Sharing IM's is against TOS.. but what about local chat?

[Carl Thibodeaux]

It says sharing IM's is against rules unless you ask the person and they let you.

But say you see people having a conversation in local/nearby chat.. And you copy it.

Is that against the TOS to share too?

[Jadeclaw Denfu]

I'd say, yes.

Local chat is local (<20m) for a reason.

My advice: Ask first. If the residents involved say no, don't do it.

 

[Laetizia Coronet]

It's not against the Terms of Service, but it is against the Community Standards, the CS, #4, Disclosure: "Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited." http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php HTH

[Ansariel Hiller]

Of course nobody can do anything about it if you post whatever conversation outside SL, for instance on your own blog. TOS and CS end at the doors of LL.

[Guilliaume]

And of course it could be argued that anyone speaking in local chat is giving permission to use their chat anyway. If you speak in local chat, ANYONE who is in range can see it and this includes any number of individuals who may have cammed to your location and have the option set to view chat based on camera position. There are also scripts out there that grab local chat and automatically repeat it to the entire sim or specific avatars. In other words, it is impossible for us to know exactly who is seeing our local chat logs anyway, so how is it feasible to expect control over that information?

[Paul Hexem]

1. You can't read local chat from camera position.

 

2. Scripts that lieten to local chat without consent/notice are against the remote monitoring CS.

[Dillon Levenque]

Expecting 'control over that information' has little to do with the OP. The OP asked if disclosing overheard chat would violate the TOS. At least one person said no, but that same person posted a link and a quote that (to me anyway) makes it pretty clear doing so would violate Community Standards. It could be said that also makes it a TOS violation since I'm pretty sure the TOS includes a clause that requires one to agree to abide by the Community Standards.

The control is in the residents' willingness to abide by the rules. Not everyone does.

[solstyse]

I think the answer depends on whether the question is technical or practical. Most people won't complain if you do. After all, they DID choose to post in local, whe an IM or a conference would be sooo easy. Technically, though, I think one would have to wade through just about every document that LL has produced to see which rules contradict which other rules, and/or come up with a precident based answer.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

I disagree.  All the documents are very clear that you cannot share conversations without the consent of the participants.  There are no exceptions. If the subject matter is impersonal, such as a technical discussion, then you should have no problem obtaining consent.  BTW, those ignorant disclaimers people put in their profile saying that if you talk to them you are giving consent don't hold any water either. 

[Laetizia Coronet]

There's no ifs and buts, the CS are clear about this. Whether or not the lab cares enough to follow through on an AR is another matter. If I copy your text where you explain to a newbie how to put their hair on, and you AR me for that, nothing will happen.

[solstyse]

Two out of three that I read agree with you. I did find one gray area.

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

I disagree.  All the documents are very clear that you cannot share conversations without the consent of the participants.  There are no exceptions. If the subject matter is impersonal, such as a technical discussion, then you should have no problem obtaining consent.  BTW, those ignorant disclaimers people put in their profile saying that if you talk to them you are giving consent don't hold any water either. 

---

The privacy policy http://secondlife.com/corporate/privacy.php states:

Disclosing Personal Information in Profiles, Forums or within Second Life

You may choose to disclose personal information in our online forums, via your Second Life profile, directly to other users in chat or otherwise while using Second Life. Please be aware that such information is public information and you should not expect privacy or confidentiality of this information.

And because this is an official LL document, anyone who has action taken against them for sharing local chat needs only to cite this document to win any case against them, The TOS and Community Standards fully back what you're saying, but if someone really wanted to be a lawyer about it, they do have this to turn to.

Odds are, thought, that most of us wouldn't even try, if it's about something we've posted in local. After all, most of us reserve private comments for IM or conference. Most of us also understand that even if we did present a report for reposting public chat, that a) the damage had already been done, and b0 it would be simple for the offending person to either defend themselves, or create a new account.

So it's still best not to post into local anything that discloses any rl info, anything that is potentially embarrassing, or anything you would object to being shared.

[Paul Hexem]

You're misinterpreting that section of the privacy policy.

It doesn't mean you can share stuff you read in local chat (within SL)- it just means that when you disclose information in a place people can read it, people that have access to that place can read it, no matter who they are in RL. It's legal speak to protect them from getting sued in case somebody finds out RL information by standing next to you and listening to your conversation in local chat, or in case you're dumb enough to put your phone number in your profile feed.

It doesn't give people permission to ignore the CS rule, "Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited."

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

solstyse wrote:

So it's still best not to post into local anything that discloses any rl info, anything that is potentially embarrassing, or anything you would object to being shared.

---

Exactly my sentiments.  I even go so far as not to put it in a private IM unless you've known someone a long time and they have earned your trust.

