Subscribe to

The picture below? That’s my avatar in Second Life. His name is ‘Benjamin Noble’ and he’s been my representative in that virtual world from the beginning. But why should you believe that? So far, you’ve had no way to know the real name, geographic location, gender, or age of the person controlling ‘Benjamin Noble.’ 'Benjamin Noble,' Benjamin Duranske's Second Life AvatarThat’s about to change, and I couldn’t be happier about it. I even think that somewhere in his little pixelated cortex, my avatar is happy too. (Sidenote: thanks to Nobody Fugazi from for the custom shirt for ‘Noble’).

Why is ‘Benjamin Noble’ about to become so much more closely tied to me? Because Linden Lab just rolled out details on identity verification.

The system is ostensibly focused on verifying age for access to adult areas, but Linden Lab didn’t limit it to age. So the long term impact will not be limited to adult content providers (though I suspect they’re mostly just fine with knowing they’re not letting kids access their material). The people who will most benefit from this are business people and professionals who have been limited by an inability to prove who we are, know who we are talking to, and make enforceable agreements in-world.

That all changes, once verification goes live.  The long-term possibilities are huge. Off the top of my head, I see contracts executed in-world, legal representation that starts in-world, and virtual employment that goes beyond warming camp chairs. And that’s just the beginning.

The important details are:

  • Verification is voluntary.
  • You can verify your age, location, gender, and/or name.
  • You can do it piecemeal (e.g. just age, for access to restricted content).
  • If you don’t verify age, you can’t access restricted parcels.
  • It will be free at first, but there will be fees imposed later.

Some readers aren’t going to like this, but it will help ensure the success of the grid as a place for business, which is good for everybody in the long run. Previously, the lack of any way to prove who you are in virtual worlds made contracts functionally impossible. Not any more. The full impact won’t be known for a while, and there are sure to be some snags, but overall, I am convinced that this was a necessary, positive step that will help move the economy beyond point-of-sale transactions.

As the post from Robin Linden says:

[F]or Residents, it gives them the chance to independently verify certain aspects of their identity (their name, age, location and sex for instance) if they choose to. This will help establish trust by removing a layer of anonymity for those they interact with. It’s much easier to trust someone who puts their name behind their words and actions.

For lawyers who are contemplating a virtual world practice, it’s fantastic news. I have, in the past, cautioned attorneys against giving legal advice or taking on representation that is entirely in-world on the grounds that if they didn’t know who their clients were and where they were located, the lawyers would run a serious risk of creating a conflict of interest, and potentially be on the hook for unauthorized practice of law. Now, I’d modify that advice. Attorneys who are giving legal advice to anonymous avatars are potentially making a big mistake, but with verification on both sides and sufficient attention paid to local rules on attorney-client confidentiality, contact with clients and potential clients via avatars is much more reasonable.

[Note: Edited August 29, 2007 for clarity per comment #10.]

Email This Post Email This Post
Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting) Print This Post (Printer Friendly Formatting)

Related Posts on Virtually Blind

46 Responses to “Commentary: Details on Second Life Identity Verification Released – Now We’re Talking Business”

  1. on 29 Aug 2007 at 11:31 amErasmus Hartunian

    The verification is useless as the process can only verify the ID submitted, but CANNOT verify the person who submits the ID.
    I would go further and say that it is dangerous to the business owners who are going to rely on it as the most likely people to seek ID validation will be precisely the ones they want to keep out of their 18+ business.

  2. on 29 Aug 2007 at 11:36 amBenjamin Duranske

    Erasmus – If that’s true, it’s a concern, but I haven’t seen anything that convinces me that is how it will work. I’ve verified my ID before for credit reports and things like that over the phone and online, and the way it generally works is you have to answer some questions about past loans, addresses, other people who lived at those addresses, etc. that only you would know. I’ve also done some where they match data off multiple sources (e.g. credit card number with three-digit back code, driver’s license number, and full name).  I suspect they’re going to use one of those schemes.

    At minimum, this should be at least as “verified” as anything else online.  So if somebody steals my wallet, they might be able to fake being me in Second Life, but honestly, I suspect that’s not going to be their first priority.

  3. on 29 Aug 2007 at 11:57 amTaran Rampersad

    Hmm. Well, I got an email – and the links in the email didn’t work.

    I am considering the use of my Trinidad and Tobago identification to test the system – I’m pretty sure my US ID will pass with flying colors.

