Invasion of privacy

[Luna Bliss]

On 9/17/2024 at 2:52 AM, stevonn said:

A question for everyone 

A girlfriend of mine has recently discovered something disturbing to me and most of us I'm sure .She was out at a club and met a guy they chatted for a while until things deteriorated and he started getting very weird.She made her excuses and left for home.What followed was the disturbing part feeling relieved to be away from him the next moment there he was,he had followed her home.He had never been there before, did not have map rights and she wasn't wearing his collar.l cannot think how he could do this l thought it was impossible...thoughts please

My best guess is that someone your girlfriend knew in the past knows where she lives, and this past person is using an alt to harass her. She'd need to move to another location and not frequent the same club to get rid of him.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

A couple distinctions I want to express here, but before all that: "vehemence". Yeah, I guess, because I see misery being inflicted with innocent intent of empathy, as someone who gets an unexpected, possibly unwanted visit is instructed to find it disturbing, has it labeled an "invasion of privacy", and is expected to react to all the violation that phrase connotes.

Maybe our dreaded "privacy invader" was simply reading someone's profile and saw a pick that looked interesting, quite possibly even forgot the profile where they saw it, clicked Teleport, and now we're expected to be all invaded and violated and stalked and oh the horror the horror.

So much unnecessary distress.

Ok, fair enough. To me, it's maybe a little like those "private property" absolutists who will freak out if the bumper of a car passing on the highway inadvertently passes over their property line. Over-determining such "intrusions" is definitely not helpeful.

Case in point: I was once chatting with a friend at some distance while setting up something on my sky platform, and he suddenly appeared before me. I was, to put it mildly, a bit put out, and wanted to know how he'd done it. He'd simply clicked on the link in one of my "picks." There was no "intent" there, despite my initial reaction.

7 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Now, I'm not sure if you mean "a moral right to privacy in SL" as a technical, legal term of art. If so, then yeah, I guess, in the same way Terms of Service express a "moral right" by parties to the agreement to expect whatever that agreement entails. But that's the extent of it: It's a commercial expectation that may not be fulfilled, not a personal need that may be violated…

And then there was the instance maybe a year ago when I was actually taking a pic of myself in a bathtub on my platform (1800m up), and a passer-by on the ground thought it would be a great idea to IM me and enthuse about how gorgeous and sexy I was. (I was actually clothed, but might not have been.)

By "moral right" what I guess I mean is an abstract expectation that people won't be creepy and awful. And that's different from the kinds of expectations associated with the affordances of the platform itself. In terms of the latter, it could be pointed out that I might have set my parcel so that people couldn't see inside it, have put up ban lines, etc. . . . except that my parcel isn't really a "home" in the conventional sense; it's designed and intended to be public, at ground level and in the gallery I have on another sky platform (reachable by a TP pad on the ground). So, yes, I failed to "protect" myself from intrusion using the tools available to me -- but (as opposed to the inadvertent inclusion of the TP option in my pics I cited above) that "failure" is deliberate.

So, what it comes down to perhaps is the old distinction between "here's something I can do," and "here's something I should do." There are lots of ways of violating people's expectations of privacy in SL unless one really battens down the hatches: you can listen in on private conversations at a distance, you can cam inside someone's house, etc. But the fact that these are options available to one doesn't make them ethically "right." In RL, a man can (within limits) legally "leer" at passing women, make rude or suggestive remarks, etc. But even if he has a legal right do such things, we have an ethical expectation that he should not, and is in the wrong if he does.

One of the more toxic assumptions that the explosion of new technologies has brought into being has been the position that, if one can do something, one should do it, and that ethical considerations need play almost no role in decision-making. It's the idea that social and cultural limitations are set not by social and cultural expectations and conventions, but by the abilities of technology. And I hear it a lot here.

7 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

And that's the other distinction: It's regrettable that "privacy" conflates both "private" seclusion that may be intruded upon, and "private" information that may be divulged. These can both have bad consequences, but they're different consequences. Best case, an intruder gets chased out, sobers up, and is never seen again—or they're carrying an axe, but that matter is above and beyond "privacy". In contrast, private information once revealed can never again be private, and spreads instantly across markets of revenge, extortion, and penny-ante identity sales.

