Where does the line get drawn?

On Thursday after normal office hours, Daniel Linden posted the following:

The diversity of things to see and do within Second Life is almost unimaginable, but our community has made it clear to us that certain types of content and activity are simply not acceptable in any form. Real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depiction of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors; real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual violence including rape, real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of extreme or graphic violence, and other broadly offensive content are never allowed or tolerated within Second Life.

Please help us to keep Second Life a safe and welcoming space by continuing to notify Linden Lab about locations in-world that are violating our Community Standards regarding broadly offensive and potentially illegal content. Our team monitors such notification 24-hours a day, seven-days a week. Individuals and groups promoting or providing such content and activities will be swiftly met with a variety of sanctions, including termination of accounts, closure of groups, removal of content, and loss of land. It’s up to all of us to make sure Second Life remains a safe and welcoming haven of creativity and social vision.

This makes a disturbing ambiguity which really needs to be closed up. Especially worrying is his term "other broadly offensive content" which is neither defined nor elaborated on. Who defines what is "broadly offensive" and what is not, and where do Linden Labs stand on such a matter? If the owner of a banline using plot of land or sim decides that nude pictures of his avatar in compromising situations with another avatar is fine, or a picture of a nude real life model is fine, where do Linden Labs stand if someone disables their camera constraints to look into the sim and reports the content?

I'd very much like Daniel Linden - or any other responsible Linden - to say who would be responsible and what action might be taken under the following circumstances.

1. Open land, no group, no banlines. The land owner places a large image taken from the internet of two nude adults engaged in a sexual act. Is this unacceptable and if so, who gets punished and what would be the punishment? (I figured I'd start off with an easy one)
2. Open land, no group, no banlines. A visiting avatar places a large image taken from the internet of two nude adults engaged in a sexual act. Is this unacceptable and if so, who gets punished and what would be the punishment?
3. Group land, banlines for anyone not in the group. The land owner places a large image taken from the internet of two nude adults engaged in a sexual act. Is this unacceptable and if so, who gets punished and what would be the punishment?
4. Group land, banlines for anyone not in the group. A Group Member places a large image taken from the internet of two nude adults engaged in a sexual act. Is this unacceptable and if so, who gets punished and what would be the punishment?
5. A shopping mall, with an item vendor selling a BDSM item. The vendor has an image of a furry or human avatar trapped within the item, portrayed in an obviously uncomfortable or painful position. Does the owner of the vendor commit an offense meriting punishment? Does the owner of the mall also commit an offense for not returning the vendor? Could either be banned over it?
6. Open sim, free to join group, privately owned island. A visiting avatar leaves a prim decorated with underage sexual images, but sets it to group ownership so that it won't be autoreturned. Would just the avatar concerned be subject to action, or would the island sim owner also be subject to action for not discovering and returning the item?
7. This one's a doozy. Open sim, free to join group, privately owned island. A visiting avatar leaves prims containing explicit pictures of children being raped or tortured while the owner of the island/sim is away (on vacation for example). The content is reported to Linden Labs who then pass the blame to the sim owner and send an email instructing him to remove the content and/or ban the avatar that placed it. The owner, being on vacation and therefore not receiving the email, fails to comply. Would the owner return from vacation to find that their account had been closed, their land and possessions seized and their machine hash-blocked?
   

You can see from these few examples that there is no proper line that has been drawn by Linden Labs about what is "broadly offensive" and who exactly has to take responsibility for it. One thing is for sure, and that is that Linden Labs themselves don't want to be the sole responsible party - but where does the line get drawn? In a civilization specializing in shifting blame to other parties, would innocent accounts not responsible for the placing of "broadly offensive" content be as guilty as those actually placing the content? And are Linden Labs simply giving a free pass to anyone with a grudge against someone to pop over to that persons land, on a fake free account, and placing "broadly offensive" content so that he or she can get the person they hate banned?

Daniel, if you're going to ask the community for help, you're going to have to be far more specific about "broadly offensive" content; what it means, what it includes and excludes, and who will be to blame when it gets discovered. Yes, we all must play a part in keeping Second Life safe, but this isn't the way to inspire confidence. Don't be surprised when people don't use it for fear that they too might be warned or banned.

The discount that costs more than the original

So in preparation for voice being introduced to Second Life, they've partnered with a company to sell headsets, and are offering this "discount" deal costing a mere $80. One should note two things here, however. Number one is that this is the "featured" headset, meaning it's the most expensive, the one they'd love you to buy. If you click the "Selected Headsets" link, there are cheaper offers. Number two is that you can buy it a LOT cheaper elsewhere.

