Freya Mokusei

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.

I'm reducing your response because most of it is tiresome and repetitive. Phil Deakins (abridged) wrote: If anyone loses internet access via certain ISPs, it's their own fault for not doing exactly as they're told. Such people should be denied the right to do online banking, read online news, participate in the growing online world. Equivilence. Phil Deakins wrote: Unless you are saying that ISPs must allow anyone and everyone to have access to the internet through them. 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.

Phil Deakins wrote: 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. 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.

Phil Deakins wrote: 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. 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 have no argument against that so you ignore it and carry on regardless 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 bottom line is that the only people who need be concerned about being observed are criminals All provably false. Still no facts or evidence to support your points. Corporations aren't society, and no-one is forced to live under their rules (except their employees). We don't yet live in America, Inc. 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 archetypes. The reality is that the profit-drivers in this marketplace are mostly dinosaurs who would rather stop the world changing around them than risk a cent of their money on helping the average citizen. It is a pity that you can only see the small picture, and petty battles of morality.

Dorian Schism wrote: Linden Labs needs to bring back the environment editor that allowed us to preset our own cycle as these pregenerated ones that havea fixed start are extremely wierd and seem to be more designed for RP sims. I therefor now feel that even though I like to have my land permanently set on a sunset for me to havea decent sky I must use the default settings that does not let me set the sunset time. I am force to use the preset sunrise, midday, sunset, midnight, or "estate time" even though I feel the first four are the extreme when I am wanting a more gradual that forces visitors to see my land how I want. The daycycle editor is still there. As is the Sky editor, and the ability to insert pre-recorded skies. I'm not near a viewer right now, but it's something like World > Day Cycle > New Preset...

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.

How is it invisible? If it simply has Transparency set to 100, then you will see it with Ctrl+Alt+T If it is using an full alpha texture (similar to those used for shoes) then you will not see it with Ctrl+Alt+T. As far as I know this is behaviour as normal.

Thanks, Alisha. It boggles my mind that people are happy submitting to warrantless searches, abuses of power and increasing encroachment of our human rights. More so with recent revelations such as Over-reaching Cellphone Surveillence, FBI tracking thousands of vehicles without warrants and The PATRIOT Act being abused on a massive scale. I can't paste enough links that demonstrate the folly of this viewpoint. I am glad for everyone that chooses to step forward. When the government (which should serve the people, by definition) is abusing civil liberties to this extent, the thought of giving any power to corporations (which only serve themselves, also by definition) so that they can fight crime 'their way' is flat-out insanity.

Chronometria wrote: On the race scoreboard, i show up as "Chronometria resident", not Chrono Cogshine. On the nametag that marks my snail racer shell, again i show up with my resident title and login name. To all the items the commentators use to identify us, our logins are the only thing they see and it confuses them. Problem is old scripts. This was always going to be a pain, but honestly it's over a year later now. If the creators involved haven't released new scripts yet, pester them. I have a standing replacement agreement for my script-work; I'll make any of my No Mod scripts Display-Names friendly for free, as soon as I'm asked - there's no excuse I can think of for not having this policy. Takes very little time + Costs nothing to reupload = Why is this still a problem for people. As for the thread: I've never had an issue with display names, and am capable of naming things without any help from the SL viewer (I do it every day, in RL, where people don't have names floating over their heads). The transition provided no hassles, and I've never considered anyone dismissive/disrespectful towards single-named users as anything but Trollin'.

I aim to please; it is a fun little toy. I have a fancy thing that shortens queries into a friendly format for me, but I'm sure there's instructions on the site. http://lmgtfy.com Good luck hunting those logs!

Let me Google that for you.

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. Upgrade your argument.

16 wrote: if look at the voluntary USA org that the OP is referring to then can see that they wants to get IPAPs involved as well as ISPs. is massive debate about that for sure. just on principle alone Will look into this further. I can imagine that's going to get very unpopular, very fast. Thank you for your insights.

16 wrote: only time that ISP actual bothers to look at you close is if you frequently attempt to connect to ip addresses that they know deal in, or act as a conduit for illegal stuff. like addresses on their chit/watch list sure can use proxies or ToR or whatevs. can disguise the content anyway you want as well. cant disguise the destination tho. so that the policing/blocking vector. is how it works where I live. from a technical pov is quite simple how is done Clearly it's aimed at 'casual' pirates, and uses fly-by techniques. Thanks for the clarification. It might act as a disincentive, but recent news simply shows that people are more likely to hide their traffic rather than stop pirating (demonstrated in the UKs recent blocking of a large-scale torrent site). Shared and public connections would still be at significant risk. In the UK, it makes public places (bars, restaurants, hotels) liable for the downloading committed by its customers. The destination is easily disguised, all you need is another step (router/WiFi/tunnel/VPN etc) in front of it.

16 wrote: these systems dont work like this where there are systems in place already they work on connections. the ISPs and router companies maintain chitlists of ip addresses. they block them you get in trouble when you try to circumvent the blocking Unsure what this means. I admit I'm not familiar with US ISPs; my perspective is the networking layer. Packet inspection would still be required to determine source/destination IP addresses. If your angle is that they block access to the site via HTTP or delist from DNS, that won't be enough. Circumventing the block would be relatively easy if it was only IP-based. And analysing without determining intent or source (i.e., following the traffic only to the last link-in-the-chain) would be extremely dangerous, and criminalise public WiFi, universities, businesses or any other shared connection. To clarify; I picked the 'opening your mail' analogy because 1. It's illegal for them to do this without a court order. (except in prisons and prison-states) 2. Explosives and anthrax are almost always detected without having to open mail, whereas ISPs have to both open and analyse your private data to inspect it. There's no way to immediately tell 'pirate' data from real data, meaning innocent data (e.g., your shopping, bank information, porn use) will be intercepted by any system like this. 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.