And on this we're in agreement. But it's this conflation that you identify that confuses me a little. The OP is about "private seclusion," but the conversation, or at least some of it, has tended to centre on "private information."

I want to argue that violating either is bad, but that this isn't a black and white issue. Violations of privacy can occur on a spectrum. Trying to look up my skirt as I walk up a stairway isn't the same as installing a web cam on the toes of your shoes to facilitate it -- but they're both kind of bad, no?

Edited September 19 by Scylla Rhiadra
Typo

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ok, fair enough. To me, it's maybe a little like those "private property" absolutists who will freak out if the bumper of a car passing on the highway inadvertently passes over their property line. Over-determining such "intrusions" is definitely not helpeful.

Case in point: I was once chatting with a friend at some distance while setting up something on my sky platform, and he suddenly appeared before more. I was, to put it mildly, a bit put out, and wanted to know how he'd done it. He'd simply clicked on the link in one of my "picks." There was no "intent" there, despite my initial reaction.

And then there was the instance maybe a year ago when I was actually taking a pic of myself in a bathtub on my platform (1800m up), and a passer-by on the ground thought it would be a great idea to IM me and enthuse about how gorgeous and sexy I was. (I was actually clothed, but might not have been.)

By "moral right" what I guess I mean is an abstract expectation that people won't be creepy and awful. And that's different from the kinds of expectations associated with the affordances of the platform itself. In terms of the latter, it could be pointed out that I might have set my parcel so that people couldn't see inside it, have put up ban lines, etc. . . . except that my parcel isn't really a "home" in the conventional sense; it's designed and intended to be public, at ground level and in the gallery I have on another sky platform (reachable by a TP pad on the ground). So, yes, I failed to "protect" myself from intrusion using the tools available to me -- but (as opposed to the inadvertent inclusion of the TP option in my pics I cited above) that "failure" is deliberate.

So, what it comes down to perhaps is the old distinction between "here's something I can do," and "here's something I should do." There are lots of ways of violating people's expectations of privacy in SL unless one really battens down the hatches: you can listen in on private conversations at a distance, you can cam inside someone's house, etc. But the fact that these are options available to one doesn't make them ethically "right." In RL, a man can (within limits) legally "leer" at passing women, make rude or suggestive remarks, etc. But even if he has a legal right do such things, we have an ethical expectation that he should not, and is in the wrong if he does.

One of the more toxic assumptions that the explosion of new technologies has been that, if one can do something, one should do it, and that ethical considerations need play almost no role in decision-making. It's the idea that social and cultural limitations are set not by social and cultural expectations and conventions, but by the abilities of technology. And I hear it a lot here.

And on this we're in agreement. But it's this conflation that you identify that confuses me a little. The OP is about "private seclusion," but the conversation, or at least some of it, has tended to centre on "private information."

I want to argue that violating either is bad, but that this isn't a black and white issue. Violations of privacy can occur on a spectrum. Trying to look up my skirt as I walk up a stairway isn't the same as installing a web cam on the toes of your shoes to facilitate it -- but they're both kind of bad, no?

Well, yes. Second Life CAN be "creepy" and "awful", and people ARE affected by that fact.   

There isn't much we can do besides "talk them down", advise them how to set their privacy (and not put "home" in "picks", etc.), and explain the harsh "reality of Second Life".

It doesn't mean Second Life needs to CHANGE, of course. That would be hard.

 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Well, yes. Second Life CAN be "creepy" and "awful", and people ARE affected by that fact.   

There isn't much we can do besides "talk them down", advise them how to set their privacy (and not put "home" in "picks", etc.), and explain the harsh "reality of Second Life".

It doesn't mean Second Life needs to CHANGE, of course. That would be hard.

Of course!

And no, Second Life should not have to "change" in terms of its technology. We don't, in RL, respond to men leering at women on the street by insisting that all men wear blinkers when outside -- or, god forbid, that women deliberately dress in ways that presumably (but probably not actually) might make such behaviours less likely.

But we can insist, as we do in RL, on a kind of social code that makes creepy and invasive behaviours culturally and socially unacceptable. We can call out such behaviours when we see them (as I did the guy who was camming me in the bathtub), and make them socially odious, rather than trying to hard-code a response into the platform.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But we can insist, as we do in RL, on a kind of social code that makes creepy and invasive behaviours culturally and socially unacceptable. We can call out such behaviours when we see them (as I did the guy who was camming me in the bathtub), and make them socially odious, rather than trying to hard-code a response into the platform.

