Phil Deakins

One of the posters literally changed my words more than once in this thread, but I didn't put any words in your mouth. What you wrote led to me asking you a question - "So you think it's ok for people to steal from supermarkets?", and I explained how it led to that. What you wrote still does lead to that. I don't think it's me who needs to brush up their english. But I don't think you tried to put any words in my mouth as such. I think you just tried to be objectionable and you were found out. Your "words in your mouth" bit is just you trying to crawl out from being found out - imo.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but I've gone shopping, spending hundreds of dollars at Wal-Mart, only to be stopped at the door on the way out to be told to show my receipt, simply because I had a big bag of dog food that couldn't be fit into a bag. Now, maybe that's fine to most people (people such as Phil), but to me, it feels as if I'm being treated as a criminal when I've done nothing whatsoever wrong. I don't want my ISP checking my receipt, as if I'm some sort of criminal. Just because corporations can get away with such nonsense, doesn't mean it's right or that common, law abiding citizens have to put up with it. I hate being monitored as such in the real world, why would I ever accept being monitored that way on the net? You (Phil) may think it's great to get your freedom sucked away from you in this manner, but don't throw the rest of us under the bus with you. ...Dres So you think it's just fine for supermarkets to be stolen from? How you've managed to comprehend what I've written as meaning that I endorse stealing is beyond me. It might be time to go back to school and relearn how to read English, because it obviously didn't stick the first time. Forgive me for not reading another word of the ridiculous tripe which you've chosen to splash across this thread, but I refuse to sit here and read the words of an overwrought imbecile, who takes it upon himself to accuse anyone and everyone who chooses to voice their very legitimate concern for their right to privacy and human dignity, a criminal and/or a murderer. ...Dres Frankly, Dresden, you talk a load of cr*p. You wrote (see the quote above) that you felt you were being treated as a criminal at the supermarket. That imples that you think it shouldn't have happened, which necessarily means that people should be permitted to take unbagged stuff out of the supermarket without hinderance and, if they are stealing, so be it. Your opinion is wrong - simple as that. Your opinion's wrongness is further compounded by your outright rejection of my view that companies should be allowed to prevent theft of their stuff in any way possible that doesn't impact negatitvely on innocent people. What the companies are intending to do along with the ISPs doesn't impact negatively on innocent people. That's a summary what I've been saying through this thread, and it's what you described as 'tripe'. Your description is the real tripe, my friend. Your idea that it will infringe people's right to privacy (which people only have in some circumstances, but not these) is nonsense. Your idea that it impacts on people's human dignity is also nonsense. And your stupid idea that I accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being "a criminal and/or a murderer" is just the ravings of a <fill in the rest yourself>. Of course, if you would like to quote where I made any such accusations, please do, but you won't because no such accusations exist. I hope that helps

Thank you, Drongle. I can see some largish bounding boxes in the right area but I can't tell what their objects are. I can also see an area where sit doesn't work that doesn't appear to have a bounding box in it. That is unless there's a really huge one that's escaping because of its sheer size. Also, I can't see any bounding box edge on the sit/can't sit spot/boundary that I mentioned earlier. Oh well. I suppose he'll have to settle for chairs with sit targets set. Sofas aren't suitable for single sit targets - not without setting one in each prim, that is, which is a bit long-winded and still unsuitable for people who want to sit where they want to sit..

That's a very interesting idea, so I went to where sit didn't work and moved the sofa. I've found a spot where sit works on one side but not on the other. I can move the sofa across the spot and make more or less of it sittable - left ot right of the spot. But I can't find a way to show bounding boxes. I can't do edit > stretch on other people's objects. Is the another way to see them? ETA: On the other hand, it may not be the answer. There are 3 dining chairs here, all of which can be sat on and none of which have ... ah! They do have sit targets set - just not the sit target script in them.