  4. on 29 Aug 2007 at 1:07 pmErasmus Hartunian

    The purpose is quite different from that of credit assessment where it is not the person that is being verified, but a person’s credit worthiness. Impersonation is easy, and usually without consequence if no ID theft is involved. Wives and secretaries do it all the time for convenience.
    The purpose for SL is similar than that of club access where the age is verified on the ID and the picture is matched with the person who presents the ID. Because the purpose in this case is to verify the person.
    The system proposed by SL has absolutely no way of identifying the person. For that matter, I do not know of any verification system that can effectively subsitute “in situ” verification.
    I find it especially worrysome that the most likely people to cheat the system are kids who, being the fact they are minors most likely living at home, have ready access to any and all IDs, bank cards, etc. of their parents. And, unlike using the bank card of their parents to make unauthorized purchases which ultimately will show up on a bank statement, there is no transaction trail or notification to the real owner of the IDs submitted. The parents will never know their ID were used to let their kids in 18+ areas of SL.
    I cannot understand why LL would take the burden of a responsability they know they cannot garantee any better than before.

  5. on 29 Aug 2007 at 2:13 pmBenjamin Duranske

    Erasmus makes a good point, though I’m not as interested in the age verification difficulties as the identity side, and I doubt anybody’s kids are going to verify their folks’ ID in order to practice psychiatry or law, or enter contracts. There are better places to impersonate your parents than Second Life.

    There are some more valid concerns raised in this comment on the announcement thread (the last one before they were closed). Erasmus’ questions and those raised in this comment definitely need to be answered, though I’m fairly sure that they’ll be worked out in the end. In any case, the value of this outweighs the hassle and potential problems by a wide margin, in my opinion.

  6. on 29 Aug 2007 at 3:23 pmTaran Rampersad

    Well, color me surprised. It worked with a Trinidad and Tobago driving permit… I posted about it here:

    My main concern is that yes, I have an understanding with Linden Lab – but I have no insight into the agreement with the third party.

  7. on 29 Aug 2007 at 4:37 pmMagnum Serpentine

    I wouldn’t mind if Business left Second Life. Its because of big wig business that we now have this invasion of Privacy.

  8. on 29 Aug 2007 at 4:38 pmMagnum Serpentine

    Clarification… When I say Business I mean REAL WORLD business. Businesses from users of Second Life are ok.

  9. on 29 Aug 2007 at 4:54 pmBenjamin Duranske

    @ 7-8, why is one okay and the other not, Magnum? I don’t see it. I mean, at one point Google was just some college kid’s idea, Amazon was a website everyone thought would fail, and Ford was a guy in a garage.

    Besides, even though this is going to be a real benefit for business in Second Life (both big corporations and SL startups) it wasn’t requested by business at all. It was triggered because a German tabloid news show found child porn on the grid. I think the market would have demanded a solution much like this eventually (and maybe done it better, now that I think about it) but that wasn’t what triggered this.

  10. on 29 Aug 2007 at 7:28 pmArthur Fermi

    I’m not sure, and could be wrong, but it appeared that mature land wouldn’t prevent non age verified users from going there unless it was flagged restricted. just be cause something is mature, does not mean its explicit.

  11. on 29 Aug 2007 at 8:00 pmBenjamin Duranske

    @10, I think you’re right, Arthur. I didn’t mean mature in the formal sense of “mature” vs. PG.  I actually meant restricted content. Bad phrasing on my part.  I’ll edit above.  Thanks for the heads’ up.

  12. on 30 Aug 2007 at 1:02 amTyffany Flintoff

    I’m looking at this issue with a very jaundiced eye. I’m sure most residents of the grid – no matter what their persuasion or pastime in world would agree that controlling minors’ access to the grid and to adult content in particular is desirable. And while I know that accessing a valid credit card is not complete proof of age, it suffices elsewhere on the internet for precisely that purpose.

    The further step of attempting full identity verification concerns me. I doubt its efficacy for the reasons noted by Erasmus above. There truly is no way to verfy identity in an online situation in the same was as may be performed in situ. I thus doubt that any real increase in comfort would arise in a business agreement between two “identified” avatars as opposed to two unverified avatars striking the same deal today.

    Further, while many residents in America may feel concerned about providing personal information to a US based data mining corporation, I can assure you that the concerns of those of us in Europe, Australia and other parts of the world shall be far, far greater.

