[sldev] Re: Privacy Pocket (Second Life)

[Sylvio Deutsch]

Hi Jason!

Yes, i understand your idea, but it creates a dilemma... are we going for 
some kind of reality simulation or we will get away from reality more and 
more?
In RL we dont have this level of privacity... maybe neighbours can´t see 
inside your bedroom like in SL, but they surely can hear you. ((:
To have a complete privacy in RL, you need a ton of money, like in SL if you 
can buy an island just for yourself, you can have complete privacy.

But I´m not against what youre saying... i would just like to be able to see 
the "shell" of a privacy on land, something mentioned before, that we could 
see the outside walls of what is built there. Maybe just the people inside 
is invisible to the underage? dont know what would mean less burden on 
system.


>Fatbear




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jason Giglio" <gigstaggart at gmail.com>
To: "Sylvio Deutsch" <overtake at keynet.com.br>; <sldev at lists.secondlife.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [sldev] Re: Privacy Pocket (Second Life)


> Sylvio Deutsch wrote:
>> But what really makes me mad is the origin of the issue... why not trust 
>> people word? If someone says he is over 18, he should be. If not, where
>
> These privacy proposals are orthogonal to age verification.
>
> As I pointed out, it's more than just sex.  People need privacy for many 
> reasons.
>
> This should not even be tied to the "adult" flag directly, and should be 
> an extension of the normal "limit access" ACLs, allowing non-"adult 
> content" privacy.
>
> If I'm working with a client on a private NDA project, he shouldn't have 
> to be age verified just to see the progress!
>
> Adult flag could use the same code to hide the parcel from non-verified 
> residents, but the option to turn on privacy without adult flag is 
> important too I think.
>
> -Jason