Jump to content

About privacy, security systems and banlines


Livio Korobase
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3467 days.

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

Recommended Posts

Some sim owners rent private residential parcels asking to subscribe a covenant stating that Allow Public Access checkbox have to be checked and use instead ban and/or security orbs.

Is this TOS compliant? Why i have to buy and use a security system when simply closing my private residential parcel i have my privacy? A real reason exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Charolotte Caxton wrote:

TOS compliant yes because it is in the Sim owner's covenant.

No ugly obnoxious useless banlines could be one reason.

Why useless? They are the only and not expensive method for protect from undesired access the parcel. Why i have to spent money when i can have same effect without use strange things?

I think also is not TOS and coomunity standard compliant, sim owners are not allowed on bypass Linden rules.

So, the only reason is aesthetics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The covenant is the terms and conditions of rental land, always shown in About Land - Covenant. In other words, what you can and can't do if you rent this land. For example, there may be a dress code of how avatars should appear to match the theme. Covenants often include a code of conduct in addition to Linden Lab's Community Standards. Some rules that apply on the mainland may not apply on an estate. For example, a landlord could decree "Combat is allowed for all!", then make their land a constant warzone where no one could be accused of "griefing with weapons" because it's part of the theme.

32px-KBwarning.png Warning: The Terms of Service apply to every Resident, everywhere in Second Life, including on private estates.

 

You will not find anything in the TOS that states that the owner of a private region cannot stipulate in the region's covenant that banlines are not allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

Oh, sure. Make me go look for it again after I closed all my browser tabs. :smileywink:


This is not TOS, and in same document you can read:

Warning: The Terms of Service apply to every Resident, everywhere in Second Life, including on private estates.

If Linden give me a tool for my security, you cant tell me to dont use...

So, this covenants rules are not allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Livio Korobase wrote:

If Linden give me a tool for my security, you cant tell me to dont use...

So, this covenants rules are not allowed.


From the TOS: You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you.

ETA: In case you can't figure it out, that applies to the land owner... which in this case is the estate owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the TOS
:
You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land
on terms determined by you
.

ETA: In case you can't figure it out, that applies to the land owner... which in this case is the
estate
owner.


Ja, continue with the statement: Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land must be consistent with these Terms of Service, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify these Terms of Service.

Is not a matter of tenants, land or estate owner, is for all users.

My question was: is this rule in some covenants consistent and compliant with TOS? (we are talking on private residential area, not commercial or so) I think no, because this rule prevents my privacy and security as TOS and Community Standards ensure, and for now i dont see a true reason for inihibit the banlines.

They are ugly? yes, but is also simple set client side invisibility of banlines. They are rude? yes, but are the only tool for have privacy in a place that you pay and where you maybe want stay quiet without people around.

I can change sim? Sure, but was not this the question :). I can buy a sim? Yes, i am owner of a sim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Livio. Experienced people are telling you that what the estate owner says about security devices and banlines is NOT against the ToS. It's entirely up to the estate owner. I am another experienced person telling you the same thing.

I don't see any reason to ask the question if you don't want the answer, or if you've already decided on the answer. If you don't like that in the covenant, find a place that doesn't have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:I don't see any reason to ask the question if you don't want the answer, or if you've already decided on the answer. If you don't like that in the covenant, find a place that doesn't have it.

Philip, i think that is something that owners have copied one by another, without think on this. Is not a matter of experience, if this is legal i like to know where is writed... just this.

For now, i see only someone that tell no, you are wrong but i don't read why... so is really useless say experienced people tell so... just some years ago experienced people was telling us that earth is flat.

In my humble opinion, something that is against the TOS is illegal, and sorry i think to be right for now, until someone maybe give me some useful and welcomed info about. Is for sure possible i am totally wrong, but i am asking to experienced people to know why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Livio Korobase wrote:

From the TOS
:
You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land
on terms determined by you
.

ETA: In case you can't figure it out, that applies to the land owner... which in this case is the
estate
owner.


Ja, continue with the statement:
Any agreement
you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land
must be consistent with these Terms of Service
, and
no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify these Terms of Service
.

Right. And I asked you, and I ask you again...