    I’m sceptical of claims that no data or records shall be retained, I’m doubtful of the security of such information and see no reason to trust either LL or Integrity’s ability to ensure this system is watertight.

  13. on 30 Aug 2007 at 1:31 amMagnum Serpentine

    Maybe I need to clear it up more.

    Businesses that started in Second Life are ok

    Businesses like Dell, IBM, Ford, Are not ok.

    Needless to say, Social Security warns against giving even 1 number of your SSN to anyone

  14. on 30 Aug 2007 at 1:34 amMagnum Serpentine

    I forgot this bit too…

    Its against the law in many states for companies to collect your drivers license number, your SSN number etc.

    Linden Labs needs to drop this right now!!!

    I do not trust any company with my numbers and I have NOT found a situation where I had to give a company my SSN and Drivers License number

  15. on 30 Aug 2007 at 2:17 amShava Nerad/Shava Suntzu in SL

    Hey, Ben? Did you notice this?…comment-2878

    sorry for the long link…

    [Editor's note: I made the link shorter.] 

  16. on 30 Aug 2007 at 2:31 amBenjamin Duranske

    @12, The point about credit cards sufficing in just about every other age verification context is a good one. That’s certainly true. (I’ve never really understood why that works though, since I had a credit card in my name before I was eighteen.)

    Anyway, while I think that offering voluntary identity verification is great for a lot of unrelated reasons, I agree that this looks like serious overkill for age verification. Websites with restricted content just require you to check a box saying you’re eighteen. Many don’t even require that. I’m not entirely clear why Linden Lab thinks it needs to be more of a nanny than a web hosting company is on this point.

    And there’s also a lurking argument here, that I’ve hit before, where Linden Lab is backing itself into a corner with this policy, where they will eventually have to delete stuff that’s not appropriately tagged. And when they do, they’re going to be on the hook for any they miss under the Communications Decency Act.

    A few other points from my reading on this today…

    I can’t yet sort out the signal and noise on the quality of the company they’ve contracted with yet. I hear a lot of vague accusations and grumbling, but nothing substantive. Without more information, I’m pretty neutral about this particular system, though more generally, I am happy that the option is going to exist in some form.

    For me, I guess I don’t really care if Linden Lab offers ID verification, or some totally independent third party working in several worlds makes the option available for a fee, or it gets contracted out on a world by world basis, or whatever. I’m just glad to have the chance to prove who I am.

    That all said, I get that it’s pretty easy for me to say that this looks like a good idea from where I sit, since I’ve already told everyone who I am. For me, it’s all upside. I’m sure I’d feel differently about it if I was hoping to remain semi-anonymous.

  17. on 30 Aug 2007 at 3:00 amTaran Rampersad

    @13: SSN is probably the most abused form of identity out there. In DC, its your Driver’s License number. In the military, its your ID number. It is necessary for everything from credit cards to job applications to your medical record.

    People tend to forget what SSN was actually *for*.

    That said, I’ll reiterate what I said before (either here or on my site): I have no insight into the agreement between Linden Lab and Aristotle regarding my information. I have no idea whether any of the information Linden Lab claims it will not use will be used by Aristotle. There is a big red flag there that everyone seems to be missing. Where is the privacy agreement with the third party related to user information? Are we guaranteed that such information will not be used?

    Consider that your avatar key (the server side ID) could now be linked to your identification. That this information could be sold to the government (guess what else Aristotle does? Guess where its located? Heh), to private agencies… imagine a year from now that you apply for a job, and suddenly they pull up your avatar name. Huh? That stuff happens all the time because people are unaware of these third party agreements related to privacy of information.

    When you consider that Aristotle verified my ID from a country which doesn’t even have that level of database usage for its citizens… you have to wonder where the information comes from – and when you ask that question, you have to wonder how much of our information is kept for Aristotle’s next client.

  18. on 30 Aug 2007 at 8:25 amMagnum Serpentine

    In Tennessee they stopped collecting SSN numbers for their Drivers License number and its against Tennessee law to use the Drivers License Number.

