Comments on: Second Life Transactions Jeopardize RL Privacy (Crazy Canadians) http://dusanwriter.com/index.php/2009/03/18/second-life-transactions-jeopardize-rl-privacy-crazy-canadians/ Virtual worlds and creativity, business, collaboration, and identity. Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:15:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Prokofy Neva http://dusanwriter.com/index.php/2009/03/18/second-life-transactions-jeopardize-rl-privacy-crazy-canadians/#comment-40586 Prokofy Neva Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:15:27 +0000 http://dusanwriter.com/?p=1198#comment-40586 I don't buy what Eris is saying whatsoever. That's a thin veil of legitimacy covering a multitude of vast oceans of data, with little or no constraints on the Lindens' use or potential use of it. I remember I used to collar Philip Linden and say, Good Lord, you have more knowledge about all the businesses in a world/country than any government in history. How can we have free enterprise...free anything!...in such a setting? Many businesses simply refused to get started from real life into SL precisey because they couldn't protect their data stream. The Lindens are sitting on a gold mine of externalized dreams...how/when/if they will use it is nothing that there is any law about, really, even privacy law. The Lindens' ability to obtain immunity from prosecution or limit their liability to litigation isn't at all the same thing as what they may do on their own with their knowledge of the world scraped from us. The TOS enables them to scrape at will and use at will if you read closely. I don’t buy what Eris is saying whatsoever.

That’s a thin veil of legitimacy covering a multitude of vast oceans of data, with little or no constraints on the Lindens’ use or potential use of it.

I remember I used to collar Philip Linden and say, Good Lord, you have more knowledge about all the businesses in a world/country than any government in history. How can we have free enterprise…free anything!…in such a setting?

Many businesses simply refused to get started from real life into SL precisey because they couldn’t protect their data stream.

The Lindens are sitting on a gold mine of externalized dreams…how/when/if they will use it is nothing that there is any law about, really, even privacy law.

The Lindens’ ability to obtain immunity from prosecution or limit their liability to litigation isn’t at all the same thing as what they may do on their own with their knowledge of the world scraped from us. The TOS enables them to scrape at will and use at will if you read closely.

]]> By: Eris http://dusanwriter.com/index.php/2009/03/18/second-life-transactions-jeopardize-rl-privacy-crazy-canadians/#comment-39135 Eris Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:38:46 +0000 http://dusanwriter.com/?p=1198#comment-39135 Sidebar: Linden are not surveilling you (without good reason) because they're not allowed to legally and I don't just mean because of any perceived right to privacy. LL have claimed Service Provider status for themselves which grants a 'safe harbour' clause that they cannot be prosecuted for any illegal or stolen content carried on their networks on the grounds that they cannot practically know what's being carried on their networks. I've been told (by lawyers that know much more than me!) that this absolutely pivots on them having 'no prior knowledge' of any users activity or user-content. If they ever did have it would nullify their safe harbour and they're wide open to all sorts of litigation. Guessing they'd like to avoid that? Sidebar: Linden are not surveilling you (without good reason) because they’re not allowed to legally and I don’t just mean because of any perceived right to privacy. LL have claimed Service Provider status for themselves which grants a ’safe harbour’ clause that they cannot be prosecuted for any illegal or stolen content carried on their networks on the grounds that they cannot practically know what’s being carried on their networks.

I’ve been told (by lawyers that know much more than me!) that this absolutely pivots on them having ‘no prior knowledge’ of any users activity or user-content. If they ever did have it would nullify their safe harbour and they’re wide open to all sorts of litigation. Guessing they’d like to avoid that?

]]>