It is interesting how we walk the line of "blaming the victim" in Second Life because "Oh, you don't know how to set  your privacy?  Yeah, Second Life is like that. Get used to it.." which may make it FEEL like "blaming the victim" rather than what I was explaining..just the "reality" of Second Life.

..not that you were accusing ME of "victim blaming"..

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

It is interesting how we walk the line of "blaming the victim" in Second Life because "Oh, you don't know how to set  your privacy?  Yeah, Second Life is like that. Get used to it.." which may make it FEEL like "blaming the victim" rather than what I was explaining..just the "reality" of Second Life.

It all depends on context and attitude when relaying the information to a person who doesn't understand how 2nd life works. If we do it in a kindly teaching way this is best, but this does require patience. If we do it with the attitude of "get used to it" then it does come off as blaming or hostile.

[Love Zhaoying]

Oh GOD, I hope someone who isn't supposed to be, isn't reading and replying to my posts.

[Luna Bliss]

18 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

One of the more toxic assumptions that the explosion of new technologies has brought into being has been the position that, if one can do something, one should do it, and that ethical considerations need play almost no role in decision-making. It's the idea that social and cultural limitations are set not by social and cultural expectations and conventions, but by the abilities of technology. And I hear it a lot here.

^^^  I've encountered that a lot in 2nd life.  And the rude person simply says "well there's no rules against it" as an excuse to merrily subject others to rude behavior.

[Luna Bliss]

On 9/17/2024 at 2:52 AM, stevonn said:

A question for everyone 

A girlfriend of mine has recently discovered something disturbing to me and most of us I'm sure .She was out at a club and met a guy they chatted for a while until things deteriorated and he started getting very weird.She made her excuses and left for home.What followed was the disturbing part feeling relieved to be away from him the next moment there he was,he had followed her home.He had never been there before, did not have map rights and she wasn't wearing his collar.l cannot think how he could do this l thought it was impossible...thoughts please

I need to stress again...beware the alts. Using them for griefing purposes is very common here.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

It is interesting how we walk the line of "blaming the victim" in Second Life because "Oh, you don't know how to set  your privacy?  Yeah, Second Life is like that. Get used to it.." which may make it FEEL like "blaming the victim" rather than what I was explaining..just the "reality" of Second Life.

..not that you were accusing ME of "victim blaming"..

No, I wasn't.

And you're dead on: it's entirely valid, indeed helpful, to direct people to the tools that they might use to prevent being the target of toxic behaviours, invasions of privacy, etc., . . . but, as you say, that can easily shade over into victim-blaming, and often does.

Telling someone that it's "their fault" because they didn't have ban lines set up, etc., is by analogy rather like telling a woman that she should dress "appropriately" and "modestly" if she doesn't want to hear catcalls, be stalked, etc.

In final analysis, the person engaged in toxic behaviour is the one responsible for that behaviour.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

No, I wasn't.

And you're dead on: it's entirely valid, indeed helpful, to direct people to the tools that they might use to prevent being the target of toxic behaviours, invasions of privacy, etc., . . . but, as you say, that can easily shade over into victim-blaming, and often does.

Telling someone that it's "their fault" because they didn't have ban lines set up, etc., is by analogy rather like telling a woman that she should dress "appropriately" and "modestly" if she doesn't want to hear catcalls, be stalked, etc.

In final analysis, the person engaged in toxic behaviour is the one responsible for that behaviour.

Agreed with your last statement, BUT ALSO users should take advice on "privacy" (such as it is in Second Life).  If they don't, any negative experiences are likely to be repeated.

I don't think anyone in these threads "usually" says it is the person's/"victim's"  "fault" - but it may be perceived that way.  It could be people are bad at composing replies with SOME empathy - understanding that the person is (suitably) upset, and that hopefully, with education, they will avoid similar events in the future. 

Sure, they can report / block / ban "this guy".  But they shouldn't have to report / block / ban a lot of other people for the same things, if they take steps that people take for granted as "common sense" in Second Life.