  19. on 30 Aug 2007 at 10:18 amBenjamin Duranske

    Steven Davis has sorted out some of the signal/noise on Integrity/Aristotle (the company that has, supposedly, been hired to do this). Good article.…Aristotle.html

    One thing I find odd is that one site is reporting that Integrity / Aristotle is the company doing this, and that makes sense since I heard a while back that they’d signed a contract, but there’s no mention of the specific company in LL’s recent post on this. Are we entirely sure that’s who is doing this? Virtual World News says it is, but I can’t find a primary source. Anybody have a link?

  20. on 30 Aug 2007 at 10:21 amPrincess Ivory

    How much of this info will be available to SL users when they look at my profile? Will they see my verified age and gender? This could be awkward, if I am roleplaying a character of the opposite gender.

  21. on 30 Aug 2007 at 11:50 amAshcroft Burhham

    Far more important than linking one’s avatar name to one’s first-life identity is linking different avatars controlled by the same person to each other, to make sure that people cannot evade the just consequences of their actions online. There is nothing wrong with not revealing one’s normal, first-life identity if the pseudonymous identity that one adopts behaves in the same way as one’s first-life identity: i.e., there is only one of it, and it attracts reputation and other consequences of the actions that one takes.

    It is unclear whether Linden Lab will do this properly. It is not much use, for example, knowing that “Jane Smith” or “Sukhvinder Patel” is the real-life name of avatar “Somebody Anonymous” if we don’t know which, if any, other avatar(s) with the name “Jane Smith” or “Sukhvinder Patel” are the avatars of the same Jane Smith or Sukhvinder Patel. There is an issue on the SecondLife JIRA for which one can vote in relation to this, and I should encourage everybody to do so: it is here.

    Often, especially for the lower value transactions that form the bulk of SecondLife commerce, being able to link identities in-world to prevent people from evading the consequences of their actions by simply carrying on as an alternate account, or running several accounts in parallel to simulate more people than are really involved, is far more valuable than the ability to know what a person’s name is or what country that a person is from. Supposing that one knows that the person is called “Paulo Sanchez”, is from Brazil and is 30; that really will not help in tracking the person down very much. A street address would help, but it would be manifestly unlikely that all but a very few people would be stupid enough to put their street addresses on their SecondLife profiles.

    The technology behind verifying a specific identity is capable of being used to link all avatars verified by the same person, which is a far more important function than linking avatars to real-life details. All those concerned about trust in business should vote for this issue (log in with your SecondLife username and password).

  22. on 30 Aug 2007 at 4:38 pmLem Skall

    Ashcroft, I think that I am beginning to understand the gist of your request only now. Do you mean that if I have 3 avs in my name and I choose to verifiy only one of them, then automatically the other 2 will be also verified by linking them to the verified av? And that I could never create another un-verified av unless I also use a fake RL ID?

    Please clarify that before I start passing judgement on your request based on my present understanding.

  23. on 30 Aug 2007 at 4:45 pmAshcroft Burnham

    Ahh, no, that’s not quite correct. My suggestion (on SVC-513) was that verification should mean that it would always be possible for any user of SecondLife to determine whether any given verified avatar is an alt of any other given verified avatar, with no more restrictions than presently exist on unverified avatars.

    It would then be for individual landowners to decide whether unverified avatars should be allowed on their land at all, and whether or not they want to have any dealings with unverified avatars, and, if so, how limited that those dealings should be.

  24. on 30 Aug 2007 at 6:00 pmLem Skall

    Oh boy! Ashcroft’s request sounds quite reasonable with the new clarification and I was about to drop the subject because maybe this is not the place to discuss it. But then I realized it is the perfect example of the kind of mess that IDV can create.

    I may have an av that I use for professional purposes and that is fully ID verified with information like being an IBM employee (hypothetically speaking, because in reality I am not an IBM employee). And then I may have an av that is only age verified because I use it to frequent the red light districts in colorful SL. Do you see where I’m going with this?

    Ashcroft wants the 2 avs to be linked. And he’s making a convincing argument, that many of the purposes of IDV are defeated without this link.

    However, I wonder how many people in SL will accept this kind of link, considering the scenario that I mentioned.

    I agree IDV has its uses, but it is also a Pandora’s Box ready to be open.

  25. on 30 Aug 2007 at 6:30 pmBenjamin Duranske

    Ashcroft @23. Further clarification — does SVC-513 (the “Burnham Plan”) contemplate the tie between avatars being public, or just discoverable in the event of some problem?