Let's look at some figures. All of the figures don't include postage and packing, but I have no reason to believe that the prices of other stores are vastly different.

The "discount" store has the Plantronics Audio 450 Portable PC Headset priced at $23.42 The cheapest I could find this for was actually from Hewlett Packard's store, where it was $17.28 - no sign of a discount here.

The next most expensive is the Plantronics Audio 370 at $36.82 - ZipZoomFly.com were cheapest for this one, at $28.50; again, no genuine discount in sight here.

Next up we have the Plantronics Audio 510 USB Headset: "Discount" price from Linden's partner: $46.87 - so what price can I get it for with a quick google search? $35.68 from TheNerds.net - three nil down.

Their next most expensive headset is the Plantronics DSP-400 PC Headset weighing in at a hefty $53.57 from the "discount" partner of Linden Labs. Best price I could find? $36.90 from Techonweb.com - can we make it a full house?

Apparently we can. As previously mentioned the "feature" - read "most expensive" - headset is the Plantronics Audio 550 Binaural USB Headset with DSP at a stonking $80.37. Quick search on that one and Mwave.com are the cheapest, at $51.91 nearly $30 cheaper than the "discount" offer from Linden Labs.

So I have to ask, Linden Labs - Where the hell is the discount you (or rather your partner) is promising? Every single headset they're selling is not discounted, it's actually more expensive than other retailers, in some cases nearly $30 more expensive.

This is false advertising. There's no discount. There's a backhander. We're being ripped off. And then they want to us to trust their choice of "honest" companies with Integrity for age verification?

No thanks!

The strangest IM Conversation to date

So here I am outside the Avalon ballroom, in my purple dress when this guy walks up. He's on a free account, 14 days old. After a few moments, which I'm assuming was when he looked at my profile, he IM's me as follows:

[16:38] ** OTHER AVATAR **: HI SWEET
[16:39] Untameable Wildcat: Hello
[16:39] ** OTHER AVATAR **: HOW ARE U HUH?
[16:40] Untameable Wildcat: good thanks. Yourself?
[16:40] ** OTHER AVATAR **: I CAN LICK YOUR PUSSY IF U WANT
[16:40] ** OTHER AVATAR **: DO U WANT?
[16:40] ** OTHER AVATAR **: please let me lick your pussy
[16:41] ** OTHER AVATAR **: ???
[16:41] ** OTHER AVATAR **: huh
[16:41] Untameable Wildcat: I will switch it on for you
[16:41] ** OTHER AVATAR **: eh?

At this point in the proceedings I changed from my elven avatar in her pretty royal purple ballroom gown and masquerade mask, to my tabby cat avatar resplendent in biker leathers.

[16:41] ** OTHER AVATAR **: wow
[16:42] Untameable Wildcat: There you go... my pussy. Lick away :)
[16:42] ** OTHER AVATAR **: ma vaffanculo.....merda

And strangely enough that's the last I heard from him.

(according to google, his last comment was "Fuck you... shit") - I assure you, the feeling is mutual. Following Linden Labs guidelines I've removed his name before posting the conversation, to assure Vesper Jacobus' anonymity.

The contract is signed

Reuters are reporting that the contract between Integrity and Linden Labs was signed last Thursday. Effectively this means that time is up for suggesting alternative methods for age verification, and that Linden Labs haven't listened to us at all.

It remains to be seen how long it remains optional to give these details. In my many years of experience, I've seen it happen time and time again that something is introduced - normally for political reasons - as "optional" but has strings attached that really mean "mandatory". UK Identity Cards are a prime example. When the scheme starts, it will indeed be optional. Citizens will be able to decline an ID card - but what they have been hushing up as much as possible is small print in the legislation that states if you don't have an ID card, you have to surrender your passport. So if you ever want to travel, the ID card isn't optional, since possession of a passport will be dependent on "opting in" to have one.

Where, one wonders, do Linden Labs intend this Age Verification thing to go? What are the strings they're going to attach to it? The first one is obvious - adult content... But the definition of "adult" is not. Linden Labs seem to have been very eager to avoid a solid definition; could the reason for this be that they want it to be expandable? Today, young looking avatars - tomorrow, furries and any group they deem "unsuitable".

