see you later, Lazer Gator

walk through life, and move ahead to your destination

Remember, every day is a new day. And sometimes all we want is to save the world.

Things that are not steampunk:

• If it just has stripes
• If it just has non-working gears and nothing else
• This entire outfit

Some of my friends with Facebook accounts think some of these ideas are overdue. I agree more closely with the 'even more invasive' concept of all of those filters, and I'm also holding in mind that the Oculus Rift, a technological gaming development/platform that I was very interested in attaining, has now dropped so far off my radar it's somewhere around the core of the planet, once I discovered Facebook acquired the tech because Mark Zuckerberg likely thinks it'll be a fun, "hip" new way to sucker people into further privacy violations. Oh joy.

I'm not alone in thinking this--a great many of the donators who supported the project initially on Kickstarter are clamoring for their money back. They feel as if the Oculus Rift sold them out along with their company's tech, and they're very upset about the whole thing. Markus Persson--the infamous "Notch" behind Minecraft--has gone so far as to say that Oculus Rift support for Minecraft and other games he designs will be nonexistent. Why? Because Facebook "creeps [him] out". I don't blame him in the least.

What's really unnerving me in all of this, how'ver, are the threaded hints given between the lines on the New World Notes article announcing the acquisition. Now, granted, this is me exercising my full reserves of paranoia, honed on extensive conspiracy research, but--Linden Lab has every intention of integrating with the Oculus Rift; Philip Rosedale's new social media efforts are going to, at some point, feature Oculus Rift integration; Cory Ondrejka now works for Facebook's mobile division, and the Oculus Rift will be pairing with and integrating with Android mobile devices...so...at what point on Second Life does a Facebook account and a mobile phone become mandatory?

Because I have neither, and at this point, I want neither.

At one point in my net history, I did have a Facebook account, because a job I was working for at the time recommended it for access. At the time, I didn't use it much, as I was (and this will tell you how far back this happened) more invested in MySpace as a platform that was going places. I never really supported either the culture behind Facebook, or the behavior on Facebook, but discovering that--after over six years of never using that account at all--that I still had an open, functional account because I'd never told them to officially delete it also creeped me out beyond all reason. (Also going through the lengthy, 30+ day process to kill my account creeped me out, because seriously, that's non-intuitive to the point of being obfuscatingly arcane.)

So, yeah. The platform that had the potential to revolutionize gaming, on-the-job training, and person-to-person virtual communication is now something I can only view with suspicion and wary dread. Way to go, Zuckerberg. You've destroyed yet another potentially beautiful piece of the future.

Lastly, sometimes furniture just gets bored. So keep your furnishings entertained, if you can.

That is all.

my confusion left me as fast as the vertigo came

This link will require you to agree to enter a blog with "adult" concepts and themes, but I promise you--this particular entry is completely safe for work. (You're on your own if you backspace to look through the blog itself.)

What you'll be seeing, however, is a collection of gravestones from Romani families in Donetsk, Ukraine. Unless we are Rom ourselves, or allied to the Rom in some way, all we likely understand about them in the Ukraine is how many were shot in mass graves during the Nazi occupation. And while that is important knowledge in itself, those mass graves, if they are marked at all at this point, will have at most a memorial tablet over the entire site.

Heads of families are very honored in Romani culture, however. They are frequently gifted, feted, and when they are dying--or dead, if death occurs suddenly--the call will go out for every relative to come to the bedside, and in general, this is exactly what happens. Money will be pooled to honor the fallen one, so--even if their lives were lived invisibly, for most of us--these etched stone portraits will remain.

While it is far, far beyond the reach of most of us, I remain comforted that there's at least one prosthetic limb studio who strives to move beyond standard replacement limbs that simply replace what's missing, and into actual prosthetics that not only suit the client's support needs, but their artistic, psychological and emotional needs, as well.

In other news, did you know that bumblebees see electrical fields? I know I didn't, and I'm utterly fascinated by the precision their reading of these electrical fields is. They can tell the difference between a high-pollen flower and a low-pollen one, or even whether another bee has already gathered the nectar and pollen from a flower. That's incredible.

In other science news, Duke University researchers have made an unprecedented discovery: by implanting a sensor chip near the tactile center of their brains, the brains of their test subjects gained the ability to 'touch' infrared light, and even to see it to a certain extent. If this technology proves out, it potentially could be implanted in the brains of the blind, so they will have an additional sense they can draw on to inform them of where they are.