    Lem @24 – That’s the $64,000 question about avatar matching, I think. If it’s a public tie, then I’d be forced to make a decision between my public life and my (hypothetical) secret life. I’d never tie a professional identity to an avatar that I’d use to visit the Herald’s favorite sleazy haunts.

    I’m not sure how much that matters in the long run though. My guess is “not much,” once a distributed, easily accessible open source grid that is tied to Second Life comes online in a year or so. There won’t be any smut on the mainland anyway at that point –why bother dealing with the red tape? And people will be free to set up alternate identities in their red light district of choice, without tying them to their primary ID.

    My guess? We see avatar matching per the Burnham Plan appear just about exactly the same time we see a distributed, open source, grid.

    (And for the record, I like the Burnham Plan, but I’d bet you a dollar to a chocolate donut we don’t see it until there’s an alternate, meshed universe for alts to play in. Hmm… a Third Life?)

  26. on 30 Aug 2007 at 7:05 pmLem Skall

    Benjamin @25. Even with open source grid, all the talk is about common standards between ALL the VWs. Which makes it even worse than now, because it means using a common ID across all the VWs, including your, Entropia and whatever else is and will be out there.

    As for public or private, if it can be used by Ashcroft or myself, the link between avs can also be detected by someone with good enough programming skills.

    I don’t want to leave out the biggest concern. IDV is so new on the Internet in general, not just in SL, and I don’t think we can even grasp yet the risks of bringing something like that into a computerized, programmatic environment. You think that Bragg’s exploit was bad? Wait until someone exploits some flaw in LL’s IDV system. You think that spyware on the web is bad? Wait until there are VW “cookies” to track all your activity in SL.

  27. on 30 Aug 2007 at 10:33 pmLem Skall

    I almost forgot. I too can plug my JIRA request after all, and Ashcroft’s comments are the perfect set-up for that. SVC-536 suggests that we should also be able to opt out from IDV after we have already verified an account. My suggestion was made “just in case”, but now I have a perfect example. If I ever verify any of my avs and later rules change and the avs become linked, I’d better have the option to “un-verify” either one or all of them.

  28. on 31 Aug 2007 at 12:14 amMagnum Serpentine

    Something new has just developed.

    People who paid US$225.00 for lifetime accounts were assured that they would have FULL ACCESS to ALL of Second Life for LIFE!!!

    This new ID system is a Violiation of that Contract that SL made with the Life Time members. If people choose not to reveal their information to this agency, then they will NOT be able to access all of SL.

    I paid a ton of money to be able to access ALL of SL for as long as SL was in Existance.

  29. on 31 Aug 2007 at 8:38 am? for Magnum S.

    Hi #28; any idea how many people have “lifetime accounts”? Do you have anything in writing defining what those were, or the history of those types of accounts?

  30. on 31 Aug 2007 at 9:13 amMalroy May

    Hi all,
    I am very opposed to this age verification business – and business it is. Aristotle are data miners who chose to call one of their daughters Integrity… i mean, you know, INTEGRITY…
    Have we not all been around the internet and web long enough to see this for what it is?
    Anyway my point to all the legal bods here is that ARE LL legally liable for what their service ‘carries’ or not?
    Also I am concerned that the proposed system is flawed and as such offers a level of protection only to those cheating the system – ‘borrowing’ Mums / colleagues ID or just verifying with made up information. There are reports of the latter already, one I can believe because I know a guy in RL who has done so. I am going to make an alt over the weekend and see if i cant get it verified with my lottery numbers… anyway…
    Apologies for perhaps stating the ‘whining obvious’ but I have been following what I see as the Disneyfication of SL for some time and have often followed threads on this site for a more reasoned discussion of the issues.

    Indeed I might say that were I to meet Benjamin Noble in world I am sure that I would trust him more than… oooo… I don’t know… Philip Linden maybe…
    Perhaps this is my point… actions build trust, not ID numbers.
    Thank you…. flame at will…
    Malroy May (43)

  31. on 31 Aug 2007 at 2:24 pmAshcroft Burnham

    Benjamin: The current version of what you describe as the “Burnham Plan” (although, this variant was actually proposed by Kristy Laval) is that a specially limited sort of linking ought be possible: it ought be possible to query, “is X an alt of Y”, but not “who are all of Y’s alts?”. So, it would be easily possible to ban all alts from land (checking when any avatar enters whether it is an alt of one of the banned avatars), but not so easy to link Mr. Professional to Mr. Adult just by checking their profiles or querying the server.

