New Feature: Scripted Agent Estate Access Discussion

[Coffee Pancake]

10 minutes ago, M Peccable said:

Yes, they can do that, but as an approved roaming bot they would not be allowed to do that.

Considering how we got to the point that LL enacted a policy change, I very much doubt LL will ever authorize any 3rd party scripted agent and expecting them to take responsibility severely misunderstands the seriousness of the situation.

Data privacy is serious to the point LL were careful not to be seen as offering council in the new terms.

10 minutes ago, M Peccable said:

That seems workable to me without too much extra workload on LL.

That depends if time spent by lawyers counts as work.

Your suggestion for sanctioned bots is unworkable and legally unsound.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Coffee Pancake

[xDancingStarx]

24 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

you want to see if someone you saw the other day is online at one of their usual spots, so you tp around and look. It's a slow and cumbersome experience, tps are slow, things have to load, you get distracted by shiny and will give up after a few places.

Sorry but no. What has to load? Nothing has to load, you get your nearby list immediately. You can even have all objects and avatars not rendered. And you can just tp on. Get distracted by shiny.. right. And the valid alternative for this is to set up a bot network? Come on, some balanced views please. The suggestion to not list avatars in a private parcel was great and is an awesome compromise in my eyes. Not in yours, I know.

Edited April 3, 2023 by xDancingStarx

[M Peccable]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Your suggestion for sanctioned bots is unworkable and legally unsound.

I respectfully disagree.

[Silent Mistwalker]

41 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Simple case .. you want to see if someone you saw the other day is online at one of their usual spots, so you tp around and look. It's a slow and cumbersome experience, tps are slow, things have to load, you get distracted by shiny and will give up after a few places.

A bot or a bot net can check every region for every avatar and either tell you exactly where they are, or present a statistical model that predicts their likely movement, online times and list potential alt accounts.

That's no different than stalking someone when you dig down.

[Prokofy Neva]

3 hours ago, Quartz Mole said:

It strikes me that anything a bot confined to a single region of Bellisseria can do to invade people's privacy can be done just as well by a single script in an ordinary prim sitting on the same parcel.   Bots are useful because they can do things that can be done only by using the viewer -- like managing groups or teleporting round multiple regions, but if a competent scripter wants to grab people's data, they need only a script and a prim, and if they decide to wear the prim as a HUD when they visit busy fairs and events, they can grab a lot more than they can if they leave the prim sitting somewhere.

I've got no strong views either way about scripted agents on Bellisseria or anywhere else, but I don't really see what the objection is to static bots.    

And in general, if people have actual evidence of bots or scripts invading people's privacy, I don't see why they can't take the evidence to LL or even to the appropriate Data Protection Authorities in their home jurisdiction -- way back when I reported Red Zone to the Information Commissioner's Office here in the UK (they told me there was nothing they could do, but that was before GDPR and the equivalent Californian legislation).   

It's not difficult to make a complain if people have a genuine reason to believe that an abuse is actually taking place, as opposed to mere suspicion that something might be happening behind their backs that they don't know about.

The most interesting thing about this thread is that you haven't closed it.

[Ceka Cianci]

The only thing new is the estates getting this new option.. there isn't any new terms, just existing terms moved to where they could be seen in the scripted agents policy..

If we had new terms we would be agreeing to a new terms of service.

 

[Katarin Kiergarten]

On 3/31/2023 at 12:46 PM, M Peccable said:

botphobia

While I agree with some of your concerns, and as an estate owner I'd probably whitelist your bot(s) and a few others that have a track record of doing good work and generally don't intrude if that option was available, making up a new phobia to dismiss the very real concerns that a lot of us have with relentless bots doesn't enhance your position in this debate. We simply don't want them. We don't have to have a reason that pleases any bot operator. No means no—it's a consent issue, not masses of SL users all having a psychological problem because bot operators don't like that we can now say no in a meaningful way. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Katarin Kiergarten said:

No means no—it's a consent issue

This.

[M Peccable]

3 minutes ago, Katarin Kiergarten said:

making up a new phobia to dismiss the very real concerns that a lot of us have with relentless bots doesn't enhance your position in this debate.

It was never meant to dismiss the concerns, not at all. It is just that in my opinion the recent explosive growth in the number of roaming bots is what has caused an explosive growth in pubic outcry, and that is what has motivated LL to act at this point in time. The term is simply meant to summarize all of that into one word. It saves a lot of typing.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 minutes ago, M Peccable said:

It was never meant to dismiss the concerns, not at all. It is just that in my opinion the recent explosive growth in the number of roaming bots is what has caused an explosive growth in pubic outcry, and that is what has motivated LL to act at this point in time. The term is simply meant to summarize all of that into one word. It saves a lot of typing.

I don't think there's any question that the sheer number of bots around recently has brought this to the forefront -- but early on, the issue really centred around data privacy, and the publication of scraped info openly online without consent. The explosion of bots in-world actually came a bit later -- and was arguably, perhaps, a function of the attention that that web site was receiving.