If I were you, I wouldn't concern myself with it. I'd just go ahead. It's only a hobby after all. I was trading as Prim Savers for years when a guy decided to use the same name in the same field - low prim furniture. He was only a couple of months into his business, and didn't have many products, when I told him that he's using my business name. He said he'd found out a week or two earlier but it was too much work to change now. To cut a long story short, he registered the name in RL (it cost him $300) and eventually I had to stop using it. LL told me he was trying to get a trademark for the name so I knew about it, and I could have prevented him getting the name, but it would have cost $300 so I decided not to bother. To my of thinking, he's a thief, but so what? There are thieves in SL but unless it *really* matters to you, so what? You said that you weren't previously big enough to be ripped. You also said that it's just a hobby. So, imo, the chances of it happening to you are small and, if it does, it's no big deal. I'd just go ahead with the hobby and enjoy it. Interestingly, the guy who stole my name failed. He had an inworld store when he started, and he grew his land ownership for it, but now he only trades in the marketplace so his business wasn't worth the effort.

I just came up against a really weird problem and I'm wondering if anyone has any insight into the cause of it and/or a solution. I've been selling a particular sofa for some years, as well as many other sofas, but I've never come across this before. A customer bought the sofa (a copy of it) but he can't actually sit on it. He gets the "no room to sit..." message everytime. I went over and i get the same message. He brought the sofa back to the store, rezzed it, and we can both sit on it just fine. I tested by buying a copy of the sofa, rezzed it, and sat on it ok. I took it to his place, rezzed it and we can't sit on it. I also used an alt to buy yet another copy and rezzed it in the store and it's fine. There are no scripts in the sofa - it's just plain prims - and the edge to sit on is not the inside of a prim, which can be problematic. None of the prims are scultpies or mesh. they are just plain prims and the seat prim is a simple box. It seem to be land related but there are no land settings that could cause it. Does anyone have any ideas, insight, solution, whatever?

I haven't accused anyone of being a pirate. Because only thieves will be affected (and only if they ignore the warnings), and people's activities on the internet will not be monitored (only downloads of pirate stuff will be monitored), and because of some comments in this thread, I strongly suspect that some people here actually download illegal copies of stuff and prefer to keep doing it. That's what I said - a strong suspicion - not an accusation.

You're probably right, Innula. I misremembered the OP's problem - because two opposites were written. The title says friends can't use stuff when the OP is not online, but the message says they can't use unless s/he's offline.

Freya Mokusei wrote: So sayeth the ISPs, so it must be true. How, prey-tell, will they ONLY inspect pirated stuff? How can they be sure that nothing else is inspected? These are the facts I'm asking for. 16 explained the most likely process earlier in the thread. ISPs can't inspect everything you download. What they can do is flag when you download something from specific sites. Then perhaps they can inspect what it is you downloaded.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Again, my criticism is against your perspective that no-one should question corporations or their activities. And again, I'm not saying they MUST take everyone. I'm saying that disconnection without due process shouldn't be allowed, ONCE they're connected and contracted to provide this service. Repetition is boring. Then stop repeating things if they are too boring for you. I didn't say, or imply, that nobody should question corporations or their activities. All I have said is that, what certain corporations are about to do makes an awful lot of sense, and they are right to do it. I disagree with you about "disconnection without due process". Nobody will be denied access to the internet, and every ISP has a perfect right to choose not to have a certain person as a customer. I'm not sure that it will result in an ISP choosing not to have a thief as a customer. It may just result in a thief being taken to court if s/he fails to heed the 3 warnings. Either way is perfectly good though, and either way amounts to the same misplaced objections concerning privacy.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: But that's not true. When you go shopping (corporations) you are often on camera, and the cameras are there to see if you steal anything. No civil rights are being infringed by that. We simply can't have all the privacy that we want. We simply can't decide what level of privacy we will have. False equivilence. Their cameras don't record my chip & PIN entry on my debit card, therefore they don't have the right to record everything they can see. But they do record your activities. If you pick something from a shelf and put it in your pocket instead of paying for it - if you steal something - it's recorded. That's a much better equivalent. It sounds like you have a misunderstanding about the topic. It sounds like you imagine that everything you do on the internet will be recorded by your ISP, but that's not the case at all. The only things that will be recorded by your ISP are your downloads of pirated stuff. If you don't do any of that, nothing will be recorded.