And given another year, the FBI in the US will begin monitoring all all online chats. Well, I shouldn't say all, I doubt there are enough people in the world to monitor all chatrooms out there, but they will be targeting "suspicious" feeds. The problem is, for most of us (again), we won't know what's considered a "suspicious" feed, so we'll never know when we're being monitored.

Of course, this all goes back to online privacy in the first place--nothing posted online is private. If it is, then it hasn't been posted online.

And, if anyone needs a hovering mesh pig with inexplicable flatulence issues...there's one free on the Marketplace.

wash your face, dry your eyes, you've been waiting a long long time

Still deeply in love with Muppet Doctor Who, and at that same link, a Fairey-inspired Darkwing Duck print. (Both are available for sale, I think, elsewhere on the site.)

Is it just me? The Lindens are starting to sound pretty damned desperate for cash.

"I don't know why the world's leading designers on social media user experience would have made something as creepy feeling as the way this new seamless sharing was instituted, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's because behind the scenes Facebook is built by arrogant young people living charmed lives and sure they know what's best for the rest of us." While that link's specifically concerning Facebook, I wonder what the average median Linden age is these days?

If you've ever wanted a really good example of how physics work, to explain to students or children? This would work quite nicely.

They're terming the new Avengers posters "sleek" at First Showing, and I tend to agree--I especially adore the subtlety of portraying Bruce Banner, with just that mere hint of green light over his face. Very nicely done.

This--and everything else in that particular stream--are all photographs. They're a phenomenal collection of still lives, and every single one of them looks like the old masters to me, with oil and gouache and age crackling the paint. But they're all photographs. Seriously impressive.

In the meantime, a devoted World of Warcraft player sent me a stunning link with inside information on the Activision merger, and it's all sorts of jaw-dropping. If you have the time, I recommend you read the whole post on Team Liquid, but I did want to capture some highlights for posterity.

All of these are quotes from Activision CEO, Robert Kotick.

"On the Blizzard side, [we need to] really be figuring out things like the StarCraft business model for the future, with in-game advertising and sponsorship, [which have] really not been something that has moved the dial for anybody in the videogame industry, but that we think presents tremendous opportunity for the future." (as quoted by Shock News.)

"With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform, with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of, over time, becoming $100 million-plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us." (as quoted by Gamasutra.)

"Now that we have the weight of being the largest payer of royalties to the first-parties of any third-party company, I definitely see us as starting to influence hardware design, and they're thinking about the evolution of the next generation of hardware." (as quoted by Play.TM.)

"I'm getting concerned about Sony; the PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform...They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates are likely to slow...If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony." (as quoted by Gamasutra.)

"[Y]ou know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further." (as quoted on the Destructoid blog.)

"In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we'll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you'll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today." (as quoted by MMO Champion.)

"We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." (as quoted by NeoSeeker.)

"We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression." (as quoted in the same source.)

"Our significant accomplishments in 2009 are the result of the expertise and skills of our employees around the world. Their hard work and commitment to excellence made us stronger even during difficult times." (as quoted by Kotaku, and this after firing over 180 employees scattered through five different smaller studios that had sourced work for Blizzard or Activision, three of which were closed outright.)

So if you've been getting the feeling that Blizzartd's now all about the pocket change--namely yours--becoming theirs? This is why.

Of course, World of Warcraft just lost 800,000 subscribers. Maybe Kotick is too busy counting the millions earned from Call of Duty to care, but then again...

Finally, there's a lot of catcalling between Notch and the Yogscast fans over what happened at Minecon, and the scary part is Notch is the guy who sounds like the insane crazed fan, here. Simon and Lewis, the folks behind the Yogscast, issued a simple statement when all of this broke, saying they needed to get to the plane, off the plane, and back home to England (from Las Vegas) before they could properly respond. But they're the ones being accused of everything but lighting a goat on fire in the convention hall, and trying to sacrifice babies on an altar made of con guests.

Me, I'm not keen on the controversy coming up, especially where it involves Minecraftchick (because, dear gods, is she hateable--she's got raccoon eyes, she's insane, and she has at least one video up on her channel which is pretty much the Festival of Deathing); for me, easy targets don't make it easier to be outraged, it means we're spending our time kicking the puppy.

And the puppy has candyfloss-pink hair. That's not a good strong target, that's more of a pathetic, squishy target.

So mostly, I'm waiting until I get a statement from Simon or Lewis, as to what exactly happened, because honestly, what I think happened? Notch heard it second-hand, inflated by someone (which might even have been his Director of Fun, who organized and hosted all of Minecon; frankly, we just don't know), and then LOST HIS MIND on Twitter.

