Jump to content

Bradford Mint

Resident
  • Content Count

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

215 Excellent

1 Follower

About Bradford Mint

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I haven't said you wouldn't get to know (you or anyone else). What I said was that your service is with LL, not the cloud provider. LL cannot provide an SLA greater than that of their provider (well they could but would be dumb to try) and their SLA is absolutely zilch so they're hot to trot! Cloud provision isn't vital to the functioning of any network, only to those who choose to consume the compute, service and storage resources that may be offered over any network. This seems moot at this time however. I'm not sure that there's an assumption that things get better with moving to cloud. What does happen is that a local datacentre can be downsized or removed, no need for specialist staff to host "whatever service", the replacement services are consumed as a service and contractually against an SLA for a specific contract term and crucially for some, moves the cost model from Capex to Opex which has accounting implications as well as usually definable benefits in terms of service provision and upgrade. Those are some of the key points of outsourcing whether it's people or service, i.e. cloud. Cloud in this context is just synonymous with service. Nothing magical about cloud to see here. Phone them up and ask, i'm sure they'll answer. However, as i've already pointed out, how they deliver the service isn't really that relevant to the end user, random player or business owner. The service as provided by LL remains the same with the same SLA and TOS. *shrugs*
  2. Just to pick up on this piece, why do you think you need to know? Your service is provided by LL, the cloud provider (if relevant) provides service to LL. Do you know what material the pipes are made of that transport your domestic water? Which route they take? What redundancy they have in place? What their operational plans are for a targeted terrorist attack? My guess is no. You pay your water company against an SLA and they in turn deliver you water, in accordance with that SLA (or not). You're over thinking it and yes, you can complain, you can ask whatever questions but that doesn't mean they'll listen or respond.
  3. That's a question that should be posed to LL. They set the TOS, not me. BTW, people always have the right to complain, just that it might confer no rights with regard to remediation, per whatever TOS they've agreed and signed up to.
  4. Key point highlighted there which is the subject in question which in this case makes a good argument of "because the rules say so"
  5. There is a published SLA for those services. It's actually pretty rubbish too. My mobile phone provider was down for 2 days a week or so ago in some parts. It didn't affect me at all and for those who were affected, the amount was £20...if you claimed...and if it was supported with evidence. I'm sure you understand the concept of a Service Level Agreement? I'm not sure that you do, point being (for the third time now) is that SL does not offer one and if you got a stipend back at the beginning of SL, that sounds like just a goodwill gesture to save their new players from leaving. Those sorts of payment stop when the environment is fully established, just like they have stopped. Find the part in the TOS that defines the SLA that says that service users are entitled to full reports of service outage, it's probably right next to the part that says how much compensation that LL will pay to every registered account, active on a daily basis or not. Further, the fact that many pay? Again, i'll refer you to the part of the TOS 1.5. No sh*ts given by LL. I don't consider you a partisan rebel, just someone who appears unclear as to what the TOS actually offers as compensation. It's clear to me, not worth fussing over.
  6. Indeed but the crux of it is that the TOS that EVERYONE agrees to, yes even those who fail to read it, is that the service is provided as is with no guarantee. 1.5 The Service is subject to scheduled and unscheduled service interruptions and loss of server data, which you do not own and for which you will not hold us liable. Linden Lab may on occasion need to interrupt the Service with or without prior notice. You agree that Linden Lab will not be liable for any interruption of the Service (whether intentional or not), and you understand that except as may otherwise be specifically provided in Linden Lab's billing policies, posted on applicable areas of the Service and/or Website(s), you will not be entitled to any refunds of fees or other compensation for interruption of service. There is no SLA, there is no compensation so like it or not so there's no point even wasting time complaining about it or demanding full answers is just drama for the sake of it and someone who has been here as long as the OP should know this.
  7. They don't need to say which vendor. Read again https://www.lindenlab.com/tos Specifically section 1.5 aka "Sh*t Happens Deal With It"
  8. What's the big issue? There was an outage, move on. Sometimes the reason is technically tiny but the impact is massive, for example the fairly recent global outage of the entire O2 mobile phone service. Due to an expired certificate! SL isn't part of a nations critical national infrastructure. Something happened, they did stuff, resolved it. *Shrugs*
  9. Not quite:- https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/what-personal-data_en "Personal data is any information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual. Different pieces of information, which collected together can lead to the identification of a particular person, also constitute personal data." "information that relates to" is important here. When I requested data from a previous employer which also happened to be a large bank, I was sent all my previous bank statements which under your definition (which isn't the precise one), transactions would not be included. It's questionable therefore as to whether chat logs for example, could constitute personal data as it could be argued that they are transactional and thus like a financial transaction "£20 paid to shop x" which is only related to me but does not by itself identify me. Anyway, Wulfie did the legwork and we have a response.
  10. Probably, dunno, can't remember but in all honesty, I would be surprised if a SAR resulted in anything other than provided RL info but could also include conversations in both written and verbal form (if the call was recorded) with any employees about avatars, where the RL person was identified at the time. We'll know after Belinda has a go.
  11. Ok Belinda so you are hereby nominated as the guinea pig! You could start by making a forum post, or one on Twitter for giggles. I'm sure they'd not spot it. If you do choose to submit a support ticket (or just an email), their next course of action will be to request from you, such evidence (and only sufficient) in order to identify you as a natural person. This is where it gets potentially interesting because if someone has signed up as a basic user, has no payment info on file, or any other documented identity information, it's pretty difficult to bind "bobjonessexyavatar" to a natural person and there the request would end. Thus the natural person making the request would need to be making a request on the basis that they could actually be identified. Further, an earlier response from Kyrah was accurate, the information that LL has is going to be what we give them. The bigger question that Lindal asked though would be interesting to find out, which is how they consider avatar information and whether it's data about the natural person and if so is chat log included? Finally, out of pure coincidence, as I was typing this, the following arrived in my email:- GDPR: Your Actual Questions Answered - no presentation, open mic Q&A (It's a session hosted by BrightTalk, just in case the link doesn't post or work)
  12. No, the topic still says "GDPR requests". If a request is made to an organisation for such data that could not be sent via post and where they have not thought ahead and provided a publicly accessible portal, their options are limited in how they supply that information, one of them being USB sticks. In the case of a handful of organisations that have earned my venom, then absolutely, GDPR provides a vehicle to waste their time. The particular organisations that I refer to are ones with whom they have chosen to destroy any good will and are far from a normal supplier/customer relationship and many orders of magnitude beyond just being an unhappy customer, however, the specifics are irrelevant here. Given that this was already stated much earlier, I strongly suspect anyone else reading my musings could have come to the conclusion that my question "Fancy some free USB sticks?" would have been somewhat tongue in cheek. I wholeheartedly apologise for not being blindingly obvious in my prose but rest assured, I shall continue in just the same way.
  13. Correct and that's why I originally said I think this part is ridiculous. It doesn't help anyone to have such vague processes.
  14. Yup and if you ask a car park operator who captures your car in the street and you have that data removed but then they keep capturing it because you drive down that street regularly, why should a data subject who has no contact with them, only be permitted to check ONCE and thereafter have to pay?
  15. No I don't think there's any need to be obtuse and say "some people", you can direct it straight to me, that's no problem and yes, when some companies play fast and loose with rules, they earn the response.
×
×
  • Create New...