InWorldz

Where your Dreams are our Vision!

It is currently Sat May 26, 2018 7:39 pm | All times are UTC - 6 hours
 Page 6 of 7 [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:49 am
Posts: 2054
The problem with personal invisibility is that it allows stalking of other avatars.

Also, it doesn't permit another avatar to see you if you want them to.

I still hold that the best way to go is invoking a group function-- if you belong to the group you can see the avatars, if you don't you can't... and vice-verse. This allows avatar(s) to maintain privacy, and also prevents them from stalking other avatars.

Basically, no matter where they are, no matter what land they're on... if they invoke group-based privacy they become invisible to avatars not in the group-- and other avatars become invisible to them. (Note: this requires them to become phantom too, or they'd be constantly bumping in to people.) It seems to me an elegant and relatively easy-to-implement solution that completely bypasses land issues.



_________________
Check out the DragonForge Emporium at http://places.inworldz.com/ElvenSong/237/37/43. Avatars, building tools, sailing ships, Doctor Who and Stargate items, lots of unique merchandise, and of course Dwagons!
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:58 am
Posts: 2192
Balpien Hammerer wrote:
I find the parcel privacy approach rife with problems because it is only making invisible the avatars in the parcel. Everything else is still visible. I can well understand two or more avatars, having their shared but private moment, might prefer to keep their presence invisible. also, it turns out this kind of invisibility has some nice uses in RP (the cloak of invisibility). So, instead of parcel invisibility, why not just add the ability of avatars to make themselves and and all attachments invisible. Make it a personal option instead of some funky parcel attribute.

I do like the idea of this ... handy in more situations than just those mentioned. I don't always want others in my group to be able to see my location or activities (not just strangers) I can see some potential for abuse but, in the main, most of that potential can be counteracted before it becomes a problem using group and/or land settings and the rest, if well-thought-out before being included, can be avoided. Thumbs up for this idea.



_________________
~aka~ Claret LaKhabary @ Imzadi Basin, Arborea, InWorldz

The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're sporked.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:56 pm 

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:03 am
Posts: 2582
LaryaBlackheart wrote:
I do like the idea of this ... handy in more situations than just those mentioned. I don't always want others in my group to be able to see my location or activities (not just strangers) I can see some potential for abuse but, in the main, most of that potential can be counteracted before it becomes a problem using group and/or land settings and the rest, if well-thought-out before being included, can be avoided. Thumbs up for this idea.


There is always the possibility of abuse. The SL style invisible parcel has the potential for lots of abuse too. Perv parties come to mind.

So, yes, make it a personal option instead of some funky parcel attribute. And then, have a parcel option [x] prohibit invisibility to stop the inevitable perv/predators wandering on your parcel.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:07 pm
Posts: 7936
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Snoots Dwagon wrote:
What if someone owned a private island but also wanted privacy. Yes, they could turn off island outside access... but that means people would think something is wrong with the island if it normally allows visitors.

However, with a simple group-visibility option, if one is not in the "privacy group"... they could still visit the private island, but the island residents (group members) would not be visible to them (non-group members).
Well, that applies to the parcel privacy as well. Group-based privacy doesn't provide advantages over parcel-based privacy, at least in respect to the feature you are describing.
Quote:
Further, the visitor would not be visible to island members, preventing two things:

1) "Intrusion" factors when people want total privacy
I would argue that you have identified the largest problem with group-based privacy. The first is that if it is associated with a group rather than a parcel, there is little control over privacy. Anyone in the group would be able to see into the parcel, and chances are there are others in the group because it is a land group. For example, region with many rental parcels in an "ABC Rentals Tenants" group would have no privacy whatsoever from their neighbors. However, parcel-based privacy would allow privacy to be defined, even within a group, by the subdivision of the land.

Many group roles come from a land parcel being assigned to a group. When we mention group-based privacy here, we're really talking about the group assigned to a parcel of land. If you privacy from others is defined by non-members of the group, then using group-based privacy reduces the resolution of privacy zones without adding any new control in its place. If you have 3 parcels with the same group, group privacy means there is no privacy from other group members at all over those three parcels, whereas parcel-based privacy would mean that each parcel (with the option enabled) would have a separate privacy partition.