I think, more importantly, that the problem with the term "phobia" is that it usually denotes an irrational fear of something -- in literal terms, a mental condition of a sort, rather than a justifiable concern. "Transphobia," "homophobia," "arachnophobia," et al. are instances. And I think that serves as an injustice to those who have legitimate concerns about how bots were being employed.

So, I understand that this was "shorthand," but unless you do intend to imply that concerns about bots are irrational, you might want to find another term?

[Katarin Kiergarten]

14 minutes ago, M Peccable said:

It was never meant to dismiss the concerns, not at all. It is just that in my opinion the recent explosive growth in the number of roaming bots is what has caused an explosive growth in pubic outcry, and that is what has motivated LL to act at this point in time. The term is simply meant to summarize all of that into one word. It saves a lot of typing.

Thank you for clarifying. It is unfortunately a much-overused tactic in RL to dismiss people for enforcing their boundaries, so there might need to be more typing to avoid that appearance here. 

And yes, as with all "this is why we can't have nice things" situations, a smaller number of people quietly taking advantage of some flex in the design of a system so they could do useful work that wasn't particularly intrusive quickly turns into an outcry when less ethical individuals (and more individuals in total; we have now reached a critical, unacceptable mass of such visits / intrusions given the number of people / projects / bots that have appeared lately) devise ways to exploit that same flexibility. And that's part of the problem we have here. It was ever thus. Now we have to have more specific rules because of those who can't operate or don't possess their own moral compasses.

Systems are always stuck with responding to those who wish to exploit them unethically. I, for one, am thrilled that my landing points now only contain desired visitors again. So for the moment, until the new waves of rule circumvention begin, at least, this measure is very appreciated indeed.

But perhaps in the debate about allowing "good" bots there can be a solution that allows those with good track records to continue, even if it's an opt-in feature (good for land / estate owners) rather than opt out (good for bot operators). Time will tell. Meanwhile I expect there will be functionality disruptions in such services—this is why we can't have nice things. I tire of exploitative people quickly as I am sure do many here. We still have to deal with them and pay the costs, unfortunately. It's like trying to do business on a handshake—that only works as long as everyone involved operates with the same level of integrity and consideration for others. I have never once seen that last in a large system.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Katarin Kiergarten
missing "a"

[M Peccable]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So, I understand that this was "shorthand," but unless you do intend to imply that concerns about bots are irrational, you might want to find another term?

Ok, point taken. But I thought it applicable to a group that, as a result of a knee-jerk reaction, demand an immediate banning of all bots (as this thread shows) without thinking it through. I personally consider that irrational.

But I will definitely refrain from using the term in the future.

Edited April 3, 2023 by M Peccable

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Katarin Kiergarten said:

But perhaps in the debate about allowing "good" bots there can be a solution that allows those with good track records to continue, even if it's an opt-in feature (good for land / estate owners) rather than opt out (good for bot operators).

We need a way to whitelist trusted bots. That turns this into an "opt-in" system, whereby those who have proven that they can trusted apply for admission, and receive it -- or not -- from estate owners.

I don't think that there is way to do that now, if an estate turns "deny_bot" on. But maybe I'm incorrect?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, M Peccable said:

Ok, point taken. But I thought it applicable to a group that, as a result of a knee-jerk reaction, demand an immediate banning of all bots (as this thread shows) without thinking it through. I personally consider that irrational.

But I will definitely refrain from using the term in the future.

Thank you, that is genuinely appreciated.

For what it's worth, I don't think that either of the two posters here I've seen arguing for an outright ban on bots fall into the "knee-jerk" category: both are very well informed on the issues, and both have a track record here of considered responses.

But there's no denying that I've seen some irrational responses to the bot infestation from other quarters.

[M Peccable]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Thank you, that is genuinely appreciated.

For what it's worth, I don't think that either of the two posters here I've seen arguing for an outright ban on bots fall into the "knee-jerk" category: both are very well informed on the issues, and both have a track record here of considered responses.

But there's no denying that I've seen some irrational responses to the bot infestation from other quarters.

Yes. And in my opinion if you sent Jay Leno out into the world with a microphone and he asked a typical cross section of residents "Do you think all bots should be banned from SL?", the typical response would be "Sure, why not?", without them giving it any thought. That is actually the "group" I am referring to when I was using that now retired term.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, M Peccable said:

if you sent Jay Leno out into the world with a microphone

(Pssssst! Say "Samantha Bee," or maybe "John Oliver." You're sounding extremely unhip, and will NEVER convince the kool kids this way!)

🙃

[M Peccable]

24 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

(Pssssst! Say "Samantha Bee," or maybe "John Oliver." You're sounding extremely unhip, and will NEVER convince the kool kids this way!)

🙃

I would, but I have no idea who those characters are...