Maybe we  need a "master thread" on "Privacy [sic] in Second Life".  With different pieces of advice like:

- Don't put your home in your "Picks"

- Don't let "friends" who turn out to be "creepy" see you on the map (turn off their ability to see your location)

- Do use a Security Orb (depending on your other settings)

- Do use "privacy controls" (who can enter your parcel, whether people can see inside your parcel, etc.)

- Don't wear things given to you by creepy people

- If you use RLV, only give control to people you "trust"

etc. etc.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Agreed with your last statement, BUT ALSO users should take advice on "privacy" (such as it is in Second Life).  If they don't, any negative experiences are likely to be repeated.

Sure. And if I accidentally leave my house unlocked when I go to work in the morning, then I have carelessly or foolishly made it more likely that I'll be burgled.

But the burglar is no less culpable if he chooses to exploit that. It's still a burglary, and that it happened was ultimately his choice, and his fault.

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I don't think anyone in these threads "usually" says it is the person's/"victim's"  "fault" - but it may be perceived that way.  It could be people are bad at composing replies with SOME empathy - understanding that the person is (suitably) upset, and that hopefully, with education, they will avoid similar events in the future.

They don't often "say it" perhaps -- although sometimes they do -- but it's implicit in any response that addresses only the things the victim did "wrong" or didn't do.

8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Maybe we  need a "master thread" on "Privacy [sic] in Second Life".  With different pieces of advice like:

- Don't put your home in your "Picks"

- Don't let "friends" who turn out to be "creepy" see you on the map (turn off their ability to see your location)

- Do use a Security Orb (depending on your other settings)

- Do use "privacy controls" (who can enter your parcel, whether people can see inside your parcel, etc.)

- Don't wear things given to you by creepy people

- If you use RLV, only give control to people you "trust"

etc. etc.

This would be useful. Years ago (we're talking 2008, I think) I published a Noobie's Guide to SL (I think that's what it was called) that included a whole section on how to deal with harassment and griefers.

Really, there should be something on SL wiki like this -- although of course there are explanations on how to file an AR. It would be useful to have a lot of the bits and pieces gathered together in one place.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

There's a lot of weird double-posting glitches on the forum over the last few days and it's making me lose my mind. I'm already brain broken today though, so it doesn't take much.

Anyhoo, on topic, I haven't read the thread all the way through, but one thing the OP could do is have their girlfriend set up a home security system with a whitelist, if able and if not done already. When I had my plot, I kept it on a 5 second timer, one offense = parcel ban list, and only my closest friends on the whitelist (no ragrets) since I was up 3500m in the sky and someone would have to do a lot more than just stumble in accidentally. I've had someone cam-sit onto a pose stand right in front of me at another similar location before, which is why I started using one. Not a big deal for me, really (other than giving me an unnecessary jumpscare), and I don't give a rats what happens when I'm not on the plot, but if I'm in the middle of decorating or building or styling, it's distracting as all heck.

Edited September 19 by Ayashe Ninetails
Grammaring

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And if I accidentally leave my house unlocked when I go to work in the morning, then I have carelessly or foolishly made it more likely that I'll be burgled.

But the burglar is no less culpable if he chooses to exploit that. It's still a burglary, and that it happened was ultimately his choice, and his fault.

Apples and Oranges..if you leave your home open in RL, people can actually burgle things.  If you leave your home open in SL, people can only be creepy and nosy.  Plus, if you leave your home open in SL, that is literally saying "it is OK for people to enter my property".

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

They don't often "say it" perhaps -- although sometimes they do -- but it's implicit in any response that addresses only the things the victim did "wrong" or didn't do.

My point is, yes, add just a little empathy then launch into the "advice".  It may not even be necessary to get into deep details of "well, it's technically OK in Second Life because"..  No mansplaining is probably needed except the "advice" part.  Unless someone asks. ("But why doesn't LL DO something?!?")

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Apples and Oranges..if you leave your home open in RL, people can actually burgle things.  If you leave your home open in SL, people can only be creepy and nosy.  Plus, if you leave your home open in SL, that is literally saying "it is OK for people to enter my property".

Well, yes, but I wasn't drawing a direct parallel. Merely using this as an example to point out that the commission of toxic behaviour remains the responsibility of the person doing it, regardless of how we might apparently have "enabled it."

