Safeguarding Privacy while improving Navigability on Mainland
Wynter Serenade
There is currently a lot of debate on how to improve driving, sailing, and flying experiences through mainland where those individuals may have to either deliberately or inadvertently find their way onto a privacy focused parcel during their recreational vehicular activities. The argument is currently focused around the preservation of privacy vs. the desire to not be sent home via teleport for a momentary and potentially unavoidable encroachment onto a private parcel.
A solution that could serve both sides of this argument was proposed by
omoMMomo Resident
as a comment and expanded upon by me. Due to how this may actually solve both sides of the problem without causing either side to "lose" anything, I felt the proposal deserved it's own canny post to discuss and upvote as needed
. Here is the original pitch within the comments:Original Proposal (with edits/updates)
The ability to place a static volume (box, cylinder, sphere) tied to a list that separates the residents living there (listed) from the residents passing through (unlisted), as though two dimensions occupy the same space; similar to how private parcels do it except access will not be denied. It might be worth exploring if this is possible without having to modify the clients (viewers).
- Listed residents will not be disturbed because they cannot see/hear unlisted (and vise-versa) (including media).
- Unlisted residents can navigate through the property without hassle.
- hide objects (like cars, planes, boats) of residents that are unlisted from the listed ones.*
- disallow unlisted residents from interacting (touch, sit) with any prims within the volume.*
- prevent unlisted residents (on the same parcel) from IMing listed residents while inside the privacy area.*
Like this, everyone can be happy. Those that want privacy get their privacy. Those that want to explore get to explore. Such a system could replace and obsolete existing systems for privacy (parcel rules, ban lines,
llEjectAgent()
, etc.), modernizing and simplifying the whole concept going forward
.* - Edits to the original proposal.
Expanded Proposal
As was mentioned, I liked the idea of this proposal and added to it with my own thoughts on how an implementation might work:
To expand on the original proposal, in the spirit of what the 'volume' or "prim" bordering suggests, perhaps we can utilize something similar to the EEP system that allows for different environments at different levels. Instead it would allow for different privacy permissions at different altitudes.
Starting from 4096m, as that is the highest one can rez anything, every 'entry' that is added encompasses the space from the next highest entry down to the present entry, at which the new policy/privacy preference takes precedence (the reverse of the environment system). It could incentivize folks to use their land and space in new ways. Say someone wants to have a portion of their parcel be public, but wants a private space for just their friends. They set everything below 3000m public and then everything from 4096m - 3001m is private, subject to the limitations you suggested. I think that would be a win, and based upon the other logic within the original proposal, it would make the space from 4096-3001m still passable, but they couldn't interact with the individuals or objects inside of that space and vice versa.
I did a small mock up of what that could look like. I also like this idea for the other fact that you could essentially do a 'block and derender' of someone through the land without listing them. They still get to pass through, but unless you've got radar or your mini-map up, you'd be none the wiser.
Assumptions
I want to make note that this change if made would have some assumptions around it:
- This would apply solely to mainland regions.
- Parcel Bans would still be effective for those that need them (for public parts of their space, for instance).
- Modifications may need to be made to parcel access lists to work more like estate access lists where they can accept both groups and people.
- This implementation would also go in line with changes to how llTeleportAgentHome()works within mainland, to help solve the original problem stated above.
Thank you for taking the time to read this proposal.
Log In
Certified Lunasea
As I have stated in other issues raised on this same topic: The fix is for LL to edit the covenant on mainland to impose a minimum time before ejection/removal, take time to reasonably communicate and document the change to everyone in SL (a blog post would likely suffice), and then enforce the covenant rules providing proper consequences for infractions.
That's it. Not complex, not time consuming, not terribly expensive. And given proper communication of the issue those of us maintaining code for such items can actually auto-detect if a parcel exists on mainland and ensure that a minimum time before ejection/removal is adhered to.
Asking for a technical solution to a social problem is not going to work well since any technical solution to such will likely result in abuse, additional issues being raised, and will likely be a general waste of both manpower and money for Linden Lab and residents alike.
Tamiya Starling
I vote against this proposal. I've sailed in SL for a long time and I've only had a few issues. Mainly, a sailing vessel is hard to turn around quickly, particularly if it requires sailing into the wind. Longer delays on ejection would help. Most sailors will happily leave an area where they aren't welcome if given the opportunity. We aren't asking for permission to invade anyone's space, we simply would like to have the opportunity to leave.
As for pilots, we are in the air, looking at where we are going, observing our instruments, and simply don't have the ability to cam into someone's home and violate their privacy. All a pilot needs is time to fly past and move on. Pilots are flying around to enjoy the act of flying.
Cars follow roads and where, as drivers, we get into trouble is the fact that
sighs
most cars don't work very well. We can't turn quickly enough, or we turn too quickly, and in the end, we are somewhere we'd prefer not to be. The majority of vehicle travel isn't intended to violate privacy. It happens because we can't react fast enough, can't change direction, or lag due to unavoidable issues.