Your editing of what I wrote is just plain silly so I won't bother responding to that. If you want make a point about banking or anything, make it. I'll just say that, if a person loses the ability to do online banking and such, it'll be their own fault for ignoring the 3 warnings that are given before anything is done. It's not unlike drink-driving. A habitual drink-driver, who loses his driving license because of it, and who has a job that relies on driving, has nobody to blame but him/herself that s/he loses his job. Freya Mokusei wrote: I'm saying (as I've always been saying) that ISPs shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets the right to access the Internet. Court orders, fine. Criminal prosecutions by jury, fine. Blocking access without public court records, the right to appeal or the right to trial by jury (I have pasted those links already) is NOT fine. ISPs won't get to pick and choose who gets the right to access the internet. Nothing will change. Each ISP will behave as they have always behaved - get to pick and choose who connects to the intenet through them. Surely you're not suggesting that ISPs must take absolutely everyone who wants to connect through them? Surely you're not trying to deny a company the right to be selective about who it has as customers? It would be nonsense if that's what you were suggesting. No ISP can deny anyone access to the internet. All they can do is refuse to have a person as a customer. And they have every right to do that.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Your shining example not-withstanding, people can have as much privacy from corporations (corporations != society) as they please. Corporations don't get to adjust civil rights. But that's not true. When you go shopping (corporations) you are often on camera, and the cameras are there to see if you steal anything. No civil rights are being infringed by that. We simply can't have all the privacy that we want. We simply can't decide what level of privacy we will have. You are right that corporations don't get to adjust civil rights, but no corporations are trying to adjust them. All they are doing is getting whoiever they can to be on the lookout for pirated versions of their stuff. There can't be any sensible objection to that.

Freya Mokusei wrote: All provably false. Still no facts or evidence to support your points. Then prove it. You haven't shown anything yet. There's nothing to show, of course, so I won't hold my breath. Attacking me and what you imagine my privacy requirements to be is irrelevant. This isn't about me, it's about corporations deciding amongst themselves who should have copyright defended, and who should be allowed access to the Internet. It's about the scraping of profits through outdated and bloated supply chains using outdated arch No. It's about corporations deciding to defend their copyrights. No again. It's nothing to do with anyone's access to the internet. If anyone loses internet access via certain ISPs, it's their own fault for ignoring the 3 warnings, by continuing to dowload pirated stuff - by continuing to steal. Such people should be denied internet access, but nobody will deny them access. It will just be some ISPs who denying them access through them. It's their right, you know. Unless you are saying that ISPs must allow anyone and everyone to have access to the internet through them. It is a pity that you can only see the small picture, and petty battles of morality. Morality is petty, eh? As long as your activities are totally ignored, I assume

It's not a matter of civil rights. People in societies can't have all the pirvacy they may wish to have. It's as simple as that.

I've no idea unless he deeded the object as well and he no longer owns it. ETA: The main problem in the OP is beyond my understanding. A script can certainly be written that checks the owner's online status, and do things differently according to it. I can't imagine why furniture scripts would be written so that other people can only use them when the owner isn't logged it, but it's perfectly possible to do it. Perhaps it's been written that way so so that the owner doesn't have to throw people off

