Chat Log Disclaimers : Any official statement ?

[Ceka Cianci]

it's any conversation general or im..

you can't remotely monitor IM's but you can conversations taking place in range or out of it..

it's not mentioning IM's or singling IM's out...it's showing it's about all conversation logs

 

Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited.

here is the old version before the changes..

Remotely monitoring conversations, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without consent are all prohibited in Second Life and on the Second Life Forums

[Void Singer]

---

Solar Legion wrote:

Are they valid for reposting logged conversations

within Second Life? 

Nope. Are they valid for reposting logged conversations 

outside of Second Life?

That is debatable. [...]

---

not really, the linked corporate policy spells out that the expectation of privacy outside of SL for things said within SL is moot, making the need for a disclaimer pointless. And since the source jurisdiction is permissive, the only real concerns are Libel and Defamation which a disclaimer isn't going to protect against anyway

[Melita Magic]

It had no personal info in it, and had just occurred seconds before in front of the same people. In local chat. I think the passage refers to exposing a conversation that took place elsewhere, and I always thought it was only about IMs for that reason.

Of course, chat spy scripts are illegal we all know that. But this was not that either.

It was to clarify and nothing else, and the person still threw a fit about it. I thought it ridiculous at the time and still do.

ETA: Not sure why I replied to Void except it seemed part of the same subtopic, but this was more in general and to the people who posted above Void.

ETA again: 

" you can't remotely monitor IM's but you can conversations taking place in range or out of it.. "

If people chatting in local have no expectation of privacy - i.e. someone could cam over and listen to something talked about out of chat range - then how can reposting local chat be against TOS? Just confused.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

It had no personal info in it, and had just occurred seconds before in front of the same people. In local chat. I think the passage refers to exposing a conversation that took place elsewhere, and I always thought it was only about IMs for that reason.

Of course, chat spy scripts are illegal we all know that. But this was not that either.

It was to clarify and nothing else, and the person still threw a fit about it. I thought it ridiculous at the time and still do.

ETA: Not sure why I replied to Void except it seemed part of the same subtopic, but this was more in general and to the people who posted above Void.

ETA again: 

" you can't remotely monitor IM's but you can conversations taking place in range or out of it.. "

If people chatting in local have no expectation of privacy - i.e. someone could cam over and listen to something talked about out of chat range - then how can reposting local chat be against TOS? Just confused.

---

i don't believe you can cam out of range  and hear chat out of range of where your avatar is standing..

 they just told you and everyone that is there the same thing..you are not taking it from a log and posting to anyone that didn't hear it already..there is no disclosure going on..

it's when you take that conversation and share it with others that were not part of it without consent..

i mean anyone of them could have scrolled up and seen it in their chat..so they  already put it in everyones chat themselves..

you are not revealing anything that they themselves had not already revealed  moments earlier..

take a look at it's definition..:smileywink: 

Disclosure

1. The act or process of revealing or uncovering.

2. Something uncovered; a revelation.





[Melita Magic]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

 

i mean anyone of them could have scrolled up and seen it in their chat..so they  already put it in everyones chat themselves..

you are not revealing anything that they themselves had not already revealed  moments earlier..

take a look at it's definition..:smileywink: 

Disclosure

1.

The act or process of revealing or uncovering.

2.

Something uncovered; a revelation.

 

 

---

Exactly! Thank you. For them to yell at me about it in IM was ridiculous, but it wasn't the first dramatic moment which was why I left quickly. Lol

Bah

[Ceka Cianci]

if they make a fuss like that in your  IM's and  are being drama queens..just answer them back in general chat..

if you think they were pissed before..just wait and see how they love that cure for the common cold hehehehe:matte-motes-evil-invert:

[Melita Magic]

LOL

I had already left, which is when they began to harass me in IM. Quickly muted. I've gotten to adore that little button.

Used it again tonight. I was going to shop somewhere, and saw this lovely profile:

" Disclaimer:I reserve the right to share any, Instant message, local chat, or any other form of communication,  with whomever I chose.  "

That's all that was in there! Besides a bunch of spam groups, so they were probably a bot. But I still told them I wouldn't be shopping there, and left.

