and in a dimly lit room where you've got nothing to hide, say your goodbyes

There's a rather ruthless level of arrogance in the latest Phoenix viewer post. Let me distill down the main points:

• V1 viewers cannot support mesh.
• Henri Beauchamp made it work for CoolVL, damn him.
• People are switching from Phoenix to CoolVL. We purely can't have that.
• I never wanted Phoenix to have mesh. We're DONE with Phoenix. It's OVER, people.
• But one of our coders whined, and built up a database of patches anyway...so, fine, I caved--AGAINST my better judgement, mind you--and now Phoenix will have mesh.
• It will be buggy, it will crash, it will do other weird things, because I don't care what Henri says, mesh just doesn't WORK with v1.
• Even though we said we'll never update Phoenix again, now we're going to, though as I said, I'm profoundly against it.
• Also, you idiots should upgrade your machines. I mean, my god, some of you can't even run SSE2-enabled viewers. What are you, five? Grow up and upgrade, damn it!
• We've also installed RLV coding into Phoenix, even though I was also against that, because really, you people need to get better hobbies than deviant sex.
• But get this through your thick heads, people--we won't update Phoenix again. This is it. This is all you get, and you should be goddamn thankful that anyone bothered with a stupid v1 viewer structure in the first place.

That sums up the major points pretty well, I think. I'm sure Miss Lyon could have been more dismissive if she tried, but she's not far from utter contempt now. It's darkly amusing coming from the former champion of V1 over everything else, this "get v2 or get out" attitude. Wonder what happened in the background to force her hand like this?

You know, other than Henri getting mesh to work in a V2 structure that has a V1 interface. Which she of course said couldn't be done.

[Insert from the Editrix: Henri's responded to the allegations in a calm, unruffled, and rational manner, pretty much striking down Lyon's raving point by point. It's a refreshing breath of logical air. Also, tip of the hat to friend Alex, for finding me the link.]

In a move that will surprise no one following the Google debacle, Google has now "streamlined" their appeals process--to make it even more likely to catch innocents and "guilty" (note, Google's definitions of guilt, there) alike:

"Apparently there's no limitation on the number of times Google might decide to take a disliking to your name, even if Google previously approved it, and you showed it government ID with that name on it."

Miss Tateru Nino said that, and she's absolutely right--Google has moved from evil with a side of baffling into supervillain status with this. And there's been no further resolution on how these "inappropriate" names are found; the amount of like or dislike generated in any particular Google employee seems fairly random. That hasn't really altered since July; they've just gotten a lot more harsh on things.

Another quote (from the second linked article):

We don't support pseudonymous use in Google+: we support the use of whatever name you use in your life.

On paper, at least, Google is maintaining a contradictory stance to begin with, because take cases like me. I use my real name with my bank and with government offices. Everyone else--and I mean that, just about everyone else, including family, close friends, the theatre we mainly go to, occasional acquaintances, catalogs, online purchases through Amazon and other entities, my insurance company, the clinics and hospitals I've attended, and most of my blogs--gets Emilly Orr.

In point of fact, not a few people closest to me, call me by that name and no other. Or they switch fluidly back and forth between Emilly and my "real" name. So "whatever name I use in my life"? That's Emilly, for the most part.

Yet that's the name Google doesn't want. I'm more than past glad I severed my Google+ profile when I did; my only fear now is that somehow, at some point, Google's going to make use of it mandatory for everyone.

And then...there's the ongoing JLU scandal. Now, I did say I was going to stop going through the SLUniverse threads and pulling out quotable bits, and I'm holding to that. But more has surfaced in the meantime, and Axi Kurmin is hot on the trail of the new revelations. She's even got the second part of the series up, and one of the first things she does is challenges everyone involved in the debate--on any side--to be clear on the terminology they're using. I quote:

"Defining your terms is important. It allows everyone to speak about a thing and actually be communicating the same ideas. When you don't define them, you wind up arguing over what they mean.

"I have also found that people like to change what things mean to suit themselves, particularly when they feel like calling someone nasty names. Whilst watching this story unfold, many people (self included) have noticed that the JLU (and their supporters) apparently aren't quite sure what the word 'griefer' means, because they keep stretching its boundaries farther and farther, even to include anyone who doesn't support them and says so in a public forum, and nothing more. Let us review:

"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players."

I took all of that, because I think all of that is important. Throughout everything on SLUniverse, and through both entries so far--and in the comments--on Search Engine Watch, she's remained clear, concise, and level-headed. She's not sinking to anyone's level; she's holding her own, and asking--nay, on occasion demanding--that we do the same. Civil discourse demands no less.

The problem is, as I've stated before, neither side seems interested in that. The few members who've come forward to support the JLU have either dissolved into hysterics, insisted that they're trustworthy simply because they are (recursive logic at its best), or flounced off under the "I just can't talk with you people" banner.

And the folks who stand against the JLU, most often, are descending into rabid over-emotionalism itself, because it's pretty difficult to remain calm and steadfast in the face of "we don't have to show you that" and "you can't HANDLE the truth!" proclamations.

At any rate, it will be an interesting series to watch.

In other news, this is just gorgeous, read all about decision fatigue, and afterwards, read about six fashion trends that actually killed people--including the crinoline skirt, and the corset. Fun!

And to wrap this up for you, I have four words: blood orange chocolate bat. That is all.

the rain won't wash away the ashes underneath your nails

(Continued from part X.)

First, a note relevant to today.

Next, we're going back to the Information Privacy Principles (of California, at least). We'd covered 1 to 4; here's the next one.

5. Right to Know Principle

Individuals have the right to know what types of personal information we gather and use.

• We will tell you what types of personal information we gather and how we use the information.
• We will tell you what types of personal information we share with other organizations and the authority for sharing the information.
• We routinely inform the public about our information privacy policies and practices.
• We provide, upon request, information about our privacy policies and practices, including the names of staff responsible for overseeing our compliance.

What does this one mean?

Again, bad things for the JLU. They would need to be proactive about determining what information they need, and why they need it. They would need to have a policy announcement in place outlining the kinds of information they're keeping, how long they're keeping it, and where they're getting it. They would need to provide upon any request information about their information privacy policies, practices, up to and including naming names about who's on the team securing that personal information. Above all, they would have to be open and honest, two things I don't see them changing any time soon.

6. Right to Inspect & Correct Principle

Individuals have the right to inspect the personal information we maintain about them and to request that we correct errors.

• We have an accessible and simple inspection and correction process.
• We respond to your request within a reasonable time and at minimal or no cost to the individual.
• We correct the personal information when more accurate or complete facts are established.

What does this one mean?

For the JLU, it would mean keeping large sections of their wiki open to the public, even in unchangeable form. However, if they prevented changes to their information by the public, they would still have to set up and maintain policies by which individuals named in their documents could challenge that information. They would not charge for changing the information, and the information once changed should not be reverted.

7. Right to be Heard Principle

You have a right to be heard if you believe we failed to adhere to our Information Privacy Principles for Individuals.

• We have an accessible and simple complaint process.
• We investigate all complaints and respond promptly.
• We take corrective measures when appropriate.

What does this one mean?

As with the above, it would involve the JLU setting up an accessible and easy way for people to register complaint, or challenge both conclusions drawn and information posted. They would need to develop a secondary investigation team beyond that, to run down these complaints or requests for corrections, in order to insure that their information is fair, truthful, and accurate. This team would also have the power to make corrections to documents retained, in order to bring them more up to date with the shifts of personal information. Likely also, this team would be responsible for deletion of private materials when the time for their use had expired.

8. Commitment Principle

We periodically have outside privacy experts review our practices to ensure that we follow our Information Privacy Principles for Individuals.

What does this one mean? I think this would be the hardest of all for the JLU to follow. Allowing outsiders access to anything that isn't tightly controlled by their group seems to give them hives. But more importantly, it's a vital part of the process, a process that should have already been in place.

But, okay, those are the eight principles that California law considers official and binding. Why were there eleven principles mentioned in the comment thread? Well, there actually isn't anything that's glaringly out of place with the eleven mentioned in the thread; I'm thinking the list I found (specific to California law, not international) simply compacts things a bit.

What was the JLU's response to this list of principles? None that I can tell, or at least, none that made it through onto SLUniverse. But then, none of them strike me as being particularly devoted to transparency.

So here's my thinking, from this point forward.