    Magnum: Very interesting point about lifetime membership. I have to say, I am always extremely sceptical of anything claiming to be a “lifetime” supply of anything, since, during my lifetime, the nature and context of the thing being supplied can change so drastically as vastly to reduce its value during that time.

    Malory: Actions are indeed what build trust (or distrust), but actions cannot do so reliably if there is no reliable way of linking actions, whether good or bad, to the people who perpetrated them.

  32. on 31 Aug 2007 at 3:47 pmMagnum Serpentine

    #31 It doesn’t Matter they said it in print back when they sold them (Before January 2004) And I paid a lot of money for the account. I have not been asked about any changes to it.

  33. on 31 Aug 2007 at 7:21 pmMiralee Munro

    When I first came to Second Life, I saw it as “my kind of place” – a place of absolute freedom and the realisation of anything we wanted.

    Very quickly, I thought it would be a good idea to separate ‘violent’ from ‘non-violent’ pursuits (and people) but now I see the development as Second Life as the development of a new society.

    The process we are going through now, is just a part of that. Deciding what ‘we’ want. And that is the dilemma – we all want different things.

    I want freedom; you want accountability. I want rolling hills and butterflies; you want high rise buildings of commerce.

    I do believe though that it is Linden Lab’s responsibility to make sure that ‘children’ can’t access our adult Second Life and if you, as an individual, want to do business here then it is up to you to establish a protective network for yourselves, not for the rest of us.

    All I can see happening now are people trying to impose their standards on others. More rules and regulations so that in the end Second Life is just the same as First Life. I’m all for keeping government regulations – ANY government – out of Second Life.

    Let’s use this as an opportunity to create a whole new world.

  34. on 31 Aug 2007 at 7:38 pmMiralee Munro

    I’d like to add, any society must have some form of justice in it, so that when there are ‘wrongs’ they can be corrected or acted upon.

    What I would like to see happen is for a Wise Council to be established where people with expertise and wisdom arbitrate on disputes.

    PLUS lots of public discussion and airing of views in the many forums that are available to us for this purpose – like we are doing here.

  35. on 01 Sep 2007 at 4:49 amAshcroft Burnham

    Miralee: You state that there oughtn’t be governance or law, or some people “imposing” standards upon others, but then acknowledge the importance of justice and dispute resolution, and propose your own standard for dealing with such issues that is as much a form of governance as anything else. That is always the paradox with governance: people believe that they don’t want it, but many simultaneously realise that it is necessary.

    Who would be on your wise council? What would count as “wise”? How would disputes as to who is and is not “wise” be resolved? What standards of substantive justice (and therefore, necessarily, law) would this “wise council” apply? Would anybody ever have any opportunity to change the law applied by the “wise council”? How would disputes as to what substantive principles of law that this Wise Council should act upon be resolved? How would disputes about how to resolve the disputes be resolved? What principles of procedural law would apply? How would disputes over what those principles should be be resolved? How would disputes over the procedure for resolving those disputes be resolved?

    I think that, in respect of governance, people often confuse basic governance (rules of interpersonal private law: the law of property, contract, torts/crime), which is necessary to avoid chaos, permanent distrust and anarchy, and “rules and regulations”, as you put it, of the micromanaging kind of over-regulation in which governments in the the twentieth century and onwards have been particularly inclined to impose. SecondLife needs the former, but, with possibly a few exceptions (such as financial services regulation, perhaps), not the latter. A properly democratic system, of course, would see to it that only that regulation approved by popularly elected representatives (who, if act unpopularly, can be replaced by people who will reverse the trend come the next election) is enacted.

  36. on 01 Sep 2007 at 5:03 amAshcroft Burnham

    Addendum: The irony is, of course, that there is no freedom without accountability; freedom is enhanced, not diminished, in proportion to the existence of the rule of law and democracy. A person living in a democracy in which the rule of law prevails is far more free to go about her or his personal life than a person living in a state of anarchy, ever fearful of what others might do.

    The paradox is that any one person’s freedom is capable of being exercised in a way that impacts on others’ freedoms. Government, when done properly, is a mechanism for minimising the adverse effects of those conflicts, which is why law creates, rather than detracts from, freedom.