I'm always amazed at the amount of potentially embarrassing or personal RL information  people are willing to reveal on the internet, where it stays for eternity even if you delete it,  and then complain about it when it is used against them. 

Even so, if someone leaves a car wide open with the keys in the ignition, that doesn't give anyone the right  start it up and ram the car through the owner's house.

[Christin73]

I think it sould be taken by a case by case basis. As a club Manager it is often neccery for someone including the clubs owner to coy/paist what others said. It helps manage and assess the situation better, like if we have a rude guest. Same with sim owners. So realy it sould be taken on a case by case basis. Just my opnion.

[solstyse]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

You're misinterpreting that section of the privacy policy.

It doesn't mean you can share stuff you read in local chat (within SL)- it just means that when you disclose information in a place people can read it, people that have access to that place can read it, no matter who they are in RL. It's legal speak to protect them from getting sued in case somebody finds out RL information by standing next to you and listening to your conversation in local chat, or in case you're dumb enough to put your phone number in your profile feed.

It doesn't give people permission to ignore the CS rule, "Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited."

---

Gadget, I actually agree with you. I just felt the need to play devils advocate for a moment there. Because noatter what it technically right, that document does give someone who breaks the TOS and community standards a leg to stand on. I did say, if someone wants to be a lawyer about it.

And what do lawyers do?

They give million dollar settlements to old geezers who spill coffee on their lap, as if they didn't do it themselves, and as if any lap that old is worth that sum of money.

they include "loss of companionship" in injury lawsuits that only involved their client's foot.

They make it necessary to label the dumbest things, as if someone who is planning to take the hairdryer into the shower with them has the IQ to read the warning. Or as if that guy who was going to stick his hand under a running lawnmower was sober enough to see only one label.

The law is all in how it's interpreted. And in a dispute, it is up to both sides to have the judge interpret it in their favor. The privacy policy is something that the defendant could easily turn to if a dispute was to happen. At the very least, if a person is clever enough, they can use it to make a case that will reduce a ban to a very stern, "Just dont do it again." It doesn't make it right. but it does make it possible.

edited to add: Yes, there are a lot of sim owners who use chat logs to settle disputes. Usually, hidden deep within their covenants is a clause that chat logs can be used for this purpose, and only this purpose, not to be shared with the general public.

However, regardless of any consequences or lack thereof to anyone who breaks this rule, if you're quoted, then word is already out there. It's still best to post as if there is no rule against it. Keep out personal and embarraasing info.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

solstyse wrote:

And what do lawyers do?

They give million dollar settlements to old geezers who spill coffee on their lap, as if they didn't do it themselves, and as if any lap that old is worth that sum of money.

---

 

I'd thought the hot coffee lawsuit was somewhat frivolous myself, until I saw the facts. Even so, I'd have never countenanced an opinion like yours: that somehow an old 'geezer's' lap is less valuable. See how much frivolity you can find in this:

 On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed. 

ETA: I actually was directed to the facts of that lawsuit by a post in this very Forum from Celestiall Nightfire. It IS possible to learn stuff here.

Edtited a second time to replace the copy/pasted Wikipedia paragraph with a version not containing all the pointless hyperlinks.

[solstyse]

Here's the important bit.

Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

Was she in therestaurant? Oh, nope. She was in her grandson's car.

Did a McDonalds employee place the hot beverage between her legs. I mean, They did lose, so they must have done it... Oh, wait. Now. She put the cup there herself.

So, there must have been a defect in the container, right? Nope, wrong again. the clumbsy old bat didn't know how to properly remove a lid.

And yet somehow, her injuries, which nomatter how severe were completely self inflicted, wree the financial responsibility of a business that sold her precicely what she'd paid for, in perfect working order.

It's common sense that hot beverages, whicfh is the category that coffee and tea fall cleanly into without any controversy, by design are hot. And what prevented her from holding the cup like a normal human being in one hand while using the other hand to remove the lid? She'd spent 4/5ths of a century on this planet. If she hasn't figured out how to open a lid on a simple cup of coffee by now, she's beyond hope.

The extent of her injuries do nothing but attempt to get "sympathy points." The act that was committed that directly led to her injury was committed by her, not by McDonalds. Now, if you were to make the case that the medical claim should go on McDonalds insurance, then fine. But to me it seems that this old bat burned herself and got more money than I could spend in my lifetime in the process. Not a bad idea, but I'm still young enough to need the parts she burned, while she's old enough that it doesn't matter.

I say she did it to herself as a get-rich-quick scheme. It was her own fault she got burned, and she's rolling in money because of it. Her grandkids will never need to work. It's not that I'm completely insensitive, But people really need to take responsibility for their own actions.

