t, LL would most definitely terminate them. These tools, especially Smartbots, have been in use (for years) by groups that Lindens participate in and LL is fully aware of. Especially after the bonniebots fiasco). I do absolutely everything I personally and professionally can with notices, in-world signs, group description, and even when I am there participating in chat myself, to make users aware that their data is being transmitted to Discord. So the argument of “but I wasn’t aware” is willful ignorance on the user’s part. I am putting you on ignore, Henri, because of your unreasonable assumptions and attempting to make the TOS suit your interpretation instead of what it actually means.

[Ember Ember]

7 hours ago, Kathrine Jansma said:

You consent not to "data transfer" but to "data transfer for a certain purpose to a certain processor/party".

So bringing a new entity or purpose for data processing to the GDPR party usually adds trouble.

I appreciate your explanation of this.

[belindacarson]

19 minutes ago, Ember Ember said:

I appreciate your explanation of this.

You haven't answered.

 

Who is the data controller? it'd be interesting to see their take on the GDPR, and I'm a fair fan of making GDPR complaints.

[Henri Beauchamp]

45 minutes ago, Ember Ember said:

I am putting you on ignore, Henri, because of your unreasonable assumptions and attempting to make the TOS suit your interpretation instead of what it actually means.

Just... LOL !

[Ember Ember]

2 hours ago, belindacarson said:

You haven't answered

I linked you the two websites of the tools that we use. It is not my responsibility to put your eyes on the information you are seeking further because 1) you have never ever come to my sim to even participate in these tools that you are aggressively debating against and 2) you didn’t directly ask a me question to begin with.

Also muting you. Thank you for participating in the conversation but no thank you for the aggression.

[Sammy Huntsman]

On 11/2/2021 at 5:27 AM, Henri Beauchamp said:

Emphasis mine again.

Now, giving the excuse that your relay warns the user ”after the very first message a user chats within it's range” is not enough: what about that first message (which, as I understand it, gets transmitted before the resident could see the warning) ?... What if the user wishes to chat freely (chat is not a group that you join after reviewing its charter and agreeing with it) and yet not gives their consent to see their prose transmitted outside SL ?... What if the user cannot see this warning (e.g. on a second visit) or forgot about it, because they muted you for having annoying objects that keep spamming them with object IMs ?... Information of the user and explicit consent given by the user are not the same things !

I am sorry, but the chat (*) relay you are using is against both the TOS and the Community standards. Period.

___________________________________________

(*) It might be OK for a group, as long as the information about the relaying is given in the group charter (by joining the group, the user gives their consent).

Henri, how is having a relay hook, with a group chat in sl to discord sharing your personal info? That makes no sense my man. It is just a means for people to chat in SL and discord simultaneously and in real-time. Chat does not contain personal info, unless you are stupid enough to put your personal info in the chat. Then that is your fault. 

 

[Henri Beauchamp]

7 hours ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Chat does not contain personal info, unless you are stupid enough to put your personal info in the chat.

It may contains private matters, especially during adult role-plays, e.g. about your kinks, which in turn can hint about your sexual preferences, RL gender, etc... It may also contain hints about your RL location (where you live), your political opinions, or other things you would share with persons you chat with in SL (and not necessarily during a RP, but about RL matters instead) when ”face to face” with their avatar, after you came to ”know them” better, or even, more private things you would chat with a group of SL friends, and that you would never share ”in the open” on Internet.

You cannot make any assumption about what a chat post will contain, and whether or not it could lead to private info disclosure (even if indirectly). You cannot therefore relay the chat for everyone to an external service (especially one that exposes that chat publicly) without first ensuring the chatting persons are aware about it.

Here is a RL analogy: you go get a drink in a pub with a group of buddies, and you chat in that pub about stuff (politics, private relations, your health, etc): you do so in a ”public” place (and other clients could overhear your conversation), yet you would sue the owner of that pub should they record your conversation and publish it on Internet... Same thing for SL !

Edited October 24, 2023 by Henri Beauchamp

[Sammy Huntsman]

10 hours ago, Henri Beauchamp said:

It may contains private matters, especially during adult role-plays, e.g. about your kinks, which in turn can hint about your sexual preferences, RL gender, etc... It may also contain hints about your RL location (where you live), your political opinions, or other things you would share with persons you chat with in SL (and not necessarily during a RP, but about RL matters instead) when ”face to face” with their avatar, after you came to ”know them” better, or even, more private things you would chat with a group of SL friends, and that you would never share ”in the open” on Internet.

You cannot make any assumption about what a chat post will contain, and whether or not it could lead to private info disclosure (even if indirectly). You cannot therefore relay the chat for everyone to an external service (especially one that exposes that chat publicly) without first ensuring the chatting persons are aware about it.

Here is a RL analogy: you go get a drink in a pub with a group of buddies, and you chat in that pub about stuff (politics, private relations, your health, etc): you do so in a ”public” place (and other clients could overhear your conversation), yet you would sue the owner of that pub should they record your conversation and publish it on Internet... Same thing for SL !