Covering this controversy has eaten up eleven entries. That's not exactly huge, these days; the Escapist controversy had more entries, and covering the Zindra debacle took months. Still, it's a chunk of time, a chunk neither my readers nor I will get back.

So from here, any additional reading I do on the topic won't be posted on the blog. It's not going to be relevant, from this point; nothing I read will change any of the conclusions I've drawn.

For the JLU, if any of you wish to contact me, feel free; you can comment on any of the JLU-centric entries, you can drop me a notecard in world; hells, if you really feel compelled, scroll down on the sidebar; there's a way to contact me by email. Just don't expect me to chase any of you down. First, I already tried that (and failed) with Kalel; second, I really don't care. I'm not on your side.

What I would say, though, to wrap things up, is that if anyone in the JLU truly believes they are an honorable person, with personal integrity and clarity of vision, and you can believe that while still doing everything you can to break open private medical and therapeutic records, and do such a slipshod job of it that those you consider in the wrong are able to waltz in and grab things to flip up out of your control...well, you are invested in a great amount of personal delusion, because you are not honorable, you have no integrity, and you are in the wrong here. No one should have to worry that some random comment on a forum thread will be pulled out and lovingly slotted into a wiki as proof of some 'illegal' act. No one should have their place of work contacted, their college contacted, or their family and friends contacted and told to cut all ties as a matter of personal safety. That is cyberstalking at best; misdemeanor to a felony at worst.

And you should be ashamed for ever considering this was a heroic action to do. You're not heroes. Heroes would know better.

I got a place where all my dreams are dead

(Continued from part IX.)

Before we get back to the JLU controversy, City of Heroes launches Issue 21, which brings a whole new zone and an entire new power set (along with two new servers, one specifically for VIP players, and one specifically for free-to-players, among other new content) this Tuesday for VIPs in good standing. (It will be released later for everyone else.)

Interestingly enough, there will also be a game-wide war going on starting Thursday the 15th through Friday the 23rd. For those who don't already have your Defender of Primal Earth badge, line up your server and participate in the madness. This is what the City of Heroes dev team calls "product testing"--pulling their biggest, baddest war machines into contact with everyone on the server. And they do highly encourage everyone who's ever played the game (at least, everyone whose account is current) to log in during each of the peak war times. They want to know if the new additions in the background are going to break the game. They want to know if their servers can handle it.

Trust me, I went through the last Defense of Primal Earth, and it was insane, surreal, effects-laden, hard to survive (in fact, on many characters, I didn't)--and ultimately, a ton of fun to do. I highly recommend it if you have an account.

Now then. We start off with the Official Shang Stamp of Disapproval (this is not one handed out that often):

"I must say, I'm *very* disappointed with this whole matter.

"It's time to stop harvesting, databasing and redistributing information like this about people without their consent. Even if they seem to be 'the bad guys.'

"This may seem like a little detail, maybe even fair play for the 'good guys' but... it's not. At all. Full stop.

"Even if anyone disagrees with me, it's still important for them to know the true color of their own hat.

"Sincerely,

"Desmond Shang, Guvnah
Independent State of Caledon"

See, I'm in whole, utter agreement about that. Was it wrong for their wiki page to be hacked, or their internal server to be hacked, however it happened? Yes. Absolutely.

Was it wrong for them to keep that information in the first place? YES. ABSOLUTELY.

So, there was a transcript posted in the original SLU thread about something that went down in the GreenZone users group that ended up accusing a Linden of malfeasance. This, granted, is only hearsay, but even so, that's pretty big. As the incident is related:

1. a sim got griefed
2. the account that griefed the sim had apparently been hacked, as the sim is accessible only by group members
3. Soft Linden contacted the sim owner to inform her that spy probes had been found on the sim, and that the account of this particular avatar had been accessed maliciously.

And that's where everyone's collective jaw dropped. Here's the thing: no one has a problem with point one. That's likely true; a lot of sims get griefed, griefers are in it for the stupid drama quotient, sometimes we don't even know why they're bothering us, they're just bothering us. Fine. Fair enough. It's a sim, there's a griefer, for whatever lunkhead reason, they go together.

Point two changes the game slightly, in that, if true, it had to be a hacked account, or someone who went turncoat on the organization, because this particular sim is locked to members of that group only. And I have no problem with the lockdown, either, some corporate sims are like that, all military sims are like that, and yeah--the only way to get onto that sim is to be a group member, so I can see why someone stole the information necessary to log in.

It's point three that's the stunner. There are several problems with point three, any way you look at it. Namely:

1. either Soft Linden, against the rules and regulations of the Lab, gave a sim owner information about an account she did not directly manage (which was highly unlikely); or
2. the person told this information misunderstood it; or
3. the person telling this person lied; or
4. the person lied for reasons unknown. (Which, even given my difficulties with this person, I find very difficult to believe.)

Again, I find it easiest to believe point three, over point one or two.

"[17:13] Misty Harley: well considering LL generally will not talk to anyone re: other peoples accounts, suspensions, hacks, etc...it DOES seem odd that a sim owner was notified that a JLU members account was hacked based on the idea that they griefed a sim while the hacking occurred."

Pretty much. Still, that's pretty worrying; even if it's an entire fabrication, start to finish, that means that someone's walking around Second Life tarnishing Soft Linden's reputation, which just causes further erosion of the resident/Linden relationship, which is thin enough as it is at times. And at least to me, Soft's one of the good ones; the concept that he'd slip around his own company's standards and practices to give a sim owner, any sim owner, personal information about another avatar's account altogether...It rings false. But it's damaging nonetheless, and worrying as well.

And by the way, if that strikes anyone else as odd coming from me, it should. On these electronic pages, I've outright called Lindens stupid for some of their decisions. I've rejoiced when some of them left the company. I've publically suggested that there may, in fact, be a drug influence at work in San Francisco.

I don't think, in over five years, I've ever suggested that a single Linden (any Linden, even the Lindens I don't like) is capable, nay willing to blithely ignore company policy and reveal personal information about any resident to any other resident. Unless specifically following a formally filed DMCA order, by virtue of their safe harbor status, they can't. Not to mention their own company's internal rulings.

Yet this particular member of the JLU is willingly, one might even say enthusiastically, suggesting this very thing. Something that Soft might well be fired outright for, were it discovered to be true.

So why is this being said? At all?

Relating to this, let's talk about the Information Privacy Principles. (That's California's version, which likely applies to the Lindens, but the principle's essentially the same nation-wide.) I recommend you read this comment in full, but I'm summarizing just in case.

1. Information Gathering and Use Principle

We gather personal information only if it is relevant and necessary for us to accomplish our mission.

• We use personal information in a responsible and lawful manner.
• We gather personal information only after we determine we have an appropriate use for it.
• We strive to use only information that is accurate, complete, and current.
• If we use personal information for other than the original intended purpose, we first determine that the new use is appropriate.

What does this one mean?

The JLU needs to either erase all information that was irresponsibly and illegally gathered, and start fresh, OR go through all information gathered and verify that it is

• accurate
• complete
• current
• legal
• appropriate

2. Information Sharing Principle

We share personal information only when we have legal authority to do so.

We do not share personal information with others unless:

• (a) you have given us the authority to share the information, or
• (b) the other party has legal authority to receive the information.

We educate others with whom we share personal information on the requirement to protect privacy.

What does this one mean?

The JLU needs to realize that unless they are authorized by the Lindens to investigate disputes, that they have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to collect the personal information they are collecting. They need to seek consent to collect and/or share the information, or ensure that everyone who reads the JLU wiki page has legal authority to view personal information thus granted to the archive.

3. Information Retention Principle

We retain personal information only as long as necessary to fulfill established business needs for that information.

• We periodically review our business needs to retain personal information.
• We destroy the personal information we no longer need.

What does this one mean? Bad things for the JLU. They would have to completely revamp how they operate, from the ground up. To satisfy provision 3, they would need to decide on expiration dates for personal information, and draft signatory notecards accordingly. On top of that, once the information expired, they would have to destroy all of it, every single electronic record that makes use of those bits of information. (While this IS possible in the electronic age, it's also made more difficult by people who store information backups, or whose security systems are lax enough to allow easy invasion by outsiders.)

4. Information Security Principle

We have reasonable safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of personal information.