Linden Labs seem to be of the opinion that the Age Verification system should serve one primary purpose - to indemnify them from prosecution. But that's yet another can of worms. How far can it go, legally, to indemnifying them from content they host? Internet Service Providers - of which Linden could be counted one, being that they host a virtual world - and this means that they are ultimately responsible for any content they host. Age Verification won't change this. The original people caught by the German media were way past the age of consent; Age Verification won't change that either. Adults peddling in any kind of material deemed unsuitable in the country they live is still going to be illegal, and the hosting company responsible for making sure it's unavailable. Age verification won't change that.

The problem with hosting a cyberworld available to the entire globe is jurisdiction in law matters. Linden Labs are in a unique position here; what they're doing has never been done before. Integrity offers them the opportunity to comply with a number of law acts in America, but doesn't - some would say can't - offer to indemnify them against actions bought in another country. The downside of that is the apparent paranoia that is being handed down to the American people by their current government, with regards to personal data is not liked or trusted by their users. Even American users I've spoken too are angry about the data Integrity are asking them to hand over. Non American users are furious.

And indeed, there are still a number of issues that should be cleared up - (which, may I say, Linden Labs have not even TRIED to touch on thus far) - The first of which is security. Enough data was stolen from them in November 1996 for them to need to implement an emergency plan for credit card holders. They have to hold the personally identifiable details for two years to comply with the PATRIOT act. So far they've said nothing to reassure residents that they've done all they can to close the security loopholes the last hacker used.

Secondly, there's the issue of contracts. As residents, we have a contract enforceable by law, with Linden Labs. If Linden Labs do something questionable, we do have the courts to settle disputes. We have no such contract with Integrity. We may not even know if Integrity misuse our data until way after it is too late, and even then we would probably not have an avenue to seek any kind of compensation. In the case of none-US residents, this data (passport/national ID card/driving license number in full) represents a hitherto unseen amount of data to give over the internet - particularly just to play a game.

So, Linden Labs are going to start rolling age verification using Integrity out as soon as they possibly can. Many businesses within SL will have to flag themselves Adult to avoid the possibility of a widening definition resulting in bans. Before too long the grid will be more "adult" than mature or PG. And then Linden Labs will say "Well, the majority of the grid is adult, therefore the majority of users must be in favour of the grid being entirely adult, therefore from now on this isn't optional, it's mandatory."

Remember Thursday May 17th 2007. It just may have been the day that marked the downfall and eventual death of Second Life.

The storm breaks

This morning there was discussion on the group "SL'ers against age verification" about child avatar sellers having their products and vendors deleted. Two were banned when they complained in the forums.

This whole thing seems to be spiralling out of all control. Ageplay is already banned, which is one thing, but to start banning the sale of child-like avatars is quite a jump in censorship. It's ominous to consider that people actually wearing such avatars could be the next victims, and then where will it end? Certainly the furry community is worried about this escalation. If one could get banned for wearing a human child avatar, how long until someone says "Furries yiffing is virtual beastiality - get rid of it!" and overnight wearing a furry avatar becomes a banning offense?

I chaired a general informal meeting (at which a few tempers ran high) this morning on Support for Healing island. General consensus was that we're FOR protecting people but AGAINST the methodology being proposed, for a variety of reasons. Linden Labs record of vault security being the main one, since they're required by the PATRIOT act to keep records for two years.

The major difficulty with the internet is that without being able to see someone, face to face, you're always going to be able to be fooled by those determined enough. What Linden Labs are proposing, won't stop those who are out to break the law - which is the very demographic they're trying to prevent.

Instead what they are doing is going to impact a number of people, and if they at some future point decide to make it mandatory, not optional... it's going to impact everyone on Second Life. And I still see absolutely nothing which makes me believe that they aren't going to make this mandatory sometime soon.

The meeting discussed the various options; the flaws in public notary were discussed, but no major new ideas were put forward. We reached consensus that the entire exercise is purely aimed at protecting Linden Labs, rather than being concerned with protecting the privacy of residents. It does seem to be a halfway measure, though, since rational adults would not let their children onto adult second life and irrational adults will just con the system whatever Linden Labs put in place.

If this latest development - the banning of some people who sell childlike avatars - starts to develop into something more sinister, it will only perpetuate the belief that Linden Labs are only doing this to protect their own backs. As for an answer - well, we're all still looking... but surely there MUST be a better way to trust your customers than to demand they hand over personal details... musn't there?

Here's the mailing list

In a conversation between two Lindens and a group of concerned residents, Daniel and Robin Linden were backed into a corner, and forced to admit that yes - data WOULD be stored... For an entire TWO YEARS!