I used ATMs as one of the examples to show that total privacy does not exist, and neither should it exist. I agree that it's not specifically relevant to the topic of this thread, but I cited examples of society acceptably watching its people to show that it's very commonplace. The 4th ammendment doesn't appear to give anyone a right to total privacy, and neither should it. I'm not in the U.S. so I'm not used to your ammendments but it appears to only be about what the government can and cannot do. It isn't about companies on the lookout for thieves. Companies have every right to be on the lookout for thieves. Alisha Matova wrote: 1. Camera usage at banks is irrelevant to this thread. My point was about the leap from private cctv(usually deleted hourly) to full blown privatized copyright law enforcement. And copyright enforcment for only the elite copyright owners at that. Just try to use this as an artist... So explain why full blown privatised copyright law *enforcement is wrong in your opinion. I can't come up with anything against it. If my stuff is being stolen regularly, I see nothing wrong with getting everyone I can find to be on the lookout for it, especiually if the official law agencies do nothing. The copyright law exists, and it's a right law, so what can be wrong with actively looking for breaches of it? *Actually, it's not about law enforcement. The companies don't enforce the law. They merely look for people who steal from them so that the courts (officialdom) can enforce the law.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Present a sensible response with facts that cement your position and maybe we can try this again. So far you have demonstrated a poor understanding of TCP/IP, Data Protection, Consumer Rights and Civil Liberties (both UK and US) and seem to have no prior experience in this area, other than an opinion. I see no value in correcting your singular misunderstanding of this issue. Then stop trying to correct me. There's nothing to correct. You want privacy and you can't have it in the society you live in. Learn to live with that fact. If you don't want anyone else to have the ability of knowing what you do on the internet, don't use the internet because, when you do, other people have the ability to know what you do. It's always been like that. If you don't want your actions to be recorded anywhere, don't leave your home because, if you do, you are sure to be recorded. If you don't want to be scrutinised for potential theft in stores, don't shop in stores where they do it. The problem you have is that, in the society you live in, you don't, and can't, have as much privacy as you would like. You don't have that right, and neither should you have that right. Get used to it. Oh, and stop bleating about. You link to reports of errors and it's shown that they are irrelevant. You have no argument against that so you ignore it and carry on regardless. You don't have any arguments to stand on. All you have is that you don't like others having the ability to know what you do, and that's no argument at all. The only way you can avoid that is go and live alone on a desert island but, as long as you live in the society you live in, you have a responsibility to the well-being that society, and one of the ways of doing it observing people in an effort to catch criminals and prevent crime. Live with it. The bottom line is that the only people who need be concerned about being observed are criminals and, to be perfectly honest, I strongly suspect that there are people who knowingly download pirate stuff participating in this thread.

Sharing with the group is not the same as deeding it to the group. Sharing means that group members can use it but you still own it, whereas as deeding means that it is actually owned by the group.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Nobody who doesn't steal has any cause for concern. 500,000 mistakes made in UK DNA Database (the same database where DNA samples for non-criminals (witnesses and victims) are stored. False Imprisonment for DNA Database Error Internal leaks from NZ DNA database Health Risks of TSA Bodyscanners I could go on and on (and on), but I have neither the inclination or the time. -- Your position that there's 'nothing to worry about' continues to be ridiculously naive. The links above are examples of other systems designed to catch/deter criminals, and continue to have harmful effects on innocent people. I've given other, more relevant information in this thread for systems that are owned by corporate bodies for the purpose of aiding in digital 'crime' detection, their margin for error is greater. Of the links you provided:- The first is about mistakes in the system and not about invasion of privacy, so it's irrelevent. The second is about a mistake at a lab, so it's irrelevant. I didn't bother to look at the other two. If the two I looked at are the best you can do, the others are no doubt irrelevant too. Mistakes happen everywhere, and no doubt more can be done to ensure they don't happen, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with a company, or companies, protecting themselves against theft. People in the thread talk about human rights. What rights would those be? What right to complete privacy does anyone have? Where is it enshrined? Does an individual's so-called right of privacy trump the rights of society? It does according to some people in this thread, but, imo, they are dead wrong. Anyone who wants to live in a society has obligations to that society. You would do better to think about society rather than your own personal individual interest, which is just based on principle (flawed principle) and has nothing to do with the society you live in. Your principle is all about me me me. It's a bad principle to have. Upgrade your argument. I don't need to. My argument is sound. Yours is flawed.