Okay, well if someone does that. They are responsible for the personal info they put out. That being said, if you are stupid enough to put all that in a public group. Then that is a you problem. I only share that personal info, with people I am really close to in SL and they have earned my respect and trust. That all being said, if you don't like a group doing that. Here is a simple way to deal with it. Leave the group. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Sammy Huntsman

[Henri Beauchamp]

On 10/24/2023 at 8:51 PM, Sammy Huntsman said:

Okay, well if someone does that. They are responsible for the personal info they put out. That being said, if you are stupid enough to put all that in a public group. Then that is a you problem. I only share that personal info, with people I am really close to in SL and they have earned my respect and trust.

There is nothing ”stupid” in sharing info with persons you trust in ”public” places (not so public, for SL chat, just like for a RL pub; their audience is however limited and known from the chatters at the moment they are chatting).

Beside, you cannot use others' ”stupidity” as an excuse to violate a TOS (here, SL TOS).

On 10/24/2023 at 8:51 PM, Sammy Huntsman said:

That all being said, if you don't like a group doing that. Here is a simple way to deal with it. Leave the group.

I never said otherwise, but what I say is that if a place uses such a relaying tool, there must be an unmissable warning about it for everyone visiting that place that their chat will be relayed and recorded (one of the aspects of Discord I personally dislike) outside of SL.

Not saying no one should use such tools, but just saying they must be used in accordance with SL TOS... And I do not see how anyone could disagree with this !

'nuff said !

Edited October 26, 2023 by Henri Beauchamp

[Sammy Huntsman]

13 hours ago, Henri Beauchamp said:

There is nothing ”stupid” in sharing info with persons you trust in ”public” places (not so public, for SL chat, just like for a RL pub; their audience is however limited and known from the chatters at the moment they are chatting).

Beside, you cannot use others' ”stupidity” as an excuse to violate a TOS (here, SL TOS).

Okay, but if you want to talk to people in a public space and someone does something with it. Then you are responsible for that info getting out. 

 

13 hours ago, Henri Beauchamp said:

I never said otherwise, but what I say is that if a place uses such a relaying tool, there must be an unmissable warning about it for everyone visiting that place that their chat will be relayed and recorded (one of the aspects of Discord I personally dislike) outside of SL.

Not saying no one should use such tools, but just saying they must be used in accordance with SL TOS... And I do not see how anyone could disagree with this !

'nuff said !

Well you are assuming that all these tools are not in accordance with LLs SL TOS. 

[Rowan Amore]

On 11/1/2021 at 6:24 PM, Ember Ember said:

The SL local chat to Discord relay that I use is fully compliant with SL's TOS and privacy agreements because it announces and directly messages avatars within it's range that it is relaying their messages. And it does so after the very first message a user chats

That it messages and announces AFTER the person has already spoken and that chat has been relayed is a problem.  

Also, on the link you provided, I could not find their privacy policy.  Could you please provide a direct link?  I've searched the website several times and don't see it.  I found their ToS which mentions their privacy policy but no policy.

http://lethaladdons.com/

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Rowan Amore

[Ember Ember]

On 10/26/2023 at 5:34 PM, Rowan Amore said:

Could you please provide a direct link?

I can’t find it on their website either, so you may want to contact Lethaladdons support directly inworld. I am not an employee or representative of Lethaladdons so I don’t know why their Privacy Policy isn’t available anymore nor do I know where to find it at this point.

[Perrie Juran]

There was someone last night who raised a stink about the Second Life to Discord chat connection in the Builders Brewery group chat.

They maintained that is was a violation of Linden Lab's privacy policies:

"Remotely monitoring inworld conversations (text or voice chat) without the knowledge or consent of all parties involved is a violation of the Terms of Service. If you feel recording a conversation is necessary, post a clearly-visible sign in the recording location so that all Residents who enter can see it"

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Residents'_privacy_rights#Remote_Monitoring

The only justification any one could offer was, "Linden Lab knows that this is going on and hasn't done anything about it."

For all intents and purposes it does appear to be a violation to me.

We may need Linden Lab to clarify this for us.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Perrie Juran
spelling

[Aishagain]

2 hours ago, Perrie Juran said:

The only justification any one could offer was, "Linden Lab knows that this is going on and hasn't done anything about it."

Linden Lab know that a great deal of minor content theft is also occurring and yet they do nothing.  Content theft is definitely against LL ToS so their inaction on any given matter is no guide to its correctness with regard to the LL ToS.

Passive complicity does NOT indicate compliance.

[Perrie Juran]

20 hours ago, Aishagain said:

23 hours ago, Perrie Juran said:

The only justification any one could offer was, "Linden Lab knows that this is going on and hasn't done anything about it."

Linden Lab know that a great deal of minor content theft is also occurring and yet they do nothing.  Content theft is definitely against LL ToS so their inaction on any given matter is no guide to its correctness with regard to the LL ToS.