[10:12] Robin Linden: Tao the data is never saved to be deleted. It’s matched only
[10:12] Daniel Linden: it’s vaulted to provided a government-required audit trail for two years, but neither Linden or Integrity can access that data unless an audit is initiated.

Here's the mailing list, folks! Who wants a copy?

Seriously, you now have to ask who can initiate an audit? Can the RIAA? Can the US Department of Homeland Security? Can the DoJ? What about law organisations in other countries - will they be able to request an "audit" so that they can keep track of what their citizens are doing? And how secure IS this vault, given that Linden Labs failed to protect credit card details last year?

Unfortunately, as time passed, more questions arise than get answered. Linden Labs in fact haven't made ANY attempt to answer residents concerns. Their latest blog entry on the subject once again repeats the same things "It won't be stored, it's entirely optional, it's only for adult content" - well, we now know the FIRST of these things is a lie. It WILL be stored, as is a legal requirement. The second is only true for the moment; watch this space for that changing. And just wait until the anti-furry brigade starts making noises and it'll be extended to all sorts of things.

I've seen many complaints about upcoming features in my time here, but NOTHING - absolutely nothing - has come close to this. Whereas normally 10-15% of the population complain about something new while 85-90% like the idea, here it's the other way around. 85-90% of the residents do not want to give their personal data to someone on a non-contractual assurance that it won't be given or sold or shared with third parties.

It now looks as if the Electronic Frontier Foundation is thinking about getting involved - Linden Labs, you're playing with the big boys now. There may also be European Union concerns about privacy... believe me, this is a can of worms you don't want to be trying to open.

To be continued.

The plot thickens

Robin Linden has made a further post on the Second Life blog about the situation, and admitted that the age verification fiasco is as a result of the German media investigation.

She writes:

On Thursday May 3, we were contacted by German television network, ARD, which had captured images of two avatars, one that resembled an adult male and another that resembled a child, engaged in depicted sexual conduct. Our investigations revealed the users behind these avatars to be a 54-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman. Both were immediately banned from Second Life.

Which backs up what most opponents of this form of age verification have said. That it wouldn't have stopped this particular case from happening, and it won't stop it from happening again.

The main staying point is Linden Labs' introduction of this data collection while at the same time trying to dodge their responsibilities in policing the grid properly. It is NOT enough to say that it's all the residents responsibility, and more to the point it is not satisfactory in law. If you are a service provider, as Linden Labs claim to be, then the ultimate responsibility for content on your site (or in your virtual world) is with you, the service provider - not your customers. You can put whatever terms of service you like saying "don't do this" but if somebody does, and you fail to find and remove it then legally you, the service provider, is responsible.

A 54 year old and a 27 year old could both, under the current proposals, have easily age verified and the same thing could have happened, and could happen again. What Linden Labs are proposing here is not a solution to the problem. It won't work on a voluntary basis, so they'll make it mandatory and then wonder why half their residents left.

And even after age verification, adults that WANT to peddle child porn will simply make a group that only those "in the know" know about, will lock their land (on PG or Mature sims) to 'entry by group membership only' and will go on peddling child porn or depicting child abuse. Unless Linden Labs are prepared to send an invisible Linden into locked group membership plots to have a look round, this kind of thing is going to continue to happen in Second Life regardless of age verification. Worst of all, perpetrators may use stolen information or identity fraud when they go through age verification in the first place, meaning those who have had their identities stolen could be facing pornography charges on top of everything else.

All the arguments I'm making here have been made by others too, and what have we heard from Linden Labs about these very valid arguments?

Silence. Dead silence. The preverbial crickets chirping. Followed eventually by a "this is the date age verification will start" that proves they haven't listened to us at all.

Finally, I'd just like to point out my OWN experience with "Integrity" and their age verification system. I went to a site that they used, and because my IP address came out in North America, the system assumed that I'd always lived there and wouldn't let me enter anything but an American zip code (itself a laugh, as my IP comes out at Toronto, Canada where my service provider is - yet Integrities system refused to take a Canadian post code) and when I was unable to give it the details it wanted (I've just moved from the UK, and most of my documentation is still UK based; it wouldn't take my Canadian driving license number, and for some reason it wouldn't take my UK passport number either) it demanded that I fax copies of these government documents off to who knows where - it certainly didn't tell me who the fax number it gave me belonged to. Could have been the FBI or it could have been somebody in the identity theft business for all I know.

You had better listen, Linden Labs. You had better listen well. Because you're not the only virtual world out there, and if you do this, residents (particularly non-US residents) are going to leave en-masse.