• We educate our employees on the importance of protecting the privacy of personal information.
• We protect personal information against loss or theft, as well as unauthorized access, disclosure, copying, use, or modification.
• We provide personal information only to employees who have a business need and only when appropriate safeguards are in place.
• We tailor our safeguards based on the type of information we maintain.
• We periodically review our practices to ensure we have adequate safeguards.

What does provision 4 mean for the JLU? Again, bad things. To wit:

• They have not demonstrated they possess adequate safeguards to ensure confidentiality.
• They have not demonstrated they have instructed their group members in the importance of protecting personal information.
• They have not demonstrated they have sufficient security to guard against unauthorized access by those outside the JLU.
• They have not demonstrated that those group members granted access to such personal information have a genuine and legitimate need for that information.
• They have not demonstrated any ability to ensure that their practices work, that their security is sound, and that they are willing to review these guidelines in order to properly secure personal information.

That's kind of a ton, right there.

And, as this is becoming long and involved (again), stopping it here, and I'll put up the rest of the principles in a later entry. Oh, and for anyone skimming along who may be wondering why I'm still continuing with this: yes, I did listen to you, and, in my own way, I am heeding you. Whereas before, I was covering this with moral indignation and over-emotional hurt intact, you were right. I was far too invested with something that, by and large, doesn't impact my life. And it's not up to me to drag the JLU down. Frankly, it doesn't have to be up to anyone--they'll do it on their own, because they're making some really dumb mistakes.

Including the sidewise accusation that Soft Linden is acting on an account holder's interest before the Lab's interest. That's a huge mistake if it ever hits the Lindens. And it well might, because Linden eyes are watching the drama as it unfolds on SLUniverse.

he made the devil so much stronger than a man

(Continued from part VIII.)

This may seem like a cheap shot, but I feel compelled to answer something.

(from the media album)

I'm thinking these facts are relevant to this situation:

• In a case involving a priest who sexually abused possibly up to two hundred deaf boys, the Roman Catholic bishops and cardinals overseeing the matter directly chose not to prosecute. One of those cardinals later became the current Pope.
• Donald McGuire, now defrocked, is considered by many to be a 'predator priest', in that he spent the years from 1964 to 1980--at least, if not longer--sexually molesting boys under his care. However, priests who both worked alongside him and supervised him did little to remove him from his holy office, choosing instead to shift him to different communities--which gave him more opportunities for molestation.
• Former priest Michael Baker was charged on a dozen counts of child sexual molestation, was convicted on two, and it all could have been avoided if Cardinal Roger Mahoney had done something back in 1986. He did nothing.

You want more? There are literally thousands of cases from Boston, where priests were routinely moved around the parishes by the Archdiocese to avoid prosecution. And there are cases worldwide, it's not just a US phenomenon.

Now, am I saying that each and every Catholic is culpable? Of course not. And it was a pretty stupid thing for Zen to say, too. But what I am saying--which I think is relevant to the main--is that each priest who knew something was going on, each bishop, each cardinal, and yes, even the Pope himself--these men are culpable. Because any one of them could have stopped this. At the very least, stood up and said it was wrong, and tried to stop the molestation from continuing.

There is a wide, vast world of difference between predatory priests, and a bunch of people who wear pixelated tights and 'fight crime' on Second Life. A truly deep and important difference, in that, at the end of the day, what went wrong in the church cases still carries lasting harm, harm that has persisted for decades.

But, I think it is also important to note that, as long as we're interpreting this argument, I will go on record as saying yes--any individual who is part of the JLU who knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that these are actual transcripts of meetings that they have attended, or that people they know have attended; that they know for a fact that the individuals named took these actions; that (since they have access to the wiki) they have the power to look up meeting transcripts and read them...I'm going to say that for anyone who isn't remaining willfully ignorant, yes--they are as responsible as the people who broke into medical records and put those real life details on the internet. Absolutely.

somewhere where it's not dark, dark, dark, dark

(Continued from part VII.)

Man, I have to find a good wrapping-up point, because I've been talking with friends, and their big conclusion is that this is all pretty meaningless. I'm letting personal feelings get in the way of accuracy (and okay, not for the first time), but more than that, what do I really care about all this? Privacy issues on the grid, sure. People getting lost in their roleplay, fine; it's not really my concern. I'm not affiliated with the JLU, I don't own a PhantomZone device, I don't call them when one of the sims in the estate I work for gets griefed, and I'm not a griefer.

So, seriously, why do I care? As one of them told me, these are the kinds of people that are why the mainstream smiles behind their hands about the internet. They give everyone who's reasonably sane a bad name. They're their own worst enemies, and their own behavior will take them down faster than anything I could possibly say.

While I'm struggling with this realization, more extracts. Starting here:

"The administrator can add anyone he wants to the user list. This allows people to have ban powers without having parcel powers."

Let me see if I understand this correctly. The reason people are given parcel powers (whether that's full controls including terraforming or simply the controls about that parcel, itself) is that they're invested--they're renting the parcel, they've bought the parcel, or they own the estate that that parcel is part of. This statement makes it sound as if the PhantomZone unit can help people who are not invested--who do not own a store on that parcel, rent on that parcel, or own that sim--the power to ban others.

Am I wrong?

Also this:

"Phantom Zone does not collect any data.
Phantom Zone Does Not Collect Any Data!
PHANTOM ZONE DOES NOT COLLECT ANY DATA!!!"

This is the first statement any member of the JLU has made that I wholly and completely disbelieve. There are many things that are up to interpretation, many things that may come down to distress and emotionalism getting in the way of understanding.

But this? No. Because if PhantomZone does not collect any data, ANY data at all, it cannot record and uphold bans. If it does not collect ANY data, it cannot share a global ban list with other networked security devices. If it does not collect any data, then everything previously stated on Krypton Radio's own PhantomZone page is inaccurate. Let me reference one section of that page specifically:

"The Phantom Zone uses flying probes called ‘prisms’ to patrol your land. These are temporary objects that efficiently roam your parcel, detecting and report any avatars that may need to be teleported to their home location and/or added to the parcel ban list. The entire volume of airspace over your parcel is patrolled, all the way up to the 4096m altitude limit. The prisms have been engineered to produce almost no lag and are extremely efficient."

That's gathering data, you idiot. You are LYING.

And this is pointed out later in the same thread:

"It's really, really clear from the words of KalEl that in fact he's all about collecting data. In fact in order for this system to work it HAS TO collect some data, as a technical matter. Otherwise (and Qie and Sione and all the IT professionals around here can correct me if Im wrong) it simple cannot FUNCTION as a linkable device from one node to another."

Exactly.

And this is relevant for all sorts of reasons. Namely, that yes, people who do not have owner controls for any given sim have ban rights if part of the PhantomZone system. Yeah, datamining or not (and remember, the JLU say they're not), THAT right there is wrong.

From Miss Dufaux:

Quote:
Rxx has a number of health issues, some severe enough to be eventually life threatening (read this as "thinks he has nothing to lose"). In specific, Rxx has epilepsy, a condition which severely limits one's lifespan in extreme cases. It is not known how severe Rxx's case is, but he was given a depressing long term prognosis by his doctor in spring of 2008.

"This is extremely upsetting to me. Regardless of his reputation and activities, it's just none of anyone's business what his health conditions are.

"Shame on you."

I agree. And this was what upset me in the first place--that they essentially cyberstalked a dying man, just to verify that he was, in fact, dying.

Let me be absolutely clear on this one: If I want RL medical information out on the Second Life grid, I will release it. While there are some incidents (I'm not that wary of revealing some RL information) I've mentioned on the blog, and in certain chats in SL, that could be collated by anyone who really obsessed on it enough, I have been the one who said that. That's my look-out.

I really, sincerely doubt that either the AIDS patient, or the person who has a debilitating epileptic condition, contacted the JLU in world and handed over their medical records. It's disturbing, angering and wrong that Kalel and presumedly others think it's no problem to collate and use this type of information, because it is, somehow, "protecting the grid". It's monstrous.

"It wasn't until I read the log entries prying into people's lives, and using their medical condition as some sort of information bargaining chip. You people (yes I said THAT) in the JLU while masquerading as fictional heroes have completely lost your moral compass and no longer see the difference between right and wrong, it's all a big game to you.

