[sldev] 3rd party viewer policy post on blogs.secondlife.com
GordonWendt at gmail.com
Tue Oct 20 17:49:15 PDT 2009
I never got the email but from what was quoted in blog comments I too am
concerned about LL essentially forbidding residents from using secure
communication methods which seems exactly the opposite of what they should
be encouraging. I think it may have been Zimmernan who said it first
(although a lot of people mistakenly attribute it to Schneier) "If
encryption is allowed only outlaws will have encryption)
@Ann, I didn't mean to put words on your mouth but the first part of your
first comment on the blog says a lot, if you want to continue this argument
I'd be happy to continue off-list since as you said it's off-topic, you have
my email address.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Zabb65 <zabb65 at gmail.com> wrote:
> From the email I got, it sounds like the viewer they have the most
> objections to, is Emerald. This bothers me in a few ways.
> First thing is I feel it will split development of group projects because
> certain things won't make the "list". And will be deemed unacceptable, and
> some developers will side with LL, some won't.
> Then you have inevitable policy. If your viewer is not on the list, you can
> be banned for using it. This will drive people away from third party viewers
> faster than you could ever imagine. It also eliminates the problem for them.
> Its hard to ban viewers, its easy to ban users.
> The specific change that bothers me the most is that encrypted chat was
> listed as an item that was against community standards or ToS. Chris Tuchs
> spent the better part of an entire month implementing it and perfecting it
> to the point it is at. I don't see any dev on the team jumping up and down
> to remove it either. It's a very tightly coupled component and its only
> purpose is to enhance privacy. If we don't remove it, we don't make the
> registry, and if we are not on the registry they have reason to ban users of
> it. You ban users, nobody will use the viewer out of fear.
> Effectively, they are creating a method to leash legitimate developers of
> third party clients to conform to their exact wishes, that will not do
> anything to deter content theft or griefing. It is only a way to better
> justify banning users of third party clients.
> While I see it partially as a good idea, yes, I'd prefer we did not have a
> thousand people running around stealing content or having griefing tools,
> this isn't the way to do it.
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SLDev