Besides, Jay Leno is as hip as it gets! 😎

Edited April 3, 2023 by M Peccable

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

(Pssssst! Say "Samantha Bee," or maybe "John Oliver." You're sounding extremely unhip, and will NEVER convince the kool kids this way!)

🙃

Samantha who?

hehehehe

[xDancingStarx]

43 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

the term "phobia" is that it usually denotes an irrational fear of something

One problem is that the average person will connect "bot" with something bad. Aimbot. Farmbot. TrafficBot. Etc (I don't wanna open the discussion again why a traffic bot doesn't need to be a "bot"). Therefore a call like "ban all bots!" is more likely to resonate well among the average user than "Allow bots." If you were to give the whole of SL users right now the choice between "ban all bots" and "don't ban all bots", the vast majority will vote for "ban all bots". And this would be indeed irrational, which doesn't mean that there are no rational arguments against bots.

Edited April 3, 2023 by xDancingStarx

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, xDancingStarx said:

If you were to give the whole of SL users right now the choice between "ban all bots" and "don't ban all bots", the vast majority will vote for "ban all bots".

Given that stark a choice, to be honest, I'm not sure I wouldn't choose an outright ban as well.

The point is, though, that LL has steered a middle course. It may not be one you're happy with -- and I get that. We need, maybe, to finesse this a bit, with some tweaking -- white lists, parcel level controls, etc. -- but it's a bit artificial in my view to be arguing for -- or against -- either of these extreme cases?

[Galaxy Littlepaws]

I was curious and checked the Jira ticket regarding being able to check the "scripted agent" flag with LSL. It was accepted in February. So once that is implemented we should be able to gather that data and use it how we see fit. https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-233274

[Katarin Kiergarten]

8 minutes ago, xDancingStarx said:

One problem is that the average person will connect "bot" with something bad. Aimbot. Farmbot. TrafficBot. Etc (I don't wanna open the discussion again why a traffic bot doesn't need to be a "bot"). Therefore a call like "ban all bots!" is more likely to resonate well among the average user than "Allow bots." If you were to give the whole of SL users right now the choice between "ban all bots" and "don't ban all bots", the vast majority will vote for "ban all bots". And this would be indeed irrational, which doesn't mean that there are no rational arguments agents bots.

One of the errors this expresses, I think—at least, I would argue it is an error—is to give equal stakeholder weight to all SL users, when some would be oblivious to the issues caused by roaming bots. Should the opinions of the uniformed / unaffected carry equal weight when devising solutions? I would say the rational answer is that no, they shouldn't. People who don't care might not see a reason to advocate for changes for those who do care, until or unless they learned more about the issues in question. 

So we have to start with considering the validity of a poll in which many people with little to no knowledge of the problems were allowed to weigh in without their input carrying less decision-making influence. I am sure some onlookers who are more egocentric would chafe at that, but expertise and experience count for a lot in relevant contexts; ignorance counts for little in most contexts, unless you're doing QA testing perhaps or needing to learn some other aspect of "the average user's" experience when encountering an unfamiliar situation. For those of us affected this situation has become quite familiar, as responses about this issue have shown. 

That might be a very different poll outcome from one that asked the general SL population the same questions. 

[xDancingStarx]

12 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

We need, maybe, to finesse this a bit, with some tweaking -- white lists, parcel level controls, etc. -- but it's a bit artificial in my view to be arguing for -- or against -- either of these extreme cases?

I'm 100% in agreement with a balanced approached like that. I just wanted to say that "botphobia" may be actually a thing that exists, among many people who, it is how it is, only know the bad aspects of bots, in games in general. I think it's natural that this exists. Then again, I think the one who used the term already clarified that he didn't want to dismiss the valid concerns expressed in this thread.

[Rick Nightingale]

24 minutes ago, Galaxy Littlepaws said:

I was curious and checked the Jira ticket regarding being able to check the "scripted agent" flag with LSL. It was accepted in February. So once that is implemented we should be able to gather that data and use it how we see fit. https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-233274

Yeah, getting it accepted was a good start. There's no timeline on when it will be implemented though, and I would imagine will need a fair bit of testing to make sure it doesn't break something else.

Still, given the amount of interest in the topic one way or another I would hope it's being treated with some importance.

[MoiraKathleen]

18 minutes ago, Katarin Kiergarten said:

One of the errors this expresses, I think—at least, I would argue it is an error—is to give equal stakeholder weight to all SL users, when some would be oblivious to the issues caused by roaming bots. Should the opinions of the uniformed / unaffected carry equal weight when devising solutions? I would say the rational answer is that no, they shouldn't. People who don't care might not see a reason to advocate for changes for those who do care, until or unless they learned more about the issues in question. 

It's possible that other SL users who may not have, or might not be aware of, the issue with "roaming" bots may have experience or knowledge about other types of bots, which don't continually roam and which do not collect user data from avatars.  I would hope that equal stakeholder weight would be given to looking at all sides of how bots are being used if a solution is going to be applied across the board to all bots in general.