"But your pixellated fantasies have now twisted into RL stalking and intrusion. We're past the IP harvesting mentioned in the OP title, we're now talking about the bigger picture. What the JLU is doing stinks to high heaven, and I'm hoping at least one of the lurky loos from the JLU reading this thing has at least a whisper of morality left in their soul and blows the lid off this thing so it can end, soon."

Indeed.

And here's where the bottom dropped out again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velvet Bikcin
GLE, is this latest transcript accurate?

"Unfortunately, yes."

Really? Confirmation that the JLU routinely busts medical information for the sake of 'saving the grid from griefers'. Really?

Right, that's it, I've had it with the JLU now. There is no one who can now claim innocence, and no one who isn't tainted by this. If you're in the JLU past August 20, 2011--when this comment was posted--then you have no ethical leg to stand on. Not anymore.

More from that comment:

"When we were talking about collecting data, we were talking about collecting people's IP addresses. Of course the node is going to talk to the server and to other nodes, and it's going to have a bad guy list and a good guy list. But it doesn't collect IP addresses. Never has, never will."

No, see, YOU don't understand this. The folks commenting on the JLU were never talking just about collection of IP addresses--they were talking about the collection of IP addresses, personal RL medical information, real names, addresses, places of work, and suspected alts.

You know--data. To which you said PhantomZone collects no data and we all called you on it as the liar that you are. Now you're trying to hedge that you were just reaffirming that PZ didn't collect IP addresses.

One suspects you of having a working brain, GLE, but I'll still use small words: you know better than that.

From the original thread:

"Does anyone really mean to try to insinuate that a group supposedly dedicated to 'protecting' people really doesn't see that by providing a place where personally identifying information can be readily found, they are literally putting people who *were* safe in real life into real life actual danger?"

See, that's the thing. No one--who hasn't been stalked in real life--gets how scary it can be, how deeply it undermines confidence, how it increases stress, paranoia, worry, fear, and can result in exacerbating ongoing medical conditions (think heart problems from panic attacks, say), or plain out starting new ones. In fact, I'd be willing to go out on this limb and say that no one in the JLU even connects gathering all this information on 'griefers' and presumed other 'suspicious types' with stalking.

And really, to me, that's the scariest bit of all. That they think of as protecting the innocent fits with the legal definition of a cybercrime.

From another comment on the thread:

"There is a popular misconception that the term 'data mining' is somehow a bad thing."

There's more on that comment, but okay, let's break this down. Data mining--as a concept--involves collection of data from a variety of sources, compilation, redistribution, and analysis. Technically, data mining is neutral.

But how most people use--and understand--data mining is far simpler--the collection, collation, compilation, and analysis of data to determine things that single-stream sources would not reveal. Say, I get someone's name, but I don't know their ID number. Someone else finds that ID number, on an Ohio ID. Someone else discovers that someone's been married. Someone tracks down the wife's name on an ID from Nevada. Someone else discovers magazine subscriptions made out to the wife. One of those magazines is designed for parents of autistic children.

When all this information is collated and properly organized, we can know at least suspect that:

• Person A is married.
• Person A lived in Ohio before moving to Nevada.
• Person A has at least one autistic child.

And that is why people think data mining--in this sense--is a scary thing. Because what the JLU does with it is take avatar names and translate them through data mining (from what's suspected to be a variety of sources at this point) into concrete suspicions, or actual proof, regarding:

• their real names
• where they work
• where they live
• their marital or relationship status
• how many children they have
• what medical conditions they have
• who their family members are
• who their friends are

And the JLU is trying to maintain that they're the good guys. Riiiight.

Back to that one comment:

"Linden Lab seems to be listening to a mob of villagers with torches and pitchforks, metaphorically speaking. There are extensive threads on the official forums and on SL Universe, but they're the same sixty or so people posting over and over again, many of whom are alt abusers themselves."

I need a term defined. What's an "alt abuser"?

And one more extract:

"To put the flame war and ad hominem attacks in perspective, the Green Zone Users appear to be about 70% BDSM, about 4% age play, about 3-4% griefer alts, and about 5-6% business people or landholders. Somewhere between 10% or 20% are alts of other members, mostly belonging to just a half dozen people - mostly there just to 'stuff the ballot box'. For the most part these are people with something to hide, not political activists."

This goes directly back to that "doing perversion" comment quoted much earlier, I think. Let me test my understanding here.

To Kalel, these people are equal:

• griefers
• alts
• people exploring alternative sexualities
• ageplayers
• land owners
• business owners

and apparently all bad? Or am I wrong?

Miss McMillan voices a concern:

"See this was what i was talking about. What is going to happen is DC will come in to sl and remove all likeness to their heros.

"I DJ at a Heros club where the customers and staff dress as superheros DC ones and just dance and have fun. Also the owner of the club makes hero clothing"

And see, this is where the labyrinthine multitude of effects and interpretations from application of the DMCA just fly over the heads of most people (and really, I can't blame them, it's pretty dense legalese). But in brief, in simple terms: not only won't this happen, but it can't happen. Why? Because to file a DMCA cease and desist order, DC Comics has to name specific individuals--either by RL name, or--as has happened in the past with other companies--SL name. That takedown will be employed by the Lindens, and that person, and all associated content of DC's from that person, will be stripped from the grid.

DC Comics won't bar all DC content from Second Life, unless they feel like hiring 30,000 more paralegals and naming the entire grid in individual letters. And that purely won't happen.

From the Department of Irony:

[17:46] Kal-El (kalel.venkman): The flashy costumes and comic book personnae are a lot of fun - if it wasn't fun, we wouldn't do it. But they do more than that. These costumes are a part of our culture.
[17:46] Kal-El (kalel.venkman): They stand for something people want to believe in. They represent truth, and justice. We're more than people in brightly colored costumes. We're symbols of hope.
[17:46] Kal-El (kalel.venkman): And hope is what the people of Second Life need probably more than anything right now.
[17:47] Kal-El (kalel.venkman): Banded together, we can come to the aid of the good people of Second Life.
[17:47] Kal-El (kalel.venkman): We can earn the public trust, and come to their defense. but we can only do this if we demonstrate, time and time again, that we're on their side. And the only way to do that is to take the highest road we can.

So, that means you're going to stop the datamining and the doxing and take down PhantomZone? Great!

I guess it speaks something about a personal failure of utter cynicism that I'm even shocked by some of the things that are coming out. But yeah. Still shocked about things like this.

I guess, in the end, the things that are still bothering me are that people I don't know are going after people they don't know by accessing medical information. There are two types of people who should have access to medical information in my opinion:

• the individuals (and perhaps extended family directly in contact with them) themselves; and
• the doctors directly working with those individuals.

In my mind, no one else needs to know. Period. Including insurance companies, but I know, that's a fine line, managed HMOs being what they are.

But if you're some random wandering pretender-to-the-throne type, and you determine all on your own that Xavalenxia911 Resident is a threat to you, and you crack her files and discover she has any medical ailment...and you then post that information online anywhere...yeah. You've crossed a big line, right there. And that line is not going to change no matter how many posts you put up saying you're misunderstood and you regret doing the awful things you've done and you're not perfect, and all you're trying to do is protect people.

Screw you. YOU ARE IN THE WRONG.

More when I get back to it; for now, I'm leaving the keys, and going off, and looking at flowers or something, so I can convince myself the entire world doesn't need to burn just because people are stupid on the internet.

(Apropos of nothing in particular, and certainly nothing JLU-related, I am terribly, terribly amused by this. And I'm so with Moss on that--I doubt I'd buy twenty copies a month, but I would definitely make space in my budget for one copy a month, and possibly even subscribe formally and get it mailed to the house!)

I snagged myself on your barbed defenses

(Continued from part VI. And my apologies in advance--this had formatting taken to more closely resemble the quotes pulled, but then I hit Preview on Blogspot, and that erased all the formatting. No idea why, really resent that that happened, and just do not have the energy right now to go through and fix everything.)

Miss McMillan commenting on the SLU's JLU thread (hey, that's kinda catchy) reminded me of something.

[09:41] Kal-El [Kalel Venkman]: I also need to fix the PZ nodes so that they rename themselves to 'Object' on installation. A little conversation in the GreenZone Users Group (a group dedicated, apparently, to the destruction of any networked banning system, not just RedZone) showed that their detection devices relied on sensors that checked for the names of installed prims.
[09:41] Kal-El [Kalel Venkman]: This will make PZ invisible to such sensors and protect PZ users from attack by griefer coalitions

There's only one problem with this. Simple onboard estate tools allow searching by name of owner, name of prim, number of scripts, number of collisions, among other things. I could go on any sim for which I'm part of an estate team and pull those figures. This is not a 'griefing sensor', this is how Second Life is designed to work.