Quote:
2) The island members themselves "perving" visitors and unknowingly following them around.
The land owner should be the one who defines privacy. If I own a region and I have a corner of the sim that I want to remain private, and someone enters my region, they -- as visitors -- should not be able to remain hidden from me just because *I* am in a private area. If you mark the parcel with the landing point as private, sure. Then they are in a private area too. But if you don't, it's a public parcel and therefore I should be able to see across my own privacy zone borders into the non-private area and see who has arrived. Just because I want a bit of privacy doesn't mean I must extended it to visitors in a different parcel. This is why two-way filtering isn't appropriate.
Quote:
If we have this kind of privacy, it has to be both ways... group agents blocked from visitor view and visitor agents blocked from group view. That seems to me the very easiest way to accomplish this task, and the most efficient.
If you do it both ways, it means estate owners and parcel owners wouldn't even see the griefer on the same region, even if they were in a parcel that did not have privacy enabled. If I have a private home next to my store and someone shows up wearing a griefer object and starts harrassing my customers, they are going to get mighty peeved that I'm right there in the region not doing anything about it. Because I can't see the harasser, at all. Because they are in a privacy zone? No, it's because *I* am in a privacy zone so that is why I can't see them? That doesn't make any sense to me, especially if it's my land they are on, and I did NOT enable privacy there.

To me, making it two-way ignores the privacy OFF setting of the other parcel that the other user is in.
Quote:
Consider too the ease of implementation: it's a lot easier to check group membership than to check whether it's a sim, owned parcel, rented parcel, parcel-my-friend lends me, etc.
That's not true. Group-related operations are often the most expensive of all operations. Especially in large groups.
Quote:
Just check to see if group privacy is set... if the visitor is part of group or not, viola!
What does this actually mean? Are you suggesting it's not the group setting on the parcel that would be checked? That this would be somehow not related to land in any way? If so... which group? If I am in 50 groups (I am), and I entered a region where you were, and you were in 50 groups, which one defines whether I can see you or you can see me? If the server has to check each group I'm in for a new privacy setting (which doesn't exist in any user interfaces in any viewer) and not let you see me unless you were in the same group? And do that for every group I am in and you are in? If it's a group privacy option, and let's say you enabled it on Elfclan and I'm in Elfclan, if I go do IDI, does that mean nobody else can see me there (except Eflclan members)? What if I'm in two groups (or three, or more) with privacy enabled? What if you are also in 3 out of 4? You still wouldn't be able to see me if it was only group-based, rather than based on the parcel you were on.

It has to be location-based, which means land-based, or the grid would look empty to most users, even at a crowded event. Even if it is parcel-based, I think what you're saying is that users in other parcels tagged with the same group would not be able to see me unless they were in the group specified by my land parcel, in which case all the problems I mentioned above with the granularity of specifying a privacy zone would apply. (I could never have privacy from other group members.)

Plus it would probably be much more costly than the current parcel checks. Remember parcels are defined on a region, groups are global and in the central database, far far from the region data.

Balpien Hammerer wrote:
I find the parcel privacy approach rife with problems because it is only making invisible the avatars in the parcel. Everything else is still visible.
You are specifically describing LL's partial implementation here; that is specific to SL and I agree with you, I think it's pretty horrible. I would suggest that, in IW, a private parcel should mean just that: nothing leaves the parcel. No avatars, no prims, no chat, no voice, no particle generators, nothing other than the terrain. Private is private.

