On The Incredible Attempt To Abolish The White List

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Rudy Ruml
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:27 am

On The Incredible Attempt To Abolish The White List

Post by Rudy Ruml »

I am amazed to understand that there is a bill pending before the RA to eliminate the white list option on one's land and homes. Having been using one until recently, when Ranma helped me replace it with a door that had its own white list restricted to the door itself, I think that those who wish to keep a white list for their property should have an absolute right to do so.

Making it illegal is the grossest invasion of a person's right to protect their personal property and privacy. Without it (or a lockable door), one's property is open to anyone in SL at anytime. I have to ask those who support this whether in the RW they leave their home open in this way. Before using the white list, I have had strangers just walk in on me without knocking, or have returned to my home to find strangers there.

Now, the seminar house is public, and there is no white list there (although I have banned some griefers). But what has happened as a consequence is evidence for what can happen in one's home--things pushed through the windows, boxes created and inserted in pictures on the walls, objects upside own, gadgets monkeyed with, and so on. And strangers entering and asking for money or drinks, being rudely abusive, or harassing what women they come across, such as Jade and Ranma, both of whom have had to contend with this. One can expect the same when one's home is public as well.

Keep the white list. Had I not found out about the lockable door with its own white list, and had the pending bill been passed, I would have moved out of the sim. Privacy and security are just that important to me, and I think maybe to others as well.
:(

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Rudy --

You have persuaded me. I agree.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

Ahh, there may be some confusion here: I don't think that Ranma is advocating prohibiting all whitelist security devices, rather, the crude one that is built into the SL client itself, that surrounds the entire parcel with lots of little red words saying "no entry", and bounces any non-whitelisted avatar off it as if it were a wall.

Unless I am very much mistaken, I do not think that Ranma is advocating prohibiting any form of home security, but rather requiring people, if they are going to use home security at all, to use one that is somewhat less of an eyesore and impediment to travel than the one built into the SL client.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

I'm sure there's a reasonable compromise available here. Rudy is right, of course, that everyone should be able to control access to their property. That has to be the case in a society that respects private property and the rights of individuals. The problem is that, if you're not on the list, the red ban lines are horrible to run into. I've run into them a couple of times (possibly your home parcel?) I could have IMd the owner and asked them if I could be added to the 'allow' list but, to be honest, I was too lazy to do this :)

What do you think about having a group for CDS citizens and then, if citizens want to, they can allow members of this group (i.e. any CDS citizen) access to their parcel? No one would be compelled to join the CDS group or open up their parcel to their fellow citizens, but I think that most people would and it would make our community feel more like, well, a community.

Rudy Ruml
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:27 am

Post by Rudy Ruml »

I agree with Pat--I had added to my white list not only my friends, but all I knew who were active or involved in CN and NFS. And this is a matter of discussion with those who have or wish white lists. But, they should be free to make this choice.

As to the height of the white list's operation, that is ridiculous. It should not be higher than the roof, or celing of the property involved. Here is a matter for the powers to be to take up with the Lindens. :D

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":28khk0lb]What do you think about having a group for CDS citizens and then, if citizens want to, they can allow members of this group (i.e. any CDS citizen) access to their parcel? No one would be compelled to join the CDS group or open up their parcel to their fellow citizens, but I think that most people would and it would make our community feel more like, well, a community.[/quote:28khk0lb]

Pat I already took this idea from you and tried to champion it in a previous thread but Ranma pointed out quite correctly that using such an approach would prevent anyone from inviting visitors that are not CDS citizens into their land since the silly way that LL chose to implement an already horrendous feature was to only allow you to _limit_ those, who can access the land to a certain group.

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":1639odob]Pat I already took this idea from you and tried to champion it in a previous thread but Ranma pointed out quite correctly that using such an approach would prevent anyone from inviting visitors that are not CDS citizens into their land since the silly way that LL chose to implement an already horrendous feature was to only allow you to _limit_ those, who can access the land to a certain group.[/quote:1639odob]Well, that was a dumb move on the part of the Lindens :) I'll have to give this some more thought. Any other way we can get round it without having to give open access or type every citizen's name into the 'allow' box?

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

What this is really about is air rights. Since the mid 20th century you have not had the right to restrict flights over your property in RL. That's the issue here. If you want to lock me out of your house, it's your right, but please don't make me divert around your property when I'm flying over at 50 or 100 m altitude going from point A to point B.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Claude --

I tend to agree, but even in RL law, people have the right to restrict extremely low altitude flyovers and own land up to a certain level. Also, if we fly high enough, we can get over the wall.

I'm not sure that there is a good inworld substitute for the barrier. But there might be effective locks. If so, we should use them.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

As has been pointed out elsewhere, there really is no privacy even with the ban lines, because of how cameras can be used. Perhaps if the concern is with intruders and private conversations, you should build a skybox and secure the entry to that.
It is very annoying to run into the ban lines, plus it makes us look and feel like less of a community and more like the mainland.

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

Or could we explicitly allow door locks, etc. while only prohibiting the provision that puts up big red ban lines around a whole parcel?

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

There's a couple of levels (and a couple of philosophies) here.

On the philosophical level, there are those who treat SL as the web, and those who treat it as a world. The first group see privacy as silly; the web is generally a public place; while there are private websites, this is (in this view) handled on the sim-level access, not on individual parcels. If you want privacy, take it to IM or log off, is this view.

On the other side, those who treat it as a world have a (under that view) very reasonable right to privacy. There are technical difficulties with this (the camera, etc) but at the very least upholding the right to allow/disallow access.