I mean, in essence, I get what he's trying to do here: he wants to hide prims on parcels or sims unobtrusively. What greater invisibility can there be than one more Object in the midst of all the other Objects? (I admit, I once named every single prim in a house build. Mostly, it just made me smile when someone touched one of the door prims, and heard either 'Estella' or "Priscilla" open.)

The problem with that, though, are those estate tools, plus other tools like Thomas Conover's full-sim scanner, which will pick out individual prims and tell you not only where they are, but how many scripts they contain, who owns them, what their name is--all information that an estate owner or estate staffer desperately needs on occasion. I guess it slides it by the standard folks, but most certainly not everyone.

Still, it's interesting that Venkman's thoughts turn to concealment and blending in, over open revelation. You might think he had something to hide...

And from the long-suffering maintainer of the summary thread, her own response to GLE:

"Further, please stop with that tired nonsense about broadcasting your IP everywhere. It's not applicable. No one ever argued the notion of IP recording being a problem in and of itself. They argued it once it was *tied to an account name* and used to tie it to *other account names* in order to establish potential alternate identities. That was the problem. The tired old 'oh you leave your IP all over the internet' thing was debunked MANY months ago, and zFire himself tried the same tactic of clouding the issue and pooh poohing it. It didn't work for him and it's not going to work here, either."

In more cogent form, that's what I've been trying to get at. It was never the strict gathering of IP. That wasn't the issue. It was the subsequent aligning with actual (or, in many cases, presumed) alts or similarly-named avatars. As she says, the linkage is the problem; not the IP collection itself.

She goes on to offer a really great example of this mode of thinking:

"Let me put it this way- there's an argument that religious folk like to use against atheists. There was a thread about it on SLU recently- about morals without gods. The fundamental premise was that there are some religious people who believe atheists are fundamentally immoral because they have no fear of an all powerful deity who will punish them for wrongdoing. The atheists counter that they don't need the fear of a powerful deity or punishment- they're capable of ascertaining the right thing to do without an authority figure making a rule about it.

"That was what I was getting at- not the timeline of how this came down because you all are still arguing over what PZ does and does not do. My point was that you supported alt detection and it took the Lab(see: powerful deity in this case) to come down and decide against it. You didn't come to that conclusion on your own. You are obeying the rule- but a rule had to be made *first*. You don't support the actual premise- just the rule.

"Again, that's a big deal."

Yes, it is. And at least GLE in word and deed, and Kalel in word and deed (and who knows how many others in the JLU) don't seem to understand that they're on the other side of this argument.

Another mention from the original thread:

"The argument that a hashed ip isn't an ip combined with the argument that anyone who doesn't want their alts tracked must be hiding something makes a very ugly mess.

"A largely self-inflicted mess."

Again, I would agree.

And from the comment directly below that one:

"The fact that Kalel started contacting peoples real life jobs and schools is enough for me to be honest.

"Seriously you internet hero fuckwits, when you call somebody's employer they don't get upset that their employee fired 1000 dicks in a virtual world sandbox. They care that some deranged psychopath from some internet game is calling them."

He has a point, too, for all that it was bluntly phrased.

And Miss Zenovka's entire comment is worth your time to read, but I'll still boil it down if required:

• She posits that the JLU may not be collecting IP addresses and collating them with other data, but that they are possibly acquiring other data lists and links, then comparing them, and entering them at that point to the wiki or the Brainiac server.
• Due to this potentiality, they might also not keep their scripters (nor their poster children) properly informed of the potential conflation of outsourced data (and gosh, Zen not up to date on what's really going on, there's a shocker)
• Finally, in no way meant to be a direct part of the above, members of the JLU are also members of the GreenZone group, which has not disbanded long after the actual threat of RedZone has been removed (and that, while not directly tied in, I do find fascinating)

There's another comment on the thread that, while it repeats some of the information seen on previous comments, pulls a few more things together and makes everything a little more clear. (Which is like saying we've moved from mud to murk, but hey, it's a start.)

And then this from Sione:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AEther
Again, no. Nothing overrides a local pass created by a network owner or admin on their own network. In fact, network owners may set their networks to not accept global bans at all ("trusting") and/or to not share local bans with other networks ("sharing"). Turning off both would, for example, give you a completely isolated network that simply shares bans between all the land you protect with the system.

"Hang on hang on. Share bans with other networks? So are you saying that unless specifically turned off bans propagate between networks? If you are banned by someone with it on then you have to IM your way around the grid hoping the sim owner is online."

As Kurmin noted in the summary thread, this was the awful sound where the penny dropped. People were so focused on being outraged, for good or bad reasons, that they hadn't honestly stopped and thought this through.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I take from that quote in this context:

• There are no global, nonremovable bans--any user of PhantomZone may allow avatars even other sims don't allow.
• Estate owners can also allow PhantomZone to operate solely as a wider ban list, isolated to their particular land alone.
• However, if that sim owner wishes, they can leave those options on which accept global bans, even those that propagate on other systems.

So...my question is now, which systems? All of them? Some of them? If people had the foresight to somehow search out and keep the global list of RedZone bans, could they then import those into their PhantomZone units? Does it centralize ban lists from any other ban system, like Voodoo? Like the dozens of other, less invasive security orbs on the grid?

From a later comment in the thread from GLE:

"His account was hijacked. He is no longer a member. He was a good guy who didn't deserve this treatment. He enjoyed patrolling sims and interacting with the other members of his 19th Century roleplaying group, but someone decided it would be funny to burn out his account just to steal some pages from the wiki. The result was not amusing."

I do believe we're talking about Baht McMahon again, and I'm still wondering what got him into this. If GLE is to be believed--someone hacked his account, logged in to the Brainiac server, and that's the source of the second batch of leaks?

So...is Baht even on the grid anymore?

Back to security issues--this comment is well worth the time to read, but I will pull one extract from it for here:

"You need to stop hiding your toy. People need to be able to CHOOSE to not go to a location with your device, and they must be able to choose to opt out ***BEFORE*** the data is collected. KalEl's advice to rename the device is specifically and solely a dodge around that premise. Period. The end. There is no other explanation."

I will be honest, people want security in Second Life. Even if they don't seem to really grasp the difference between secure (logged off of SL) and insecure (in world), they have this idea in their heads, and they never let this go. This idea says:

• In this perfect world, the best security orb is cheap
• In this perfect world, the best security orb keeps an unlimited ban list
• In this perfect world, the best security orb is unobtrusive, will not warn, will instantly ban people (or deny them entry in the first place), and will offer great protection with limited set-up

Why? Not because people want to defend against griefers. Not because people want to prevent copyright infringers from accessing their personal homes and stores.

No, largely, the average user of any security system in Second Life does it because they don't want to come home to strangers having sex in their bed. Flat out.

How does PhantomZone address this? By the same methods RedZone did, and I'm not talking about the physical scripting, here. I'm saying PhantomZone plays to the same fears that RedZone did while it was operational:

• If you don't use PZ (RZ), you won't be able to protect yourself from avatars who will come into your homes and touch your things
• If you don't use PZ (RZ), you'll be cut off from the "best" protection that's offered on the grid
• If you do use PZ (RZ), it's free--we'll never charge for it and any updates (or at least, that's the assumptions I'm getting from its proponents)
• If you do use PZ (RZ), you can take part in helping to ban anyone you object to, for whatever reason, to keep your things safe
• If you do use PZ (RZ), relax: it's just like Banlink, a system you trusted to keep people away from your things

The problem with these modes of thinking is not that PhantomZone doesn't live up to its end of the bargain. I'm quite sure it does. The problem is it plays into that culture of fear we've developed on the grid. We fear things, and we fear people, and we fear people who can do things we don't understand.

For example:

• If someone you don't know rezzes into your store, and stands at the beam-in point, and doesn't move, there are some schools of thought that tell you this is a copybot.
• If someone you don't know rezzes into your store, and is wearing newb clothes and a newbie skin, there are some schools of thought that tell you this is a copybot, or a griefer.
• If someone you don't know rezzes into your store, and turns in a circle, there are some schools of thought that tell you this is a copybot, or a griefer getting their bearings.
• If someone with the last name Resident rezzes into your store, there are many schools of thought that say this is a copybot and a griefer.