Alisha Matova wrote: Phil, I don't buy that because the are cameras at my ATM(which are there to protect Me from real criminals), that suddenly justifies tracking my web use. 1. Cameras at ATM machines are not there to protect you. They are there to put a face to anyone who is stealing - using other people's cards, for instance. They are their to catch thieves who steal from banks (the banks return any money that is stolen from you in that way, whether or not they catch the thief, so it's not you who is being protected by them). 2. The topic of this thread isn't about tracking your web use at all. That's not going to happen. It's only about watching for illegal downloads. What's about to happen is nothing whatsoever to do with tracking your web use. 3. If you were mugged in the street, would you prefer that the cameras weren't there, and the muggers got away with it, or would you prefer the cameras to be watching you (and everyone else) in case someone mugs someone - what some people in this thread wrongly regard as treating you as a criminal? Personally, I prefer the cameras, and I see them as a protection rather than an intrusion into my privacy.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but I've gone shopping, spending hundreds of dollars at Wal-Mart, only to be stopped at the door on the way out to be told to show my receipt, simply because I had a big bag of dog food that couldn't be fit into a bag. Now, maybe that's fine to most people (people such as Phil), but to me, it feels as if I'm being treated as a criminal when I've done nothing whatsoever wrong. I don't want my ISP checking my receipt, as if I'm some sort of criminal. Just because corporations can get away with such nonsense, doesn't mean it's right or that common, law abiding citizens have to put up with it. I hate being monitored as such in the real world, why would I ever accept being monitored that way on the net? You (Phil) may think it's great to get your freedom sucked away from you in this manner, but don't throw the rest of us under the bus with you. ...Dres So you think it's just fine for supermarkets to be stolen from? Frankly, it's an idiotic attitude that says, by all means catch the thieves but don't ever wonder if I might be one. The other thing is, you weren't being treated as a criminal. You got that entirely wrong. You were being treated as a possible criminal - just as you are every time you board a plane, use an ATM nachine, walk the city streets, etc. etc. etc. I had a similar experience a few years ago, when I bought a new computer. It was offered with a monitor but I forgot to take the monitor. So I went back to get it. One of the staff sorted it out and I set off for the outside without going via the till. Another member of staff saw me bypass the till with the monitor and asked me about it. I had to wait a few minutes while he checked that what I said was true, and all was well. It would be an incredibly self-centred stupidity for me to be miffed that I was stopped from taking something out of the store without paying at the till and without a check being made. They dared to consider that I might be stealing it. How stupid an attitude is that for me to have? "Don't you dare treat me like a criminal by checking my luggage for explosives I'm not a bomber! Other people may be bombers, but not me." "But we can't catch bombers unless we check people's luggage." "So check the luggage of bombers - not mine!" "But we don't know who the bombers are until we find bombs, so how can we check only their luggage?" It's astonishing that some people are so full of themselves that they ..... I don't know what to say. The attitude is so idiotic and irrational. They don't care if Wal-Mart gets stolen from all the time - just as long as Wal-Mart doesn't check their receipts when they are carrying unbagged items out of the store. It's idiotic!

The biggest money earner wasn't mentioned in this thread until the post above this one. It's making and selling stuff - or even just selling stuff. The marketplace makes it unnecessary to even have an inworld store, which would cost money for land or premises. If you take some time and learn to make things, and make them nice enough to be desirable, you can sell them in the marketplace.

Freya Mokusei wrote: TL;DR it doesn't matter why you use the Internet. You will still become a victim to this system, and still be treated like a criminal. Phil might be okay with this, I would hope that others are not. But the only people who will be treated like a criminal are those who perform criminal acts (download pirate stuff) - not the vast majority of ISP users. You are mistaking being treated as a potential criminal for being treated as an actual criminal. You are treated as a potential criminal when you board a plane (you and your possesions are scanned), when you walk out of a store that scans for tags, when you walk down the street (cameras), when you use an ATM machine (camera), etc. Do you object to those methods too? If not, it's silly objecting to what is just another method of the same kind of thing - watching everyone in a effort to spot actual criminals. Nobody who doesn't steal has any cause for concern.

Freya Mokusei wrote: This is absolutely false. Having your ISP checking your data-stream for pirated content is equivilent to having your mail-man check your mail for cash, just in case it was stolen. That's not a parallel. When you dowload something, you request it. It's your action that causes the download. A parallel concerning mail would be that your outgoing mail is checked, not your incoming mail, because it's your action that causes your outgoing mail but not your incoming mail. It's possible that mail is checked - for such things as explosives and anthrax - and that's a good thing, whether it's done going out or coming in. Some people seem to be against their actions being checked on but we all accept it happening all the time - in stores, airports, streets, etc. Oddly enough those same people don't seem to mind it happening to them in those places so why this case has their backs up is beyond me - unless they like to download pirated stuff, of course. If we don't do anything wrong, we have no need to fear those cameras, scanners, etc., or checks for pirated stuff.