I don't have problems in Bellisaria -- it's fun to travel there. And, to me, this suggests that SL isn't broken and in need of complicated changes. We need better education and systems that give travelers time to leave. Bellisarians have shown that SL works, so let's promote harmony, tolerance, and understanding when a plane flies over or a boat sails past.
Zalificent Corvinus
Tamiya Starling
I notice you have NO "harmony, tolerance, and understanding" for parcel owners who DON'T WANT YOU ON THEIR PROPERTY.
Why is the Privacy Hating Vehicle Vagrant Griefer Trash demand for "tolerance and understanding" always so ONE sided, you get what you want, and property owners lose.
Love Zhaoying
Where can I register a "NO" vote?
Spiffy Voxel
I'm going to try and be constructive here. I understand that your proposal is coming from a good place, Wynter Serenade... but I feel that it's a solution for something that's not actually part of the problem.
Yes, there should be clear passage along waterways, roads and rail lines, and there should be more education, and where necessary enforcement, on landowner etiquette.
However... there is no 'public footpath' system in Second Life, and I don't think there's any reasonable expectation that one should be able to traipse across the Mainland through other folks's parcels. Yes, some public places do have walking trails or horse tracks, but those are at the owner's discretion and done with the expectation that they'll be used responsibly. Sadly, griefers are gonna grief, and this is why we can't always have nice things on the Mainland.
I would
love
if more folks built stuff on the ground — I find the barren landscape gets repetitive after a while. 🙁 This is my biggest problem with your proposal... the idea that the ground be an empty wilderness while everyone lives up in the sky. 🙁 No disrespect to those with fantastic skybox builds, and I get why working within the constraints of ground terrain is a PITA, as someone who has done so this past year. But sometimes constraints can be good, as they force you to be more imaginative in how to you work with the land (and water, if you have that too.)Wynter Serenade
Spiffy Voxel Primarily, I was offering the idea of a private sky area as an example. So that if they wanted to do something on the ground level for the 'public space' in that same example.. say like.. a GTFO Gas Station hub or something similar.. they could do that. The scenario could be absolutely be reversed though, where they do their private build on the ground, it's visible to everyone but if someone comes by and isn't welcome and is snooping around.. they can look all they want, but they can't sit/touch/edit the items if they're not whitelisted.
I agree that anyone who 'owns' and pays for land should be able to control access to their land. That's ToS for the "Virtual Land License" and if someone wants to lock down their parcel like Fort Knox? Live and let live as they're well within their right. I do agree with you as well about educating on available tools if someone is open to those kinds of conversations. Thank you for the feedback, it's much appreciated.
Alwin Alcott
no, and because the poster doesn't like just "no" ... i'll make it "no thanks"
Clem Marques
Alwin Alcott lol
diamond Marchant
- Big NO on the proposal (no worries as LL would not do this)
- Historically, the real problem in vehicle travel has been continental connectivity. That is now mostly addressed for non-adult continents. Thank you Moles. What remains is adding routes that add convenience.
- My assumption for those in vehicles is that they want to travel through public spaces, both Linden and resident owned, and are NOT intentionally attempting trespass or griefing or privacy invasion.
- Land vehicles travel on roads. No problems arise if drivers are able to steer. Roads implicitly provide visual clues to navigation.
- Water vehicles travel on protected and resident-owned public waters. Problems arise only in the absence of visual clues for navigation.
- Air travel is optimal when done over protected and resident-owned public waters. Orb encounters are more likely compared to land and water vehicles but should cause no issues if the eject time is reasonable. Airports should have direct access to protected waters.
- In all cases of travel disruption due to banlines, orbs, 4-corners, unseatings, and region crossing issues.... recovery methods are well known.
Bottom line, whatever problems exist with vehicle travel in Second Life can be addressed by simply learning what works and what doesn't. Residents can do whatever they wish to maintain privacy and those who attempt to travel through or above their parcels will have to deal with it.
On a personal note, I enjoy helping others navigate, primarily by providing (now over 1000) navigation HUDs that help travelers get from A to B with minimal problems. I also attempt to introduce (new) residents to vehicle travel through exhibits at the Community Experience, Second Life Birthday and other venues.
Tonya Souther
diamond Marchant Yeah, air travel disruptions because of ban lines and orbs are recoverable...by starting the flight over from the nearest airport. Way to promote immersion. Yes, eject times should be reasonable, 10 seconds at absolute minimum. And while airports are nice to have protected waters nearby, there are only so many parcels that fit that criterion, and a lot more on the interior of the various continents that would be nice places to put an airport...not to mention heliports that don't take ho much room at all. I have 11 of them scattered around Jeogeot, Heterocera, Satori, Nautilus, and Zindra.
diamond Marchant
Tonya Souther It would be find (with me) if orbs had a 10-15 sec min (like in Belli). But if we never get that, we can still fly many places without problems.