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

My point is, yes, add just a little empathy then launch into the "advice".  It may not even be necessary to get into deep details of "well, it's technically OK in Second Life because"..  No mansplaining is probably needed except the "advice" part.  Unless someone asks. ("But why doesn't LL DO something?!?")

Yes.

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

They don't often "say it" perhaps -- although sometimes they do -- but it's implicit in any response that addresses only the things the victim did "wrong" or didn't do.

Yes this is the response my friend is getting sometimes from others when she speaks of her stalker -- they try to ascertain what she might be doing that encourages it or what she's not doing to prevent it (in all fairness, some are just trying to help). But what irks me is that some can't seem to believe that there are others in SL who go to great lengths to harass others. It hasn't happened to them so they can't imagine it, and since they've never known how it feels to be stalked they tend to minimize the feelings as unimportant.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Apples and Oranges..if you leave your home open in RL, people can actually burgle things.  If you leave your home open in SL, people can only be creepy and nosy.  Plus, if you leave your home open in SL, that is literally saying "it is OK for people to enter my property".

Well, yes, but I wasn't drawing a direct parallel. Merely using this as an example to point out that the commission of toxic behaviour remains the responsibility of the person doing it, regardless of how we might apparently have "enabled it."

I don't disagree. The point I was trying to make is..in Second Life the "toxic behavior" may not even be against the TOS. At all.

ETA: Hard to blame someone for being "toxic" when there's no rule against it. (Sorry to spell it out.)

Edited September 19 by Love Zhaoying

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

I don't disagree. The point I was trying to make it..in Second Life the "toxic behavior" may not even be against the TOS. At all.

Well, some might be depending upon how the ToS is interpreted and applied. But we know that that is infrequently and not always appropriately.

But yes, my point has been that that the fact that you CAN do it doesn't mean that it is "ok" to do it.

[Love Zhaoying]

@Luna Bliss, please stop reading, replying to, and reacting to my posts. You have made a very big deal about ME reading to or replying to YOUR posts.  YOU CAN DO IT! I have faith in you.

[Cackle Amore]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I just realized that the "Invasion of Privacy" thread title, as a reaction to something considered somewhat "normal" in Second Life (someone TP'ing into your home), is similar emotionally to the "Second Life is a SCAM" thread titles, as reaction to "normal" disappointments with purchases, etc.

 

The OP is about someone mingling with a stranger elsewhere in SL and having a falling out with them at some point in conversation, prompting them to bail from the conversation, only to then have that same stranger show up at their little SL home later.

That's a bit more than just some random other nobody poofing in

[BillFletcher]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

@Luna Bliss, please stop reading, replying to, and reacting to my posts. You have made a very big deal about ME reading to or replying to YOUR posts.  YOU CAN DO IT! I have faith in you.

Luna actually hasn’t responded to any of your posts since you posted about it 40 minutes ago.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, BillFletcher said:

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

@Luna Bliss, please stop reading, replying to, and reacting to my posts. You have made a very big deal about ME reading to or replying to YOUR posts.  YOU CAN DO IT! I have faith in you.

Luna actually hasn’t responded to any of your posts since you posted about it 40 minutes ago.

Perhaps (I rarely check, I know better), but she reacted to one above.

(She absolutely demanded that I stop reading / replying to / reacting to her posts and I expect the same from her.)

 

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, BillFletcher said:

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

@Luna Bliss, please stop reading, replying to, and reacting to my posts. You have made a very big deal about ME reading to or replying to YOUR posts.  YOU CAN DO IT! I have faith in you.

Luna actually hasn’t responded to any of your posts since you posted about it 40 minutes ago.

I'm an active participant in the thread currently, and I guess this is disturbing to Love. I should not be here, apparently.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Cackle Amore said:

The OP is about someone mingling with a stranger elsewhere in SL and having a falling out with them at some point in conversation, prompting them to bail from the conversation, only to then have that same stranger show up at their little SL home later.

That's a bit more than just some random other nobody poofing in

BUT if if she had her home in her "picks" then..they could TP there.  (As in the first few responses.)

For all we know, she had given him the link to her home earlier and that detail was left out.

We do not know the whole story, we were not there.

 

[BillFletcher]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'm an active participant in the thread currently, and I guess this is disturbing to Love. I should not be here, apparently.

Not wanted in the Forums, I know that feeling