Fear. And the fear escalates.

Let's think about this in a different way:

• If I've never been to a certain store before, and I stand at the beam-in point, and don't move, it's likely because that sim (or my system) is lagged enough that I can't move. I hardly think I'm alone in this, but for several months last year, some merchants had rules signs posted at their default beam-ins, saying If you don't move in 15 seconds, we're banning you. NO COPYBOTS!
• If I rez into your store with a newbie skin and newbie clothes...well, first, there's obviously something wrong with me, because I don't generally do that at five years in--but if anyone else does that, the stronger possibility is that they're just new, not evil. These days, with the proliferation of really well-done freebie items, it's getting harder to peg someone's that new just by looking.
• If I rez into your store, move off the beam-in point, and turn in a circle, I'm not scanning your store for items to copy onto my system. Over two years ago, that was the way to force things to rez in--turn once (or twice) in a circle, taking in all aspects of the store, will help textures turn from grey to crisp. Then--if still having problems--moving the bandwidth slider up and down rapidly will usually do the trick.
• And if someone rezzes in with the last name Resident, they're not evil, a copybot, or a griefer by default--they're just unlucky enough to be born on the grid after last names were abandoned as a bad idea.

Yet, fear and paranoia on the grid continue to cripple us. Why?

(And note, I am not saying, I say again, I am not saying that PhantomZone and RedZone are the same product. I am ***not*** saying that. What I am saying is that, in terms of marketing, they're serving the same function: "Keep them thieves and miscreants away from yer wife! This is the best shotgun on the mark.)et, that'll larn 'em!" When in fact, fear never creates anything positive beyond more fear.)

trees here might be green, but their hearts are black as black can ever be

Extra Credits has now officially moved to Penny Arcade, with episodes debuting each Wednesday. Today's episode was on pacing, and if you've ever wanted to write anything--whether that's a video game, a roleplay scenario, a movie script, or a novel--you need to watch this video. I'm completely serious. In just a few short minutes, the EC team analyzes pacing, why it works, when it doesn't, how you can break it down, and how you can make it work.

Some notes from this year's Burn: the Dalek Art Car, and the Steampunk Octopus. Enjoy.

I want to start today's rambling journey (which would be continued from part V) with something taken from the official response from the JLU on the Krypton Radio site:

Is the public outrage posted on SL Universe real?

We think some people are genuinely indignant or upset, but we also think they’ve been given a lot of false information in order to enrage them.

In the SL Universe thread as of August 25, we note that an astonishing whopping 1036 posts were made by members of the banned Second Life group, "The Wrong Hands" or the person posting supposedly un-doctored pages from our wiki (and in one case, someone whom we discovered to be impersonating a police officer and who has been trying to phish private information from people within Second Life).

So, note: they're saying that first, all the postings we've been reading are false constructs intended solely to defame the JLU. It's a good stance to take: "It wasn't us! They're smearing our good name!"

But then this:

Was the information actually leaked by a disgruntled JLU member as they claim?

We had originally thought that the information was stolen from our systems by a hacker, who managed to compromise the account of a (now former) JLU member, which was then used to steal the connection credentials necessary to breach our database. Linden Lab notified us that a member account was breached, and that they had detected spyware placed by that account in our in-world headquarters. The chat spy devices (there were two) were active between August 3, 2011, when they was placed, and August 18, when they were removed (about fifteen days).

We now know that an alt of Cheergirl Allen, a Wrong Hands sympathizer, had managed to sneak a mole account into the League and had ready access to the BrainiacWiki over the span of about three month's time. Our records indicate that this account was shared with others who had no legitimate right of access – once again, the content was not "liberated", or "reported", but simply stolen.

So...that seems to pretty well confirm that it was them. Which is it? Either it is their information, or it isn't, and they've claimed both. Also, if you read on in the original link, they're claiming that (once again) it is their information, but that it's been substantially revised and in some cases, outright fabricated. So they're claiming once more that it's not their work.

Guys, chill. Either claim it or deny it; doing both makes you look like fools.

Moving on to the accusation that, at least at one point, Rodney Linden was considered a griefer by the JLU? What? I'm up-front about my frustration and upset with the Lindens, a great deal of the time, but actually calling one a griefer? Guys, even I've never done that. Tone it down.

I had to take a screen capture of this one, I just couldn't believe it actually took place. Starting from a mention about halfway down in the summary thread section I'm now in, came this line:

Zen tries to tell everyone that because PZ is free, and not sold, it shows good faith and a lack of bad intentions. Everyone calls him on this because that statement is STUPID.

I clicked the link, I couldn't not, and I'm also providing visual proof:

(from the media album)

Wau. Just wau. This is completely and utterly insane. So, just to test Zen's hypothesis, here:

1. When a copyright infringer lifts texture UUIDs, re-uploads them into SL, and gives them away at welcome centers and newbie stores, that's okay, because there's no profit being made?
2. When a copyright infringer lifts clothing templates, re-uploads them into SL, and gives them away for free, that's okay, because there's no profit involved?
3. When someone makes an exact duplicate of Britney Spears' face, or Wonder Woman's costume, or a Nike shoe, or a Gucci bag, in SL, that's fine as long as they don't charge for it?

Seriously, that's what he's saying? That it's okay that these info nodes are proliferated across the grid, because they're the good guys, and they're not charging for the system?

Way to massively, massively fail, there.

So let's talk about their 'personal and private' wiki branch. First, it seems to be neither of those things if Miss Mouse's information is accurate. So I checked.

(from the media album)

Is this the JLU official wiki? I don't know enough, nor am I a member of the JLU, to tell if it's the current, 'live' version; but digging into the source code revealed this:

(from the media album)

Is this the actual feed from the JLU's source?

But, in wandering through those pages, I discovered a few things. The only thing I want to mention specifically, though, is this:

Alt Links
(currently being implemented)
The Alt Links Brainiac feature allows us to connect all the alt accounts used by a particular griefer (or other account). A link may be established by any JLU member between any two Second Life identities currently in the database. Each link shall have one of the following possible status values:
Not Present
The link is not present in the database.
None
The link was once present, but was broken by someone
Suspected
That the two identities are one user's alts has not yet been proven, but is highly suspected.
Confirmed
It has been proven that the two identities are alts of one Second Life user.

That phrasing does make me wince, a tad--"used by a particular griefer (or other account)". In essence, that tells me that the Alt-Link feature of the Brainiac server can collate between any two known accounts, anywhere, and decide by some as-yet-unmentioned method (*cough* like IP addresses *cough*) which accounts match up and which don't? Or am I misreading this passage?

Note: I'm not saying positively that I believe the JLU are lifting IP addresses. But the whole thing, including their recent behavior concerning the first and second Bwiki leak situations, has been fishy to an extreme.

(Oh, and this is just too damned funny for words.)

Now, from Aether--who at least sounds rational, if not completely trustworthy--comes this bit:

"Now, on the topic of IP address logging and alt detection I can certainly say we have considered the possibility of doing this in the past, and even made experimental evaluations of other groups' such mechanisms before the Second Life Terms of Service and Community Standards were changed to forbid the sharing of such information in-world. But the truth is that there's very little point to it. I fully believe that if we could do it reliably there would be ways to utilize such information while still remaining in compliance with the disclosure clauses of the Second Life TOS/CS and without undue threat to residents' privacy, despite RedZone's obvious failure in this area. However, there are still some very dissuading practical considerations, which is why we have never, in fact, utilized IP collection from SL in our own systems.

"First, IP collection for alt detection is far too unreliable. NAT, proxies, and the prevelent use of dynamic IP addresses lead to far too many false positives and false negatives alike. The fact is that human interaction and observation is still the surest way of learning about alt accounts, and griefers are usually all too happy to reveal such associations behaviorally; their sheer need for attention almost demands it. Failing that, it's simple enough to catch the next act of griefing, whether or not the griefer is an alt account of a previously banned resident."

I can, weirdly, get behind that. If one of the coders of the PhantomZone project can be trusted at all (which is still up for debate), the fact that he's willing to go on the record as saying "Yeah, we thought about it, it's not a good way to do things, so we don't code it like that" means something, even if it's something small and insignificant. It may not be much--it likely isn't--but it definitely feels more honest to me than anything out of Kalel's mouth or Zen's keyboard.