Access defines who and what can enter a parcel; privacy defines what activities can leave a parcel and be seen by others outside the parcel (avatar movements, animations, prims, sounds, chat, voice, particles, etc).
Quote:
I can well understand two or more avatars, having their shared but private moment, might prefer to keep their presence invisible. also, it turns out this kind of invisibility has some nice uses in RP (the cloak of invisibility). So, instead of parcel invisibility, why not just add the ability of avatars to make themselves and and all attachments invisible. Make it a personal option instead of some funky parcel attribute.
The reason that wouldn't work is that privacy is really location-based privacy zones (whether that is parcel-based or not). The "two or more" part of your description is the problem. If it's not location-based, there is no "inside" and "outside" the privacy zones. You won't see the others that you think of as inside the zone, since there is no zone for them to be inside. Since avatar access zones are defined as parcels, it makes a lot of sense to extend that to privacy as well, which I believe is why LL chose that same model. Unfortunately they did a partial and inconsistent implementation, which suggests to most people that it's flawed, when the concept is actually sound; it is just that their execution of the concept is poor.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:51 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:03 am
Posts: 2582
Jim Tarber wrote:
Balpien Hammerer wrote:
I find the parcel privacy approach rife with problems because it is only making invisible the avatars in the parcel. Everything else is still visible.
You are specifically describing LL's partial implementation here; that is specific to SL and I agree with you, I think it's pretty horrible. I would suggest that, in IW, a private parcel should mean just that: nothing leaves the parcel. No avatars, no prims, no chat, no voice, no particle generators, nothing other than the terrain. Private is private.


The reason LL did that is because anyone seeing a parcel completely devoid of objects and just terrain would know that parcel is cloaked. I know I would refuse to buy/rent a parcel next to that. Similarly if someone erected prim barriers all around their parcel, I'd not buy/rent a parcel next to it.

Jim Tarber wrote:
Access defines who and what can enter a parcel; privacy defines what activities can leave a parcel and be seen by others outside the parcel (avatar movements, animations, prims, sounds, chat, voice, particles, etc).
Balpien Hammerer wrote:
* * * Make it a personal option instead of some funky parcel attribute.
The reason that wouldn't work is that privacy is really location-based privacy zones (whether that is parcel-based or not). * * *.


Fiddlesticks! We have invisible avatars all the time, granted it's a bug when the avatar is not rendered or when it's a cloud, it does happen. And, it can be made a feature. It can be done. And, if one wants selective visibility to other avatars, that can be done too. But yes, it would take a bit of work to implement such a thing.

If such a thing is wanted enough, it could be placed on a schedule. But, I have to say that my personal opinion of parcel invisibility is that it is a flawed concept (either SL's implementation or this new scorched parcel privacy approach), there are, thankfully, existing far easier and stronger means to control privacy. As I said before, if you are serious about needing real privacy, go get a region not connected to other regions, then turn off public access - privacy ensured.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:58 am
Posts: 2192
...VERY SMALL note here (I don't mean to derail the topic, just a side-thought to add).

I have seen a lot of discussion about how ugly land-based "ban line markers" are when enabled (and I agree, they give off an aura of "trespassers will..."). Wouldn't it be a "simple" enough task to "un-break" the tool by changing what is seen when these are turned on, rather than doing away with it entirely? Not suggesting this should curtail further options or discussion but, for some folks, this is a fairly simple and straightforward tool that actually works for them.

A "shaded" or "smoked dome" effect (for example), when viewed from the outside, could replace the visually offensive markers that exist now. This would be a bit easier on the senses for those encountering such areas - and still functional for those that want to use it.



_________________
~aka~ Claret LaKhabary @ Imzadi Basin, Arborea, InWorldz

The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're sporked.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:49 am
Posts: 2054
I just thought of nuther solution for parcel privacy:

Auto-seek / aim self-reloading, self-firing 50mm 360 degree rotating cannon!

Along with GlaDOS-based voice dat says, "Please stay right where you are for just a moment while I take your photo for my history records of how you looked before your sudden weight loss..."



_________________
Check out the DragonForge Emporium at http://places.inworldz.com/ElvenSong/237/37/43. Avatars, building tools, sailing ships, Doctor Who and Stargate items, lots of unique merchandise, and of course Dwagons!
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:53 am
Posts: 362
Good idea, it's not the purpose of the ban that's offensive, it's the ugly ban lines that are!