That's one of the problems with the internet; it's so easy to rant with zero validity to what we're ranting on. Trust me, I know this. Hells, I live this.

But either way, more later, when I hear things. I'll let you know.

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.

keep drinking coffee, stare me down across the table, while I look outside

If you live anywhere near Anaheim, California, there's a chance to participate in a project that would ultimately result in a steampunk exhibition at Muzeo. Click the link for more information; they're seeking funds and publicity.

The Redzone JIRA is still getting hits, and I think most of us are profoundly tired of it (save for the battling participants involved). I think Kaira Aeon has the best solution for the problem, however:

Much as I might sympathize with people's issues concerning systems that they feel are like Redzone, Coming here to the Redzone JIRA and saying something should be done about other systems is about as useful as writing McDonalds to complain about Dominos pizza.. If other systems are of such concern, then start a JIRA for each PARTICULAR system that is the cause for these concerns. Coming here may allow people to vent, but that's the most that will accomplished, but in the end nothing will be done about any other systems that are in place now. This JIRA created specifically for Redzone's abuses and now Redzone is kaput.The Lindens aren't going to widen the scope of this JIRA to cover anything else that isn't Redzone, no matter how Redzone like it may be.

Yes, please can someone do that? Because if we truly object to VooDoo (doing pretty much the same thing RedZone did) products, reporting them makes so much more sense than reporting on a JIRA that the Lindens have stopped watching, because it has been resolved.

And more on copyright infringement--somehow I'd missed that when mesh was first discussed, one of the first big videos on what it's going to look like used a copyrighted character. This was at SLCC 2009, and even back then, rumblings of "copytheft" were rampant.

Yet the higher-ups at the Lab move to the RL convention, and...don't care? They likely loved it. That video probably went out in official blogs at the time.

But, as the blog link shows, it's not like they're particularly efficient at hardlining copyright infringement. Or they get it wrong when they do work on it--witness the travesty of justice that was Azriel Demain's eight-day ban from SL, putting at risk his entire business (which is his RL livelihood) and running the risk of his defaulting on four entire sims on the grid.

And why? Because he had the audacity to say "inspired by" on a product. "Inspired by" is beyond the pale, but functional iPods, complete with icons, are okay? "Inspired by" meant cutting off a sim owner of long standing and putting their entire life at risk, but having photo-accurate iPads are perfectly okay?

Yeah, this is still me being outraged and appalled over something that will not change, but the hypocrisy galls me.

There is one more comment on the RedZone JIRA I'd like to bring up before I go.

The voodoo product does not datamine using the media hack as far as we know. It uses a third party website to mine your data. When you click the sploder you must access the website in order to register to win. It does not warn you prior to visiting the website that your SL information is being passed to the website to be correlated to other information mined via your HTTP connection. This data is then stored and further used to identify any alts you may have. There is a website which publicly "names and shames" avatars that the system has determined to be either an alt or a bot.If you are on this list, you are banned from any place on the grid that has voodoo installed. It is a networked, gridwide ban. Monkey has begun adding people to this list who are not bots or alts, just people he doesn't like (usually because we have spoken out about his product).

That being said, yes it is a website and not the media stream bug that is doing the datamining. The data is still being mined, correlated and paired with internal SL information and stored to be reported and used. It is unknown who has access to this data. Monkey is using his network to ban his "political" enemies and publically "name and shame" them on his website. He openly advertises his product as an alternative to redzone.

While this product may be marginally compliant because it uses an external website, it is in violation of the CS which was updated to include the reporting of alts. We know it tracks and has a way of reporting alts and if the system has determined you to be a bot, He also claims to protect against copybots. While obeying the letter of the TOS, it violates the spirit of it.

And as far as the claim that every media stream can track your IP. Thats true but unless it is also SENDING your internal SL data to the stream, it has no way of correlating your IP to your SL identity. As far as I know DJs and Musicians do not employ any kind of automatic way to track and store the IP address. It is visible on their stream dashboard but it is not saved.

We can argue the finer points of the TOS until we are blue in the face, the issue that remains is that some of us feel it is knowingly violating our privacy and using the information mined to detract from, and in some cases destroy, our experience in world. Monkey has now taken on the same tin god personae that zfire did and has been manually adding people he deems as his enemies to the ban list. This violates his customer's trust that when they use this product, the avatars they will be protected from are those that are confirmed bots, not their trusted customers. He claims that the Greenzone group has defamed his product. We don't have to, he is doing that quite nicely himself.