The problem with that feeling? It only feels like it's more honest; that doesn't say it is. As Anguissette says in a later comment:

"The thing that stands out most to me as the biggest problem with that PR whitewash is that its writer is essentially saying (forgive the paraphrasing but the original wording is so long and inelegant) that they are here to answer questions, but only to particular people in a particular way on a particular subject...that totally makes it sound like they've got lots of things to hide, things that really wouldn't stand up to even mildly intense scrutiny and questioning.

"Also, it strikes me as a little contradictory that one could be demanding that people be civil with their questioning, when one's own statement includes all sorts of insults, including what seem to me to be rather rude and damaging allegations and accusations."

Yeah. She's not wrong.

And one from Miss Dufaux again:

"I'm super confused now, pun sort of intended -- I just read the front page of the Krypton Radio site and there's an article there about Linden Lab removing Power Rangers merchandise from the grid after receiving a notice from Saban Entertainment (copyright holder).

Linden Lab is in something of a no-win position, being obliged to respect the legal rights of intellectual property owners and yet also acknowledging the large role media-inspired sales play in the virtual economy. Savvy media creators often avoid scrutiny-and Linden Lab’s restrictions-by rebranding their wares so as to avoid overt use of copyrighted names or sales images.

The article's tone is pretty soft in regards to the issue of blatant copyright infringement by content creators -- I was surprised, frankly, as I also read in the JLU's mission statement that it 'follows absolutely strict adherence to the Terms of Service and Community Guidelines for our own behavior, as well as a strict moral and ethical code.'

"So I guess I'm finally 'getting' the purpose of JLU: That they are more concerned with griefing, and not so much about copyright infringement? Which would seem to makes sense, based on their use/adaptation of copyrighted DC Comics material.

"This seems really odd to me... and to be honest, makes me question the integrity and intention of the group all the more."

Again, I have to agree, but that, at least, I've said before on this blog, it's not a new concern where the JLU are...well, concerned.

From the next bit of the summary thread:

GLE comes back to reply. He seems to miss the point of what he was told, and overall starts sounding *amazingly* like zFire.(it should be noted for the record that GLE "sounding like" zFire is in the types of things he said-we've heard this stuff before, and not an indication that he has any connection at all with zF.)

So what's the linguistic connection to zFire Xue here? Things like this:

"Alt detection is useful to protect people whose sims are under constant attack from the same two or three people. The sim owners eject and ban the griefers, who instantly create new avatars and come roaring back. Same computer, same IP address, same evil intention, different avatar name. It would be nice if a sim owner could ban a griefer no matter what name he used while attacking."

Very zFire.

"The system never became reliable enough to be able to consistently ban a griefer from a sim no matter what name he used. It was still under evaluation when LL added alts to the disclosure rule."

Also very zFire, though I will grant, GLE knows how to spell words, which zFire never bothered to learn, EVER.

"One of the most interesting aspects of the alt detection discussion was watching how some people reacted so violently to the concept."

Oh, and this one nearly coils brain cells. I want to break that one down. What I think he's saying:

• He was interested in the alt detection discussion, not because he thinks it's a bad thing, but because it was fascinating to watch people get so upset over something he thinks is no big deal.
• It amused him that some people--emphasis mine, but one would assume from the phrasing, people obviously not "rational about these things"--reacted so 'violently' to the concept.

Bet me, he's one of those people who thinks that no one should have undiscovered alts; that the mere fact that someone wants an alt to be hidden is evidence that they're going to do untrustworthy things with it. Presumption of guilt before innocence, in other words.

Back to the main comment, though:

"To them, the concept was wrong for the simple reason that it was wrong, and if you asked for an explanation of why it was wrong, then there was something wrong with you, because obviously you didn't think it was wrong."

Which is very odd coming from him, because by and large, though there were hysterical moments, and lots of them, throughout the entire RedZone debacle, there were also strong cogent points made for why, precisely, alt detection is a bad idea. It was never--at least, in those articles I read, and posted in the blog, plus my own comments--wrong "simply because". Everyone I read, and everything I wrote, pointed to specific reasons why.

"A lady in one of my groups who was pretty much a basic Second Life user was absolutely terrified of alt detection. She had no concept of how it worked, and she didn't oppose it on the grounds that it was an invasion of privacy. She was unable to articulate why she thought it was wrong, but she absolutely did not want to be anywhere near anything that might identify any of her alts. It always intrigued me to wonder what she had going on that she was so afraid to have brought out into the open."

And sadly, I called this one. This is the other side of the alt detection argument that is just as specious as the 'it's wrong because it's wrong' argument. Namely: You wouldn't be upset if you didn't have something to hide. Which, though it was stated by a different person entirely, flashes me back to that "doing perversion" line. That presumption that only the guilty want to hide their actions.

All right, I'll grant you, especially with certain politicians (in the US at least), that presumption can--on occasion--be valid. But as a widespread belief, it just doesn't pan out. I'll even give you a good example. Desmond Shang, a man who seems almost incapable of hiding any SL avatar link where his tenants are concerned, still has at least three accounts--all of them known by the Lindens, two of them at least who work closely with the Lindens, or who have in the past--that are alts. He's hiding nothing "untoward", or perverse, or criminal, in the least, by concealing these alt names. Mostly it's a simple issue of contact--there are times he needs to get on the grid--for private consulting purposes, or when directly working with Lindens on a sim/estate issue--where it's just not viable for him to get ten new IMs every three seconds. For that, he has designated alts.

Put plainly, Desmond Shang himself is an alt, of his former main account. The presumption that anyone with an alt wants nothing more than to hide griefing, malfeasance and nefarious, illicit sex acts is inaccurate. It's a wrong belief.

"You have a partial page from the Brainiac wiki showing a conceptual discussion of how Phantom Zone might work some day, and omitting the rest of the discussion where the IP addresses were planned not to be visible, and you call that 'proof.'"

Uh...does GLE know he just admitted that the PhantomZone banlink device was, at least at one point in time, then, collecting IP addresses?

"What you are calling 'proof' does not stand up to close examination."

Neither does yours, GLE.

This seems like a good place to stop for tonight. One more associated entry, and then there will be Deep Thinking involved on whether I want to stay mucking through all this, because it's not going to get any easier.

and old ladies with toads for pets, who mumble incantations that make you scream

(Continued from part IV.)

Now, there was mention in the original SLU thread about a JIRA issue that was almost instantaneously pulled from public view and archived, because the comments went from neutral to obscenely inflammatory within hours. There is a comment preserved from Soft Linden on that JIRA:

"Working backward from the list of resis in the recently published resi IP list, I was able to build a list of the locations visited by a large share of those resis. Working from the location list, I pulled historic simulator states for those locations and found several of the IP collection probes.

"The operator is affiliated with a large group of resis who were previously banned from SL, and who were told they were not allowed to return. I've referred that to Governance. It's up to Governance whether they blacklist, ban, or warn. I suspect their action will be swift on this one, given the prior history.

"I also see that members of a 'policing' group acknowledge having operated their own IP collectors. They claim they stopped collecting around the time Red Zone was removed from SL. I've asked the policing group for confirmation and details while I'm doing my own research, and I've referred that to Governance as well. It's pretty clear that if they did/do have their own collection, it's not the same as the recently published set.

"How you can help:

"If anyone finds an object that's still making suspicious media requests to a third-party site, or back to an object on the simulator itself, please file an Abuse Report against the actual object. You can assume we'll have heard about any second-hand reports that you see circulating in blogs and forums - reporting those just muddies up the AR lists. Governance gets very few legitimate first-hand reports about these probes. These are the smoking guns that can help Governance act more swiftly."

Which is all well and good, but for me, what's unnerving me is not the question of whether or not they're gathering IP addresses (which Soft seems to assert that the system isn't doing, anyway), but that they're fully willing to compromise, falsify, or manipulate chat transcripts in order to gain ARs that will hold up in world; that they're willing to cyberstalk at least one dying man (and griefer or not, that is so beyond morally, ethically, legally and psychologically wrong it's not even funny); and that they're planting recording devices that record any kind of resident information (a la CDS Gemini) without estate owner permission or compliance.