    As for rolling hills and butterflies versus high-rise commerce, neither need dominate the virtual landscape: in a community in which democracy and the rule of law prevail, there is room for both of those landscapes, and many more besides. Indeed, in a system in which the rule of law prevails, and covenants or planning regulations can be enforced, it is far easier to preserve a landscape as rolling hills and butterflies than it is in a state of anarchy.

  37. on 02 Sep 2007 at 10:57 amConnie McMahon

    I find it interesting that the requirement for SSN4, DL, Passport, etc is in fact NOT a requirementof Integrity – Aristotle at all. Go to their web site. You will see they list one of their clients as (yes the Busweiser Bud). Go to the Bud site and register. You must be 21 to gain access. And what does Aristotle require to verify you for BudTV? Your first and last name, date of birth and postal code. In CA, many vinyards sell wine directly over the internet. You have to be 21 to order it. The companies that provide verification ask for your name, address and credit card info.

    So if State Liquor Control Boards are satisifed without this more controversial data, WHY is it needed for LL to verify you to PLAY IN A GAME? There is more to this iceberg than they are saying.

  38. on 04 Sep 2007 at 8:36 amCyn Vandeverre

    Magnum wrote “FULL ACCESS to ALL of Second Life for LIFE”

    So that means that ban lines are also a violation of the terms of the Lifetime Account?

  39. [...] Ottime risorse sul tema sono: Benjamin Duranske su Virtually Blind (e i 38 commenti, con particolare attenzione a quelli di Lem Skall e Ashcroft Burnham); Draxtor Despres, giornalista dalle mille risorse, ha realizzato un video molto interessante, che riassume in modo chiaro la vicenda (per il quale ho anche rilasciato una piccola intervista). Post correlatiSecond Life: Rocketgrrrl Tripp wants youSecond Life Survey, si chiude il 15 luglioIntervista su Metaverse RepublicCustomer care Spargi la voce: [...]

  40. [...] Due articoli molto ben fatti sull’argomento, in inglese, potete trovarli su VirtuallyBlind e sul blog di Gwyneth Llewelyn. Draxtor Despres di Live4U ha realizzato uno speciale video sul tema, per il quale ho anche rilasciato una piccola intervista. [...]

  41. on 17 Sep 2007 at 9:32 pmLem Skall

    Miralee already made that point but I am returning to it because of a comment that Ashcroft made on his SVC-513 JIRA proposal []: “accountability is more important than privacy”.

    I can’t disagree more on that, even in RL but especially in SL. Unfortunately, JIRA does not give the ability to vote against a proposal, but add a comment to the proposal if you agree with me.

  42. [...] Ottime risorse sul tema sono: Benjamin Duranske su Virtually Blind (e i 38 commenti, con particolare attenzione a quelli di Lem Skall e Ashcroft Burnham); Draxtor Despres, giornalista dalle mille risorse, ha realizzato un video molto interessante, che riassume in modo chiaro la vicenda (per il quale ho anche rilasciato una piccola intervista). Posted in digitalnatives var AdBrite_Title_Color = ’666666′; var AdBrite_Text_Color = ’999999′; var AdBrite_Background_Color = ‘FFFFFF’; var AdBrite_Border_Color = ‘FFFFFF’; [...]

  43. on 25 Sep 2007 at 7:15 pmAnony Mouse

    “Previously, the lack of any way to prove who you are in virtual worlds made contracts functionally impossible. Not any more.”

    Try picking up a phone or getting an email address from the person. There’s really no need for IDV in SL if you can do either one of those things.

    Anony Mouse

  44. on 19 Dec 2007 at 7:44 amSoontobe Banned

    i have made a script that will create a VALID id for both Bulgaria an Belgiium, using info freely available on the web.
    Took me less than an hour. if you know the algorithm, you make as many as you want.

  45. on 19 Dec 2007 at 7:49 amSoontobe Banned

    @12 : I validated using my avatar name. waiting to be banned …

  46. [...] risorse sul tema sono: Benjamin Duranske su Virtually Blind (e i 38 commenti, con particolare attenzione a quelli di Lem Skall e Ashcroft Burnham); Draxtor [...]

Leave a Reply

Notes on Comments: Your first comment must be manually approved, but after it is you'll be able to post freely with the same name and email. You can use some HTML (<a> <b> <i> <blockquote> etc.) but know that VB's spam blocker holds posts with five or more <a> links. VB supports gravatars. Got a gravatar? Use the associated email and it'll show with your comment. Need one? Set it up for free here.