Azure Twine said that, and she's right. But what we need, more than anything else, is someone to file the specific ToS violations that the VooDoo products are responsible for, preferably per product, and have the Lindens deal with them as they do all other bug reports. Commenting further on a closed post just sets you up for drama, and gets none of us further to the goal of eliminating (at least the obvious sources of) data-mining on SL.

We also need to go farther, I think. Boycotting businesses that support Monkey Wonder and the Voodoo products seems like a good start to me.

• AJS Angelic
• Alpha Club and Shops
• Artica
• Avibook Avatars
• Black Shark Reef
• Bloodland
• Breda Tech Head Office
• Bressig CityShop
• Cenedra's Gardens
• Cheryl's Land
• Club Illuminatus Estates & Resort
• Damian's
• Dutch VIP Beach Resort & Parties
• EW Gadgets
• Fast Five Club & Shop
• Sunell's Free Money stop
• Guu Factory Sculpt Maps
• The Kingdom of Jordan
• Little Swing Germany
• Katomani
• Le Fabulous Club
• Low Prim Houses
• MC & Pond Creations
• NC Craft, T&C Designs & MAC
• The Pink Fairy
• Puff Dragon Club
• RB Business Up
• Second Life Job Agency & Advertising
• Speck on the Map Mini-Mall & Choppers
• Steampunk Fashion & More
• Stoffwechsel by PM Design
• TechTonix
• Viper Land Rentals (and an alternate location as well)
• Underworld Biker Hangout
• Wiccadia Weapons

And of course, the Voodoo main store.

NOTE: None of these are specifically places using the products (though I'd assume they do); they're just ones who are retailing Wonder's wares remotely. If we really don't want to support his products, we also have to boycott the people who support him. It's unfortunate, but it works--but this list will be verified when I'm next in, to ensure that all the names on it actually have one of the Voodoo vendors, and are actively engaged in retailing Wonder's products.

roll off the grass and let the insects breathe

A few days ago, a column from Shamus Young's Twenty-Sided Tales blog was linked to me that I found extremely relevant, in the wake of the RedZone debate. I highly recommend that everyone reading this, go read that, but I'm doing something I don't normally do and quoting large bits of the original.

First understand that what made Shamus write that column was an unrelated comment to another column entirely, from a reader called Blurr:

"I am very much against Facebook integration on other websites. I know I can't be the only one. I tried a while ago to figure out how to block Facebook when I'm not on the main Facebook website, but couldn't find anything.

"My concern is that because this 'like' link appears on blogs all over the place, Facebook can get a pretty good idea of my browsing habits. I am against this on principle."

Now, I'd heard this before. And even having read the column, the first reaction my brain has to his words is Wau, he's a loony. But then I read on:

"If a page has a Facebook button on it, then Facebook knows you were on that page. We don't know what they do with that info, but we know they have it."

The hell.

From the embedded link originally in that quote:

"But data about the user is sent to Facebook regardless of whether the Like button is actually activated.

Which is all quite scary - but not too surprising, given Facebook's reputation for snooping on its registered users.

What becomes really scary is realising how Facebook can track your movements even if you haven't signed up to its fake-friend collection service for lonely teens and sad divorcees.

Even if you don't have a Facebook account, you are far from immune from prying eyes, as Roosendaal explains:

"When a user does not have a Facebook account, there is no cookie and no user ID available. In this case, an HTTP GET request for the 'Like' button doesn't issue a cookie.

"However, when a site is visited which includes Facebook Connect, this application issues a cookie. From that moment on, visits to other websites which display the 'Like' button result in a request for the Like button from the Facebook server including the cookie."

Which means Facebook has swiped another batch of valuable data without asking for permission."

And that article goes on to mention that, if we aren't assiduous in clearing our cookies, Facebook's cookies have a two year expiration date.

And every time you hit a page that has the Facebook "Like" button as an embed, does that add on another two years to the life of the cookie? Or does it just create a 'later expiration date' for the so-called "new" cookie--which uses the same data/user ID as the previous one? That, I don't know.

From that same link:

We'll assume that, as you're reading this rather than laughing at Lolcats, you know a thing or two about cookies. They are helpful to users and of immense value to marketeers, allowing them to bombard you with targeted advertising based on your browsing history.