Please do point us to the section of the TOS where it states that a private region owner cannot enforce a covenant that includes a provision for no banlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Right. And I asked you, and I ask you again...

Please do point us to the section of the TOS where it states that a private region owner cannot enforce a covenant that includes a provision for no banlines.

So you ask me to respond by myself? I am asking where is writed that someone can do this, not the opposite. Where i can find what a region owner can do or not exactely? Or a private region owner is completely not required to follow TOS and community standard and can do what want? If yes, where i can find this informations? This is my question. You can give me some links to this? I have searched for long but i find nothing of really useful, so if you have more info please give me, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Livio Korobase wrote:

I am asking where is writed that someone can do this, not the opposite. Where i can find what a region owner can do or not exactely? .......

Generally, the TOS of any site (also SL) are written about unauthorized acts. It is materially impossible for TOS to describe everything that is authorized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

You are the one that is insisting that it is somehow against the TOS. I think the burden is on you.

ETA: I showed you where it says it's allowed:
You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land
on terms determined by you
.

Yes, but you miss the complete statement: You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land must be consistent with these Terms of Service, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify these Terms of Service.

So, i ask again if someone know, a estate owner is completely free about the TOS or have to follow some rules? Someone know where i can find this info? thank you.

I dont understand why many covenants inhibit banlines but not bot... so i cant have banlines because are ugly but 30 bots in my home yes. Boh... 

Maybe is not clear why i say that inhibit banlines is against the TOS and community standars, sorry for my english.

For example:

Community standard ask to:

  1. Disturbing the Peace

    Every Resident has a right to live their Second Life. Disrupting scheduled events, repeated transmission of undesired advertising content, the use of repetitive sounds, following or self-spawning items, or other objects that intentionally slow server performance or inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life are examples of Disturbing the Peace.

Ok, i have right and tools for live and enjoy my SL, but the covenant inhibit me the use of this tools. So what i can do? Is or not this against community standard? For me, yes.

Or more in general,

Global Attacks

Objects, scripts, or actions which broadly interfere with or disrupt the Second Life community, the Second Life servers or other systems related to Second Life will not be tolerated in any form.

Ok, are not tolerated in any form, but i cant block people that do this because my parcel have to be open. Also if my house is completely surrounded by mountains more high than banlines (because so the owner can say in adversiting "the best privacy"). Som if someone go around distributing prims in all the sim i can do... nothing (is not difficult find in Youtube a video that explain how rez prims in no rez parcels, you can find alone). The only protection are banlines. Griefers laugh of orbs.

TOS:

7.3 "Publicly accessible" areas of the Service are those areas that are accessible to other users of Second Life. If you do not wish to grant users of Second Life a User Content License, you agree that it is your obligation to avoid displaying or making available your Content to other users. For example, you may use Virtual Land tools to limit or restrict other users' access to your Virtual Land and thus the Content on your Virtual Land.

Simply i want use my virtual land tools to limit or restrict other users' access to your Virtual Land as the TOS say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you are free to use the land tools on your land, such as your sim. However, since you are renting from someone else, you must abide by their land covenant.

A good example of this was provided by Griffin earlier:

Some rules that apply on the mainland may not apply on an estate. For example, a landlord could decree "Combat is allowed for all!", then make their land a constant warzone where no one could be accused of "griefing with weapons" because it's part of the theme. From: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Selling-and-renting-land-to-others/ta-p/700135#Secion_.3.6.2

So, my reasoning would be, you are allowed to use the land tools on your land, to include ban lines, but if on another's land, you must abide by their covenant. They are not precluding your ability to have privacy, as they have allowed you the use of security orbs. It has been my experience that more persons laugh at the uselessness of banlines than that of security orbs, anything is feasibly bypassable, but banlines are ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply, but seem so difficult explain a so simple question... i am not doing a crusade for the ugly banlines, just i want understand if a covenant can include rules that prevent statements included in community standard or TOS, and is not related to a particular owner.

The example is clear, but is not relative to question. The covenant is is the terms and conditions of rental land, this is not in discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Livio. Laws and rules are made to state was is not allowed. They are not made to state was is allowed.

You won't find what you are looking for written anywhere by LL because it's simply not possible to write down everything that is allowed. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3467 days.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...