And then her case led to all the "real life courtroom comedies" of the 90's. Some Lardbutt finds another fast food restaurant to sue for "making him fat." as if the restaurant somehow removed the option of not being a pig. An RV company got sued because someone who bought a short bus of their very own thought that cruise control meant they could leave the driver seat. The idiocy that came in the wake of that old woman's case is astounding.

Right where I live ther used to be a public swimming pool, until some asshat decided to run and jump into the shallow end. He landed on a grate for the pool's filter, and cut his foot. the resulting lawsuit closed the pool. Now, the closest place to go is a 30 minute drive away. For 6 stitches in his foot, he sued, got a six digit settlement, and his wife sued for "loss of companionship." that's what closed the place down. Now, if they couldn't bump uglies because of his FOOT, then there's a man who really just ddint' want to stick it in his wife. My whole community was robbed of summer recreation because someone read the story of the old hag with her stupid coffee cup, decided to copycat it, and again, inexplicably won the case even though the injury was inflicted by not using common sense. He broke the rules. He was in the wrong. He ran, which nobody should do poolside, and he jumped in where you're not supposed to jump in for a reason. As far as i can tell, they took some marital problems out on the community, since a foot injury has nothing to do with loss of companionship. either their marrige was very derilict (since the foot is so far away from the wang) or very depraved (if the foot really made a big enough difference for loss of companionship to make it into such an injury case.) As a footnote, this case was well published, and the couple became local pariahs, then used the excuse "Our lawyer told us to"

maybe if the jury hadn't been so generous to the lady who tried to drink her coffee with the wrong oficice the judicial system could operate with some efficiency. Maybe the entire idea of personal responsibility wouldn't have gon out the window. maybe at leasts one city could have kept it's swimming pool.

I may sound bitter, because I am. I'm a darwinist. I'm tired of every time an individual does something wrong, the blame goes to what music, what movies, what video games, what other thing that someone else who has never seen or spoken to the person may have done to influence that turn of events. I'm tired of the majority suffering due to the idiocy of some retard. I'm tired of the mentallity that everything a person does is somehow someone else's fault. I'm tired of "should we censor this, because out of a billion people who saw it or heard it one did this."

So I am a darwinist. Human beings are the dominant species on this planet. If you find a way to die prematurely, or maim yourself by your own stupid actions in spite of this, so be it. Just at least have the decency to putthe blame where it belongs... on yourself.

 

[Hugsy Penguin]

It's clear you don't know anything about the Stella Liebeck case.

Coffee is supposed to be served hot.  It's not supposed to be served at 185°F (85°C).  That's hot enough to inflict third degree burns (i.e., not just red on the surface but burned all the way through the dermis) and is unfit for consumption.  McDonalds knew their coffee could do this to people (because there had been claims in the past) but did nothing about it.

And, no, she wasn't trying to scam millions out of McDonalds.  She initially sought $20,000, which I believe mostly covered medical costs, but McDonalds refused.  And before they entered into a secret settlement, the amounts were reduced to $160,000 in compensatory damages and $480,000 in punitive damages (still a lot but not millions).

I don't think anyone, including Stella herself, is saying she did nothing wrong.  What's being said is that the coffee was served ridiculously negligently hot.

Here's more info (WARNING - contains photo of her actual burns):  http://pratlaw.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/an-old-posting-i-always-wanted-to-have-referenced/

---

solstyse wrote:

Not a bad idea, but I'm still young enough to need the parts she burned, while she's old enough that it doesn't matter.

---

Honestly, that's just a disgusting thing to say.  Her lap is every bit as important to her as yours is to you.

[Dillon Levenque]

Wow. I'm glad you answered before I got back. I doubt I could have stayed as polite as you did.

[Paul Hexem]

I agree with solstyse here. Doesn't matter how terrible her injuries are, she did it to herself. She should have been put down like a retarded animal, not given money.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

I agree with solstyse here. Doesn't matter how terrible her injuries are, she did it to herself. She should have been put down like a retarded animal, not given money.

---

I take it you were tired of people not even realizing you were trying to troll so you are just firing off random loud noises.

Meh.

[Paul Hexem]

What?

[Allisah Aviator]

Couldn't agree more. A couple of huge humanitarians here I see. Amazing what people will spout off behind a computer screen.

[Allisah Aviator]

of·fen·sive

/əˈfɛn**Only uploaded images may be used in postings**://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" border="0" alt="" />ɛn-/ Show Spelled [uh-fen-siv or for 4, 5, aw-fen-, of-en-]   

adjective

 

repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting: an offensive remark; an offensive joke.

 

^ ^

 

[jwenting]

---

Ansariel Hiller wrote:

Of course nobody can do anything about it if you post whatever conversation outside SL, for instance on your own blog. TOS and CS end at the doors of LL.

---

and there's the loophole. Post it on some blog, then copy the content of the blog back into SL (which you're free to do of course as you're the IP owner of the blog's content).