But with an increasing proportion of sites turning to the likes of Facebook in order to increase traffic and revenue - and let's face it, 500 million people is a pretty attractive audience for anyone - isn't it time we started putting our collective foot down about the way in which our every move is monitored?

What's really ironic in all of that? That column has a 'Like' button.

Okay, so that's all kinds of unnerving and creepifying, but I should point out again--Google does this, too. They track where they've been to figure out what ads we may be most interested in. And they do it without consent or requiring permission, just like Facebook. So why do we not have just as many personal privacy issues with Google?

First, because they haven't gotten a lot wrong, while Facebook has. Second, the Google CEO has never come right out and called users of Google's services stupid for using the service. That's pretty damning, even if it's from Zuckerberg's immensely younger, Harvard-attending, spoiled self.

But I digress. Back to Young's original column:

"The problem is with web cookies. A cookie is a small text file created by your web browser. It stores 'name / value pairs', which is fancy programmer talk for stuff like this:

username=PresidentSkroob
password=12345
last_visit=March 24, 2011
mobile_user=no"

And before anyone sneers at the password? What we learned from the whole Gawker debacle is that people pick some pretty dumb passwords. The top three on the analyzed list, after all, are "123456", "654321", and "password". Yeah.

"It lets websites store information on your computer. These files are keyed to the domain name. So, Facebook can only read cookies created by your visit to Facebook.com and The Escapist can only see inside of cookies created by your visit to escapistmagazine.com. The information contained in a cookie is sent when you visit a site. So, if I previously visited Facebook on this computer, it will send my Facebook cookie, which will let Facebook have my name and (if I so choose) password. That way I don't have to log in every time I visit the site, and it can know ahead of time if I want the lightweight mobile version of the page or the all-singing, all-dancing, graphic-heavy full version. If I go to another computer, it won't have a Facebook cookie on it, and so I'll have to type in my name & password to log in."

Which, frankly, is as it should be, in my book. But we are creatures of habit. We don't want inconvenience, we want comfort (occasionally, and usually, to our detriment). People (and I am one of these people), when given the prompt to save a username/password combo, will generally choose to do so. (Were I on a shared computer, I might not be so blithe about this, but I'm on my own computer. I have this feeling, false and intangible as it might be, that because it's my home computer, that I'm the only user who will see these saved password prompts. (Which is as may be, depending, but some people forget and hit the save option on shared computers, simply out of habit. But again, I digress.)

"Even if I tell FB not to save my password, it still saves my username. That username gets sent when I load the page, even if I'm not logged in. See, that little button at the bottom of this page is actually a little sub-webpage. It's a little window with a Facebook page inside of it. (Same goes for the ads on the right. That's a sub-window with a Google page inside of it.) When you visited this page, your Facebook.com cookie (assuming you have one) was sent to Facebook. Facebook sees your username, and because of how HTTP headers work, it also sees that you visited from shamusyoung.com. Ergo, Facebook knows you were here. Of course, this only applies to webpages with Facebook features. Facebook has no way of seeing where else you might go."

Except...yeah, they kind of do. Why? Well, assume I went from shamusyoung.com to that UK link...which also has a 'Like' button. Say I went from there to a link a friend sent me, and rather than spawn a new page, I just popped in the URL and went from there. If that one also had a 'Like' button, while in the main three different cookies were created to send back to Facebook, in the specific if anyone's looking at the aggregate data at some point, they will see that my chain went, unbroken, from site 1 to site 2 to site 3.

As long as I am traveling from sites with 'Like' buttons to OTHER sites with 'Like' buttons, Facebook knows everywhere I've been.

And remember, I'm not even sure how my cookies are showing up to Facebook, because you can't kill a Facebook account once opened. (And I opened one for the purpose of getting what is now an incredibly worthless piece in an armor set for Runes of Magic, got creeped out within a scant few hours, waited out my eight days until the I had documented delivery of the piece of armor code, and then got out. And while I've never been back, and have no intention of going back...any cookies generated at sites with the 'Like' button may just track back to my former Facebook account, and not as 'future user' placeholders.

(Which is creepy enough just on its own.)

"It's important to point out that this is not some nefarious new thing Facebook is doing. Everyone uses cookies. This site remembers the name you use in the comments because that stuff is stored in a shamusyoung.com cookie on your computer. Google uses them. Battle.net uses them. Blogger.com. My Space. Youtube. The Escapist. Google. Yahoo. Blogspot. Wikipedia. Twitter. Anywhere that you log in knows at least your username and the last time you visited."

