That was the point, right? You cannot touch the hot stuff unless you did that bloody age verification. Because you can watch it for sure. I just did.
I wasn't lazy to download and start that RC viewer just to try if that verification thing works. Sean Heying was so kind to provide a 16m parcel in his national park (very nice place, btw, go pay a visit) which is flagged as adult and supplied with a nasty image inside. Well not quite nasty but enough to show the point. And then you come, stay near the ban line and watch inside. If you try to go over the line it will offer you to be robbed for your personal data and maybe even to break the law of the country you live in.
Ban lines are not sound/chat-proof so you can hear what is talking inside, and sure, you can speak so they can hear you too. Similarly, you can touch and click objects inside. So… You can IM and chat publicly but you cannot place your avatar near the other avatar. You cannot play an animation together.
But you can:
- watch each other
- watch porn hanging from the walls
- buy anything inside (you don't have to be in the same parcel as vendor, just on the same sim)
- talk dirty stuff privately and publicly
- click each other's Xcite attachments until stars fall from the sky.
Yes, I have lied in the title, you can touch, you just cannot hug before the verification. Hooker's principles: no hugging, no kissing on mouth.
But hey, just imagine how teasing is to be able to touch but not to hug. :p
Hm. Why is the “no entry” text on the right hand side of that parcel backwards?
Hmm, interesting… We don’t need any, since we’re 13-17, HA!. Plus, why the heck is there mature content at all in Second Life? I mean, people looking for free porn should just use Google to find some :-P. Plus, there’s Red Light Center now, basically a 100% sex world… :-S
[...] No Touching Before Verification – Living in the Metaverse – Dandellion on the restrictions that come with not age-verificating. I wonder, does the age verification stuff actually has a use?! [...]
Hmmm… until flirting is still allowed everything’s ok for me! ;)
Ordinal, I don’t have a clue… I just cropped the image… will going to investigate banlines later.
Smiley, your question made me write the whole post in response.
not coming inside, but seeing and hearing everything *has visions of peepshows* very useful indeed…
Yes, peepshow is the right metaphor… especially with those 16m parcels… matbe we should start another biz, ad-farms are boring anyway and nobody watche them… let’s start with peep-farms! Avatar in the poseball the ground and rotating ad over her/his head.
Whether or not you can see into a parcel isn’t the point. You’re being too literalist and snickering. Most people aren’t going to put clubs with adult content on a 16 m2, duh.
The point of this entire exercise is to limit liability for any law-enforcement action or litigation regarding any permission to minors.
If you can show that you used at least some system to age-verify and keep out minors, that goes a long way toward your credibility and accountability.
The point is not to see what you can break in this less-than-perfect system; the point is to have *any* system and make a good-faith attempt to make adults accountable.
The point with age verifications is that if you lie enough much it actually gives you legal protection. Apparently the legal system over there (and here soon, if not already) is so broken that i can’t ba saved. (Manual trackback to you, as blogger don’t believe in standards.)
To call this an good-faith attempt is like putting a warning sticker on ecstasy and leaving it on the street. It don’t down, the comany behind the verifications is a scam and they have been told warned about that several times, they was HOPING in there own initial test on 80% getting right. It’s proven that the system don’t sport out dead people, that is takes fake info added to other data miners and add to the verification data base.
“The point of this entire exercise is to limit liability for any law-enforcement action or litigation regarding any permission to minors.”
Q.E.D. SOX compliance. “check” :-) The real point has been long time lost behind the meters of paperwork… But c’est la vie, in all its beautiness…
Yes, point is is covering LL legally. I am interested in how long will it take for somebody to sue them because minor is not responsible for lying on the website.
If I can lie, if Nadine can verify with Tupac’s driving license found via Google… then why just don’t make a checkbox with “I am over 18 and I am allowed to see dirty stuff of second life”? And if it is just “limiting liability for any law-enforcement action or litigation regarding any permission to minors” then why I do have to listen Robin’s (in that case) bullshitting about TRUST? How about being honest once as a good step towards trust?
I think potentially the number of loopholes is limited only by the imagination of participants and the thickness of the wallets :-) (remember the fast food and the “coffee too hot” story? :)
No. Bring it on.
Well, the general line was that someone boiled their butt off by coffee in the fastfood, and then sued the fastfood that they did not warn the coffee is very hot. :) So I think now they write “Caution! hot contents!”
Another result of that kind of practice is one of my all-time favourites “Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear”
Those people should be shot and judges that gave those verdicts should be spanked. Working against evolution is a crime against humanity!
[...] be high, as I’ve never been stopped from entering a sim or parcel by banlines – which don’t work all to well – for not having ‘age verification details on file’. But could be I don’t [...]