Yeah. IP addresses, at this point? It's fairly simple to get them, it's being done all over, from Google on down. But the rest of things, the proveable actions they seem to have taken? That to me says "crazed stalkerbait" and that scares me. Especially because there are members of the JLU I'm hearing from in the chat logs that I know personally.

In the past two days alone, I've gone from a shrugging acceptance to seriously, literally, wanting to ban, block and mute them from my friendslist. All of this is that unnerving to me. And I don't mute people; to this day, it is still extremely difficult for me to mute any resident in world, because I believe so strongly that anyone should be allowed to speak their mind to me. (Whether or not I listen, or act on it, that's beside the point; no one should be blocked, to my admittedly idealist thinking, from the simple act of airing grievances or concerns, one avatar to another.)

But the members of the JLU have blown past all barriers in their narrowly focused, single-minded pursuit of griefing in any conceivable form, that they're willing to discard their own oath to wage further war on the groups and individuals they see as harming the grid.

Which, at this point, could be any of us. When Avril Korman receives a threat in her email, for writing about as fair and even-handed an article on the JLU as I've read over the past three days--friends and neighbors, we're all under the gun, and Kalel's hand is on the trigger.

I do mean that literally, by the way. Reference this comment from the original SLU thread, followed by this comment. Back to back, they're chilling in their demonstration of how far Kalel at least says he will go.

And let me be clear here--I am not saying griefing is Happy Fun Time. I believe the Wrong Hands group was a griefing group, and most of them were banned for it. I believe the Patriotic Nigras were also a griefing group, and still make incursions onto the grid for no good reason (in my opinion), even after most of their original members were banned from the grid. I believe, by and large, most (if not all) griefers on SL are griefing for the wrong reasons, and there is real, genuine, and sometimes occasionally even proveable hurt that occurs as a result.

I also believe that the Encyclopedia Dramatica's lists of RL addresses, not at all infrequently linked to SL avatars, is wildly in the wrong. Once someone has your address, any number of harassments become more possible. I'm not saying there are any "good guys" in this mess at this point.

But to blithely say that you'd shoot someone? Just for knocking on your door? With no moral grey area, no indecision, seemingly no empathy for the fact that he'd be killing people? Innocent or not, that ups the stakes. Anyone--anyone, whether they're an estate owner or just another flunky on the mainland--who threatens to kill another RL person...that makes that person dangerous in the extreme.

This directly from this part of the summary thread:

"Tux, in order to show the depth of the info that the JLU is amassing, posts his own entry from the bwiki. It's a showstopper. It also takes FIVE POSTS. Read it. If nothing else it shows you the sheer granularity of what they're after. It's horrifying."

Now, remember what I said a couple paragraphs back, on griefing being a waste of time and energy better spent doing anything else? And that, to the best of my knowledge, the Wrong Hands was/is an active griefing group? (If anyone has information that says otherwise, do let me know.)

Even knowing that, the level of output, with RL names, places of residence, assumed occupation, accusations of pedophilia and ageplay...it's really, really horrifying, on a gut level. That, and if any of the chat transcripts are accurate, we're dealing with some fairly disturbed folks here. I quote:

[19:38] Vakesh Ishtari: Sir, i was at bloodmoon, Tux was on voice, while zen was
also on voice, doing perversion with their slave pet and minor they pulled off
the teen grid. Zen's kids were in his room and he was doing this on voice.

In order of importance, at least to me:

• Having your kids in the same room while having voice sex is pretty wrong. But I would ask: how old are the kids in question? If they're all teenagers, say (assuming more than two, hence 'kids'), then that just levels out at sleazy. If they're under ten, while not criminally actionable, that's flooring the drama pedal and screaming right into full-bore creepy.
• However, that phrase of 'slave pet'. Thus, drawing the conclusion that any acts of domination and submission (or other forms of BDSM) are beyond the pale on SL. Excuse me? Congressmen own leather whips and butt plugs and share hotel rooms with rentboys now. It's 2011. Grow the hell up.
• But that also pairs unsettlingly with the phrase "doing perversion". What, pray tell, does that mean, exactly? Round of spanking? Blowjobs? Forcing an old-style Sion chicken to collide with someone's kneecaps over and over? Sex with three human avatars and a Meeroo? We have zero idea what "doing perversion" means, save that it sounds far worse than it likely was in actuality. Also, it's really stilted phrasing, so I have to ask, how old is Vakesh? And if there's religion involved on Vakesh's part, especially Christian fundamentalism, then "doing perversion" could be anything from "OMG they weren't MARRIED!" to "she's underage, he's a horse, and he's slapping her with a flounder wrapped in bacon". We just don't know.
• And of course, my end question has to be: this was all happening in voice in main chat? Okay, that's just gross. But also, even were all this happening in voice, Vakesh had to be pretty damned close to hear everything clearly, so now we have this avatar lurking (one hopes for the love of all things inconspicuously) in the vicinity, listening with bated breath for any hints of "doing perversion". That's sick, and wrong.

Another bit from the summary thread:

The fun wasn't nearly over yet though, gang, because TheListSL stopped in for a charming dump of some more info from the bwiki, proving that KalEl Venkman was indeed Drone1 Resident, and that the W-Hat group was in fact destroyed by him. Further, that he fervently supported and continues to support alt detection all the way through the RZ saga and indeed, to this day.

Personally, I could care less about the W-Hats or whose alt is whose. I'm not a proponent of alt detection, I just don't care, and frankly, having been in groups where one user gained control and killed the group, that's a flaw of group ownership--don't give ownership rights to anyone you don't absolutely trust, because bad things happen. That's a duh channel moment.

But jumping to this, let's see if I'm tracking things accurately:

The base station then relays all the information gathered about the avatar and relays it to the Phantom Zone server, but only if the correct hash code is received. The unique hash code protects the base station from receiving spoofed identify packets. Packets that do not carry the correct hash code are simply discarded.
The transmitted data would contain the following information about the given avatar:
Avatar Name
Avatar DOB (in SL terms, the inception date of the account)
Avatar Height (griefers don't plan on being able to keep an avatar more than a few hours, and so usually don't bother such refinements as adjusting avatar height - a default avatar height therefore is a valid marker either of an inexperienced player or a throwaway account.)
Avatar UUID
Name of client being used
Version of client being used
Name of operating system being used
Version of operating system being used
An encrypted hash of the IP address used by the client
The use of in-world HTTP-in servers precludes the use of cookies to establish a 100% certainty that a given machine is being used by a given avatar, as cookies are not supported by LSL. We sacrifice a certain amount of accuracy by using the in-world servers to firewall our system.

Of course, assuming--and that's a heavy assumption--that this is actually accurate information...let's break this down.

• Avatar Name. Publically available information. Result: null issue.
• Avatar DOB. Publically available information. Result: null issue.
• Avatar Height. That's interesting if true, and something I never really considered--that griefers won't really bother with changing their height, because they're using easily disposable avatars to get in and get out. Plus to me, making most of my avatars shorter than the norm. But end result is still (to me, at least): null issue.
• Avatar UUID. There are several ways to get this information, from LSL code lines on down. Virtually anyone can do it, and some third-party viewers do it automatically on the in-world profile. Result: null issue.
• Name of client being used. Again, with most third-party viewers, it's listed over the head of the avatar. Result: null issue.
• Version of client being used. See above. Result: null issue.
• Name of operating system being used. Ah, now we're getting into interesting territory. Why is the operating system on the user's computer being accessed? And if that information is being accessed, at least to the extent of how well the viewer in question verifies that information, is that a privacy violation? Result: ISSUE.
• Version of operating system being used. See above. Result: ISSUE.
• An encrypted hash of the IP address used by the client. And BIG FLAMING ISSUE for this last one.

I swear, I just don't have a settled place in my brain for any of what's turning up. Here I thought Zen just had a creepy hobby, along with half the Wulfenbachs, now it turns out half the Steamlands and a tenth of everyone I know is moving towards the "EVIL; DO NOT TRUST" category in my mind. I do not like feeling like this!

[09:06] Hal Jordan [GreenLantern Excelsior]: We're going to have to start being careful about calling out people's alts. Next time the wiki is stolen it could cause problems

You THINK?!?

You know, I'm actually glad I'm going out to wrangle with my bank in a few minutes. It gets me out of the house and away from all this lunacy. When, precisely, did the good guys become the bad guys? And why?