Chronometria wrote: That photocopy thing must be a joke surely. That would be completely impractical. It's [always been] the method required for confirming identity/age via Support. Same process as changing your date of birth in your account, and other security measures (such as a compromised account). Users without these (and similar) issues can most often verify either with Payment on File, or Age Verification. That is, once the SLGridStatus gets resolved.

If you can get to the sim, you can change the setting from an adjacent parcel by right-clicking on your land and selecting About Land. No need to wait for anyone. Sadly I can't help with your other questions

Marcus Hancroft wrote: They mean nothing to me and I don't want to see them. This is the problem.

Pieter Seelowe wrote: Long time player first time poster here, today i logged in to see my house behind banlines... Yet when i try to get to my house it keeps telling me i need to verify my age... There are two systems for allowing access to Adult Land. The first allows you onto Adult Land itself, the second allows you into parcels flagged to Allow Access Only to Residents Who Have Been Age-Verified, found on the Access tab of About Land (you may need to right-click the ground of your parcel if you can't get on to it). If you have this option checked, uncheck it and see if those banlines disappear.

Kotekru Teskat wrote: my maturity rating has been reduced to general & mature without any way I can find to change it back to adult. Do you have Payment Info on File? Adding a Credit Card to your account used to to be a second tier verification method for proving your age; it may fix this for you in-lieu of finding out an official method.

Phil Deakins wrote: It can't be any softer or unobtrusive than that. 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. If you don't see the dangers in this system then you deserve everything you'll get by allowing corporations to implement it*. With your continued persistance in ignoring repeats of history, and your lack of understanding of the scope of this problem, I am withdrawing from this point of discussion. Good luck to you all the same. * I realise you're not a US national, and won't be affected directly by these changes. The UK has its own, and you'll have to bend over even further:- http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/06/the-uks-getting-a-three-strikes-and-your-isp-throws-you-under-a-bus-law-targeting-pirates/

Hold off on adjusting your viewer! Try to get to http://my.secondlife.com/TheirUser.Name You may need to login. But if you're having problems getting to that web-address (mine as an example: http://my.secondlife.com/freya.mokusei ) then the problem is not your viewer. =] It may be your firewall, or the Second Life platform.

1. I'm putting across the idea that corporations profit without thought of benefitting the consumer. Profit-seeking on its own is natural enough, but no-one should implicitly trust anything a corporation says or does, because unless you're a share-holder, they don't care about you. 2 & 3. 'They did it wrong' isn't an acceptable excuse. There are countless stories like the Rootkit one, all of them victimising either the creators or the consumers. How about Amazon refusing to pay eBook authors their full price because Amazon decided to sell their products for less? The now commonplace 'locking' of hardware to prevent consumers from being able to perform basic repairs? How about the dozens of vendors that lose data on their subscribers every year, product keys and personal information being left out in the open to be resold for spam-mail, credit-card harvesting and whatever else. I'm sorry, but defending these practices is just non-sensical. If you think corporations will ever be trustworthy on this issue you are sorely mistaken. If you think any measure such as this has helped you (as a consumer) in any way, you are also mistaken. Please look at some examples from very recent history. All of them prove your defence of these corporations to be inadequate. Please conduct further research on this issue, and look up some of the history involved. It is important. Statutory Rights Resell Rights EU Protects Digital Resale

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Parcels-for-Sale-Estate/bd-p/ParcelsForSaleEstate http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Parcels-for-Sale-Mainland/bd-p/ParcelsforSaleMainland

Phil Deakins wrote: First, you made no suggestion of what the corporation may do that should cause us to worry. Everything a corporation does should cause you worry, on some level. They don't act in the interest of the consumer. Phil Deakins wrote: Second, the steps that are about to be taken are nothing to do with "making money", in the way that you used the phrase. They are to do with preventing theft, which is totally different. Ah no. By the time this information is online, the theft has already been commited. This legislation is to do with preventing loss of income after the theft. The problem with this is that it's playing 'whack-a-mole', rather than patching the obvious holes in the system to prevent the theft in the first place. Had the industries involved taken the time (and spent the money) to patch these holes, our rights wouldn't have to be sold off. Our rights don't earn corporations anything; so they are saving money (and therefore making it). ETA: A corporation's only purpose is to seek profit. Everything it does, therefore, is tied back to this drive. Phil Deakins wrote: Third, in the context of this thread, which it is, the corporations are about to take steps to prevent the theft of their products, and the only people who have any cause to worry are those who continue to steal those products. I.e the worry is specific to the thieves. Again, the theft has already been commited. All this does is remove consumer rights, limit market freedoms and instill surveillance systems that criminalise the average consumer. As an example of this, consider the Sony 'Rootkit' exposé. A corporation doing something it believed was right, and would prevent people from making money from the exploitation of digital Sony products. They did this by sneakily installing rooting software onto their own customers computers, leading to huge security exploits. I doubt criminals were worried. Thank you for the expansion, though.