Gabriele Graves
It's a no from me as well. It wouldn't give everyone what they want. People who don't want people going onto their land just don't want them going on to their land in any form and this is people going on their land.
I agree with Rowan Amore that it's drastically complicating the land ownership model just to cater to those who just will not be told no.
Wynter Serenade
Gabriele Graves Things eventually evolve to meet shifting needs. We went from system avatars to mesh avatars, that was a learning curve.
I'm just trying to find something that will give people privacy, true privacy.. while allowing people who sail or fly the ~30 seconds they need to pass over a parcel or through a waterway near a parcel.
I hear the argument about not wanting folks on your land, most of them I have no issue abiding because most of them are courteous and don't set things in such a way that I have no thoroughfare (either one can go around or they have a timer set high enough to pass through). And generally speaking, that's how everyone else is as well.. we know to fly/sail/drive around if they've got ban lines up, or we know 10-30 seconds for a small parcel is a courteous timer to get someone through.
It's the outliers where it becomes problematic. The people trolling that try to overstay their welcome or 'home invade', or people that buy land at the end of an airport runway just to grief anyone flying out? Those are the cases to solve for.
No system is perfect, someone always is going to be affected by changes. And honestly? It's not the folks who feel entitled I worry about, it's the new person trying something out for the first time and running into a negative experience. Thank you for your input.
Gabriele Graves
I understood the proposal and why you want to do it. It is just not a solution that is wanted by those mainland land owners who have land security they are happy with and whose choices should be respected vs those who don't pay for that land wanting to pass through.
My vote is still no.
Tonya Souther
Gabriele Graves So you want us to respect your choice, but you won't respect ours? No thank you. Show some respect to those of us who enjoy flying in Second Life and you'll get it in return.
Gabriele Graves
I am one of those who enjoy flying in SL so pull your head in and stop making assumptions. I have given my opinion on this matter and do not wish to discuss it further.
Diablo Lioncourt
I really like the idea of setting different privacy "zones" based on altitude. This would make big parcels in places like Kama City considerably more useful. Everybody already prefers to live in the sky!
Cinnamon Mistwood
(If possible) hide objects (like cars, planes, boats) of residents that are unlisted from the listed ones.
And
(If possible) disallow unlisted residents from interacting (touch, sit) with any prims within the volume.
The "if possibles" are deal breakers if not part of your solution. Imagine anyone is now able to enter your parcel. They can use it for a personal dressing room, stay as long as they like, Furniture can be used by anyone. Vehicles sitting in your living room left behind, that idiot stalker can send alt after alt onto your parcel, the next Tiny Empires group can use your parcel. Saying "but you can't see them" doesnt mean you wont have 20 avatars having tea and chatting in IMs. It won't keep away the next home-invasion Youtube griefer from setting up shop and IMing you that they are in your shower and messing with animations in your kitchen.
Now if you want to suggest that parcels are completely invisible to anyone not whitelisted to see them (no one can see the house, landscaping, furniture, or avatars) then whats the point of flying over to see what people build? I dont want to see other residents vehicles driving through my yard or flying through my skybox, so anything that comes over the parcel border needs to be invisible to me and everything on my parcel needs to disappear to everyone that steps over the line. The invader better see only default terrain textures.
I have 1 more "if possible" for you to add. If you set foot on my parcel uninvited and not white-listed, you can't IM or use local chat to try to communicate with me. If you want to communicate, step off my parcel and ask.
If those guarantees are part of it, I will support your request. If not, its just entitled vehicle owners asking to change the privacy tools at the expense of parcel owners.
Wynter Serenade
Cinnamon Mistwood, It seems as if all those conditions would be possible. Given what is possible with RLV in third party viewers. It's just a matter of whether or not LL
can
and more importantly would
support including such functionality into the main viewer.Local chat was already part of the things excluded if they weren't whitelisted. But the idea of not being able to IM is a good addition. I'll add it to the list and remove the conditionals from the original proposal and note that I'm editing it.
I'm not going to lie, it's a semi-complex ask, with a lot of moving parts. If they're willing to implement all of it, then yes, it's a very sound solution.
Zalificent Corvinus
Wynter Serenade
"I'm not going to lie, it's a semi-complex ask, with a lot of moving parts. If they're willing to implement all of it"
And THAT is why I called the idea a complete and utter waste of LL's time, effort, and money that provides NO real benefits to private residential parcel owning majority while blatantly favouring and appeasing the goose stepping home invasion fascist privacy hating micro-minority lobby.
Clem Marques
No.
Wynter Serenade
Clem Marques Give me something better than no. How is it worse than what we currently have?
Load More
→