As I said with the Google example, yeah--a lot of places does this. In fact, secondlife.com does this, because I've set it up to remember my username and password. Just like the Second Life forums (or at least the old ones--I haven't sent in a comment on the new system, and...I'm not sure I'm going to). Just like a lot of places I go to...and most of which, to be honest, have Facebook 'Like' buttons.

"The reason people get worked up about Facebook is because it's so ubiquitous. (And because the founder of Facebook is reportedly a complete douche.) Nobody cares about Yahoo cookies because Yahoo isn't lurking in the corner of every page on the web. The problem isn't that Facebook is more hostile to privacy than other sites, it's that Facebook naturally has access to data that other sites don't, because they're less popular."

I hate to have this come down to some sort of popularity contest, but he's right--Facebook goes farther because Facebook has a lot of users. It's akin to CBS getting the highest-rated show on the airwaves in a certain time slot--they can then take those numbers to the advertisers, and say "See? If you buy ad time for this program, more eyes will see your ad."

That's actually kind of the point in marketing and advertising--to get those numbers, so you'll be funded--through advertising, through direct contributions, through users signing up for subscriptions, whatever. In this breakdown, it doesn't matter a whit whether you're secondlife.com, yahoo.com, or chillygirls.com--your job is to get eyes on your work, the best ways you can. (And yeah, before anyone hunts it down? That last one's real. And really NSFW.)

"If you're really concerned about this, there are things you can do. You can set your cookies to be deleted every time you close your web browser. It will make it impossible for Facebook to see where you are, even when visiting sites like this one."

And he's right, we can, save...this is that comfort vs. security thing again. We can set our browsers to delete all cookies saved every time we close our browsers down. (And some people go farther.) But for most of us, we want that comfort and convenience--so we allow the cookies, we allow push messages on our mobile devices, we allow sites to remember our usernames and passwords--because it's just so much bother if we don't, right?

"For a blog like mine, word of mouth is life. You need a stream of new users just to replace the ones that wander off. Some people get mad and leave. Or lose interest when I change focus to something outside of their sphere of interest. Sometimes they just get tired of me. It happens."

Absolutely. Case in point: I adore Girl Genius. I adore Looking for Group. (Hells, I even have a Richard doll sitting in my bookcase.) But have I read either of those strips the last month? No, I have not. Will I get back to them? Absolutely, because I like both strips. But my attention wandered, I got busy, I lost the time for casual webcomics reading...it happens. To everyone.

"There is nothing I can do to directly draw in new readers, short of forum spam and link-begging on more popular sites – which is one of the most labor-intensive ways of wasting one's time. No, I need word of mouth, and the Facebook Like button is the perfect tool for the job. It's governed entirely by readers. People press it when I do something they like. That action will appear on their Facebook page and attract their friends, who probably share a lot of common tastes and interests. It takes my best material and promotes it to people who are most likely to enjoy it. Even if I was willing to pay money for an advertising campaign, I wouldn’t be able to find something as effective as that little button."

Which is Shamus Young's very polite way of saying, That Facebook 'Like' button isn't going away, people. Deal with it.

You can't please everyone all the time, and the truth of the matter is, this is the internet--so you're going to have people you purely can't please, because for whatever reason, their greatest thrills in life are contrarian ones--arguing dubious points, protesting change in any form, and demeaning anyone who doesn't agree with them. (And, save for the last, I fall into that camp, sad to say--because I protest a lot of things that aren't necessarily going to change--for me or for anyone else--and I do love a good argument.) And even counting those people, you're going to make decisions--as individuals, as companies, as corporate entities--that are designed to lose you people, sometimes. (Do I even need to say Dragon Age 2 at this point?)

So for a lot of bloggers, columnists, newspapers, companies, corporations and even world powers--getting those extra eyes in makes all the difference. And one of the best ways for people to get those eyes in? That 'Like' button.

Which is depressing, but I think Shamus Young is also speaking for Second Life by saying that 'Like' button is going to stick around. It's our choice how to deal with it on our end.

I want to mention one more thing before I close this entry, which is Rock Paper Shotgun's "No Oceans" campaign. I don't know if it will go anywhere, but I think it's a worthwhile goal--getting everyone, internationally, on the same page for game releases would cut down a lot of torrenting of games, and, more to the point, get everyone accustomed to playing together, and being able to play together--which would diminish some game piracy (not all, but even a little will help), and hey, while we're at it, maybe foster some stronger international friendships, what the hell. Spread the word.

(And yeah, on that column? There's a 'Like' button.)