I'm so tempted to put this in my own profile:

"o hai I'm a speshul flower and I can do what I want to cos LL says so and so does Santa"

Lol

[Pussycat Catnap]

The official statement has been the TOS since day one.

 

Anyone flat out STUPID enough to not be able to understand the TOS can't really be helped further...

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

LOL

I had already left, which is when they began to harass me in IM. Quickly muted. I've gotten to adore that little button.

Used it again tonight. I was going to shop somewhere, and saw this lovely profile:

" Disclaimer:I reserve the right to share any, Instant message, local chat, or any other form of communication,  with whomever I chose.  "

That's all that was in there! Besides a bunch of spam groups, so they were probably a bot. But I still told them I wouldn't be shopping there, and left.

I'm so tempted to put this in my own profile:

"o hai I'm a speshul flower and I can do what I want to cos LL says so and so does Santa"

Lol

---

here is mine

Discalimer

If you IM me it gives me the right to all your RL stuffs 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

The official statement has been the TOS since day one.

 

Anyone flat out STUPID enough to not be able to understand the TOS can't really be helped further...

 

---

Pussycat wins the thread!  Purrrrrrrrrrrrrfectly said.

[Tiger Lilliehook]

I understand it fluently, however the idiot that believes she is immune from following the TOS seems to feel she is exempt from ANY disciplinary action. I mean if she is speaking to Person A because person A believes she is trustworthy, the rest of her friends list gets a copy of the convo VIA their IM's. Honestly, I don't want to know anything anyone has said to her thinking it is a private convo, but trying to educate someone who clearly is missing a few brain cells about the TOS is a failure in itself. It's like tattletaling seriously.....

[PeterCanessa Oh]

AR her.  Have everyone who feels the same way AR her.

Mute her.  Have everyone who feels the same way mute her.

If she's that dumb and won't listen to or read any other opinion then either a) she's right - LL won't get around to doing anything before we all die of old age or, b) she'll find out the hard way.

[Solar Legion]

Ya .... no.

In the US it falls under the same laws a recording telephone conversations and their subsequent use.If either party lives in a state where all parties must consent/agree to the recording and subsequent sharing of said "recording", then that law set takes precedence.

There are very few exceptions and Second Life is not one of them. You make a log and post it elsewhere? While the contents of that log may not be bad ... you've still broken a law if the other person lives in one of those states. 

[Solar Legion]

Your example is out of left field. The issue comes in when far more sensitive information is shared or when someone says something truly damning or admits to having broken a law or the ToS.

A more minor variation comes into play on RP Sims and any Sim where there are set rules. People have sent Abuse Reports in against people whom they have confided in before ... I have seen it myself. If you tell someone you have broken a rule and will continue to do so and they then turn around when the broken rule becomes a problem and copy that log over to the estate manager(s) ... You have no valid reason for sending in that Report as you were the one foolish enough to tell someone else about it.

Anything less than such a situation is Linden Lab being heavy handed ... and quite frankly the above situations - wherein the "trusted" person is then suspended or banned - are ridiculous as well. Drama will happen no matter what: Linden Lab should never have put that clause in their ToS as it causes far too many needless problems. Estate managers cannot even share conversations they have had with their customers/"tenants" with other Estate Managers because of it ... Not without being Abuse Reported by some nit. 

[Void Singer]

except that all users agree to california jurisdiction and the terms of the TOS (the portion that is/used to be in the corporate TOS is most salient after jusrisdiction).

to use local law you'd have to first prove the tos is unconscionable (namely the clause on jurisdiction), and that is very unlikely for an at will service especially given full faith and credit and jurisdictional issues..

you *might* at best be able to find a judge willing to hear it *if* it's illegal in the jurisdiction of the person doing it assuming either you are in that same jurisdiction or they allow parties external parties to claim jurisdiction.

then there's the aditional problem that it's generally not a matter of criminal law in US jurisdictions (the federal law in the US is single party consent), however that may not be the case for international ones.

and that's even if you can convince the judge it falls under phone recording laws... which given TOS and the nature of the service is still less than likely.

 

hence my original very short answer.