[opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Bryon Ruxton bryon at slearth.com
Mon Mar 1 14:13:53 PST 2010


Carlo,

I talked about banning every unknown or unidentified viewer that is not in
the registry should I have a way to detect the viewer agent. Just like I
have the right to restrict an unidentified web agent or telling an Internet
Explorer 6.0 user than I do not support their obsolete browsers from my
site. There is no violation of your privacy. This is regulation and policy
within my own land, for my user base and customers protection.

If a developer wants to test his own viewer, he is free go to a developer
sandbox reserved to that effect (where they allow it), or on its own land.
The bottom line is that if a TPV developer is not taking measures to be in
the registry, there is no reason for me to trust and allow that viewer to
enter my land. Others can make their own assessments as they see fit.

Initially, I thought LL was to restrict unidentified viewers all together.
And I can see why that could a bit much. Although you know there is a beta
grid for testing and if LL really wanted maximum security they could very
well do that and only allow testing (unidentified viewers) on the beta grid.
You are left with with those who can spoof other viewers but nevertheless it
would be a solid measure.

And when I mean viewer, I mean the viewer mainly. I agree that an Avatar
shouldn't be necessarily banned everywhere for using such viewer in one
location under the currently assumed policy. That's a legit concern to have
as a developer. I personally wouldn't support such drastic measures and
don't endorse or use the type of device you describe. The reason such
imperfect measures exists though, is precisely because there are no
alternatives at this time.

All I am asking is the minimum standards which currently apply to browsers.
Some kind of cookies down the road would be nice too.

> DO NOT ADD YOUR VIEWER... at least not until
> the great majority agrees with the literal wording of the final
> published TPV policy, and we're far from that.
nods

On 3/1/10 5:04 AM, "Carlo Wood" <carlo at alinoe.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 07:55:57PM -0800, Bryon Ruxton wrote:
>> Of course, I know that Tigro. But just like any web site can detect a
>> user-agent and block it, I'd like to be able to detect the viewer agent,
>> (perhaps via llGetAgentInfo) of the avatar getting on my land anyway.
>> Such would be useful for various other reasons such a compatibility checks,
>> analysis of traffic sources, who you visitors are etc...
> 
> Actually, since you clearly WILL use this info to ban people from
> your shops,... it's a violation of privacy.
> 
> Look at that scam object that was released not long ago, being
> sold for a monthly fee of L$ 700... It adds peoples names to
> a central database once they are detected (hopefully without
> any false-positives) to use a known-bad viewer (ie, neillife
> or cryolife, listed by name in the blog threads). Result:
> that account is from then on banned in EVERY sim that uses
> this object. There is so much wrong with that that I won't
> even begin.
> 
> Add to that remarks in the said blog like "every possible
> banned thief is a benefit", and the conclusion is easy:
> If LL makes the agent ID's public, people will soon ban
> *ALL* minor TPV's (being all of them, except maybe emerald,
> because that has already a pretty large userbase) "just in case".
> 
> The result: Total death to all TPV development; nobody will
> be able to start with their own new viewer, because nobody
> will use a viewer that is instantly banned JUST because it's
> used by a minority and you "never know if won't be stealing
> my stuff".
> 
> Hence, privacy.




More information about the opensource-dev mailing list