Personally, on the technical level I think access lists (aside from actual banning) are pointless; if you want to really control things you'd be better off looking at autoreturn, turning on no-build/noscript, and so forth. Security scripts are problematic because most of them are excessively scripty and lag-enducing thanks to frequent use of maximum-range sensors. My own solution (for the moment) has been to simply have a simple indication of whether it's okay to come in or not, via the gate to my sky platform. If the gate's closed, I don't want company at that time. Measures like Rudy's door are similar; they don't actively keep anyone away, but they let the civil know when you don't wish to be disturbed and an excuse to ban the uncivil.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
Ranma Tardis

Post by Ranma Tardis »

I am sorry Rudy have to disagree with you. The CDS will become a land of no entry lines if anyone can use the white list in the land controls to limit access to their land to a select few. As my friend says there are Sims for that. If you want unrestricted "freedom" the mainland Sims are for you. We in the CDS accept limits to our "freedom" for the common good of all. This includes what type of builds, what type of scripts that are used on our property.
Using the white list does not increase your "privacy" in any manner. There are ways to defeat the land controls. Also an "unfriendly" avatar can just stand right outside of your land and listen. If one wants to be sneaky the perp can be across the sim and use the camera function to peek.
No the only thing the use of the white list does is make a hostile environment. I remind all that having a residence in a friendly environment is one of the reasons we are here. Next step would allow aggressive security scripts to provide privacy. Soon we will be getting hit with no warning scripts to protect the privacy of their owners.
Again, we give up certain things to promote the welfare of our community. The white list is against the concept of the CDS. If you want to use white lists and security scripts there are Sims for that.

Rudy Ruml
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:27 am

A response to various points on the white list that we have

Post by Rudy Ruml »

These are the major points that have been made to justify making the white list illegal.

[b:5tshsjaj]One bumps into them when flying.[/b:5tshsjaj] Then go higher -- I tried it and no problem. And if you bump into one, you are not injured in any way and lose no clothing. I tried this to make sure, and didn't even bruise my nose.

[b:5tshsjaj]In the RW, you can't restrict air flights over your property[/b:5tshsjaj]. No, but the Government does. Planes cannot fly at a very low altitude over your property. The courts have been inconsistent on this, but the prevailing view is that there is a lower zone above one's property one owns and cannot be trespassed by airplanes.

[b:5tshsjaj]What's your problem--these are only electrons, and all imaginary?[/b:5tshsjaj] Try downloading and selling on your website photos and articles off the net. These are copyrighted and one has no right to them, although they are only electrons. One can be sued in a real court and may have to give up real money.

[b:5tshsjaj]You can be spied on anyway by anyone knowing how to use the camera, listening in to your chat, or using spy gadgets.[/b:5tshsjaj] I know nothing about this, but so much for my 107 sex balls and nightly orgies. In RW, one can be spied on no less by people peeking into one's windows, listening out side of them, or using the spy equipment one can buy. Does that mean you leave your house doors unlocked?

[b:5tshsjaj]Community needs take precedence over a person's freedom[/b:5tshsjaj]. This is a pervasive and freedom subverting belief, widely applied by many otherwise democratic communities. I live in one in RW, a gateway community, and the limitations on my freedom are according to a community contract I signed with my eyes open when I bought a home in it. But what about when one lives in a community in which the rules are imposed, even democratically? This bears some analysis.

The idea that a community has a right to impose on one's freedom is a misunderstanding of what a community is. It is nothing more than a group of people who identify themselves as sharing some identity. Such is NFS and CN. Such a community develops an implicit and explicit social contract involving what people can and cannot do, and who owns or controls what. This contract has four sources.

One is the rules one accepts when joining the community.

A second is what people actually do, want, and value, and from which evolves the norms, mores, and values of the community -- its culture.

A third is the just rules (general laws) of the community that governs who can do what to whom, when, and how, and that evolve out of individual behavior.

And a fourth is a government's rules and laws that are passed by an authoritative executive or legislative organ of the community. In the first three cases, the community is not some abstract being standing above the individual members of the community, but an evolving and natural outcome of the individuals who compose it. That means that the community is an integral reflection of individual behavior and values (if you have difficulty with this, think of small towns or villages). Legislative rules or laws may simply be a codification of this evolving social contract and justified as traditional.

But in modern times, the government has been used to impose on a community ideas as to how people ought to behave, what is right and wrong. These laws or rules constrain or control individuals according to the values of some powerful person, or group. It is in effect, government using the idea of a community to demand that individuals give up certain freedoms over and above the social contract that has evolved.

Although I'm convinced that there are no fascists among us, and all is meant in a democratic way, this view of the right of a government to override liberty, culture, and tradition by imposing laws and rules is at the root of fascism. So we get some governments that say freedom must give way to the right of the nation to develop, be strong, purify itself, recover ancient glory, do God's will, meet a foreign threat, etc. Or in our case, make the community look attractive and inviting, and to ease flight.

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

I have a couple of questions and comments on this.

Does anyone recall just how high the ban lines go?

Rudy,

I feel that your desire to keep ban lines is grounded not so much in a belief that you [i:2vidic21]need[/i:2vidic21] the ban lines to protect your parcel, but that you have a [i:2vidic21]right [/i:2vidic21]to have them. Am I understanding you correctly?

Why does your absolute right to parcel control prima facie trump anyone else's right to overfly your parcel at altitudes lower than whatever the answer to my first question is?

Could you explain what makes the proposed legislation (which you clearly take exception to), different from the covenant provision that prevents you from building a metal platform at 50 meters altitude (which you accept)?

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”