Passive complicity does NOT indicate compliance.

I have a suspicion  you may not like my reply.

Intellectual property theft is rampant across the entire Internet. It is not limited to just Second Life.

To police this has sadly become an insurmountable task.

At the inception of the Digital Millennial Copyright Act there were some attorneys who counseled companies to not be proactive, that it could actually put their Safe Harbor status at risk.** And even if it did not put their status at risk exactly how is LL supposed to go about policing content. How are they to know who may or may not have a license to use certain content? How are they supposed to go about vetting content? There must be a million textures in use in SL. I have some sounds I use in SL that I personally recorded in RL. How do I go about proving that those sounds belong to me?

I understand how maddening this can be for content creators. But unless a creator files a claim LL's hands are pretty well tied.

**I apologize for not documenting this. Years ago I had a hard drive go belly up on me and I lost all the book marks that I had on this subject.

[Aishagain]

14 hours ago, Perrie Juran said:

I understand how maddening this can be for content creators. But unless a creator files a claim LL's hands are pretty well tied.

Quite so, Perrie.  No, I don't like it but 'twas ever thus in SL.

My point with regard to "privacy" remains.

The only way for anyone in these days to be truly private is to not use the Internet at all.

There is a circle here that can never be squared.

[Love Zhaoying]

I must be missing something.

If "Linden Lab doesn't do anything about it", does that make it "ok"?

That is certainly a bold justification for something that, on the surface, would seem to be against the TOS.

 

[Wulfie Reanimator]

53 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I must be missing something.

If "Linden Lab doesn't do anything about it", does that make it "ok"?

That is certainly a bold justification for something that, on the surface, would seem to be against the TOS.

 

The root of the disagreement is different views on what is private information.

Your public avatar name, your public profile picture, and the things you say in a public group chat is at stake.

When people can't come to an agreement about that, the discussion moves to "well how are the rules enforced?"

There is a written rule in the TOS. Large, high-profile groups are breaking the literal rule. Linden Lab does not enforce it, though they are aware of it.

My question is, do all rules have to be enforced literally and in every case? That isn't how justice systems work. Many laws are ignored, not actively enforced (unless you do something worse related to it), or excused due to other circumstances. Rules should always have flexibility, or things get ridiculous.

I don't think any part of your avatar's profile is private information, and I don't think the things you say in a public group chat should generally be considered private information.

The rule in the TOS is good and purposeful. I don't think that rule is targeting this specific case.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Love Zhaoying]

16 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

The root of the disagreement is different views on what is private information.

Your public avatar name, your public profile picture, and the things you say in a public group chat is at stake.

When people can't come to an agreement about that, the discussion moves to "well how are the rules enforced?"

There is a written rule in the TOS. Large, high-profile groups are breaking the literal rule. Linden Lab does not enforce it, though they are aware of it.

My question is, do all rules have to be enforced literally and in every case? That isn't how justice systems work. Many laws are ignored, not actively enforced (unless you do something worse related to it), or excused due to other circumstances. Rules should always have flexibility, or things get ridiculous.

I don't think any part of your avatar's profile is private information, and I don't think the things you say in a public group chat should generally be considered private information.

The rule in the TOS is good and purposeful. I don't think that rule is targeting this specific case.

I would think that one "easy" way to help with this particular situation is, when joining a group chat that "openly" shares the chat with an external service such as Discord, to display a "splash screen" to the user whenever joining the Chat.  For example: "Notice: This Group chat is shared with the Discord channel at [URL].  By joining this chat, you acknowledge that your communications will be shared with the Public external service Discord."

Of course, there would need to be a way to DO that (group chat options that display a splash screen when you join the chat, etc.).

I mean, how hard would that actually be?!? 

I guess invoking a shorter "reminder" version of the "Splash" message each time you are included "involuntarily" in a Group chat by someone messaging the Group would be a nice feature too. 

* glares at Linden Lab *

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Love Zhaoying
Edited stuffs to say other stuffs

[Wulfie Reanimator]

16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I mean, how hard would that actually be?!? 

It would also be good form if for example Builder's Brewery made it more clear in the group's description that the group chat is integrated with their Discord server, instead of just linking it. I don't think it should be required to explicitly state that, more like good manners.

The  people who I've seen raise a stink about it in the group chat did not share something sensitive and then find out it went to Discord. They usually start their argument without prior communication. I don't think those people are acting in good faith.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

It would also be good form if for example Builder's Brewery made it more clear in the group's description that the group chat is integrated with it, instead of just linking it.

Wait, what? Guess I missed it - "Builder's Brewery" is using Discord integration?  Aren't "Builder's Brewery" supposed to be a "shining example" of Second Life "good guys"?!?  If so, how disappointing that they DON'T mention the Discord integration.

Sorry, I read too quickly, or skim, or read and instantly forget.  (Comprehension? That would matter if I had retention.)