LaryaBlackheart wrote:
...VERY SMALL note here (I don't mean to derail the topic, just a side-thought to add).

I have seen a lot of discussion about how ugly land-based "ban line markers" are when enabled (and I agree, they give off an aura of "trespassers will..."). Wouldn't it be a "simple" enough task to "un-break" the tool by changing what is seen when these are turned on, rather than doing away with it entirely? Not suggesting this should curtail further options or discussion but, for some folks, this is a fairly simple and straightforward tool that actually works for them.

A "shaded" or "smoked dome" effect (for example), when viewed from the outside, could replace the visually offensive markers that exist now. This would be a bit easier on the senses for those encountering such areas - and still functional for those that want to use it.



_________________
https://inworldz.com/region/Dreamz%20Southbay/175/86/22
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:52 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:03 am
Posts: 2582
LaryaBlackheart wrote:
...VERY SMALL note here (I don't mean to derail the topic, just a side-thought to add).

I have seen a lot of discussion about how ugly land-based "ban line markers" are when enabled (and I agree, they give off an aura of "trespassers will..."). Wouldn't it be a "simple" enough task to "un-break" the tool by changing what is seen when these are turned on, rather than doing away with it entirely? * * *


In the v2 viewers, you can turn off the banlines via menu / explore / place display / [ ] banlines.

But turning off banline visuals of making banlines look like pretty flowers isn't the issue. It is getting nailed while trying to cross them. THe problem is that when everyone starts using banlines, you can't walk or fly around the area. The place becomes ghetto-like, fences everywhere protecting little spaces.

It is much worse for people using vehicles since that interaction is often catastrophic.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Parcel Privacy Issue
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:58 am
Posts: 2192
There's a point to what you're saying, Bal, but what you're talking about is really the mechanical "permissions" issue and that's up to the grid admins and/or the sellers of properties/regions in the private sector, rather than what I was addressing (which was only the existing behavior from a strictly aesthetic angle).

I've always been of the opinion that anyone that owns a private sim (whether that be mainland or separated from land masses) is well within their rights to close off access at any level that makes them happy if said permissions exist on their region or parcel. It's up to "the powers that be" to decide just which permissions are granted (or should be granted) to owners of areas that are meant to be "public".

I'm not saying that private parcels/regions are appropriate in all areas of the grid. I was merely addressing the various comments I have heard over the years about how ugly and unsightly (and unwanted) the ban lines "image" of private spaces are; and suggesting a way of giving them a more acceptable appearance when they are appropriate and are used. Another suggestion "at ground level" would be a nice rock wall or picket fence - a couple meters high - with a sign nailed to it in the image saying "keep off the grass" ... maybe in the air it could look like thunderheads no flyer in their right mind would want to take their plane through... a lot of ways to make crossing into those zones visually repellant without

------------do not cross ------
--------------------------------
------------
do not cross ------
--------------------------------


(or whatever it says) written all over one's screen. Considering how high most drivers/flyers/sailors keep their draw distance, any image should be noticeable far enough in advance to steer around the "offending" space, avoiding angst on the sides of both parties. If the traveler turns down draw distance below "safe driving distance" for the speed they intend to travel at (which would be like wearing dark sunglasses to race one's Maserati at night!) or doesn't give way to the visual warning that's on them and they have no right to complain.

It should also be a simple enough task to set land (at the server/coding level) on public sims (such as mainland throughways/waterways/etc) to keep folks from refusing free passage though areas that are meant to be public access (by disabling the option to make that area "private" at the server level[?]).


I would suggest a note of inclusion that this is a part of the agreement when purchasing/renting said public spaces, which is also easy enough to include in the covenants as a "be aware, this is how it is" notice (in the interest of full disclosure to buyers and renters) but whether doing so is by administrative design/regulation or by voluntary compliance also isn't my decision to make.



_________________
~aka~ Claret LaKhabary @ Imzadi Basin, Arborea, InWorldz

The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're sporked.
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 6 of 7 [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Site Navigation