Cocoanut Koala

OK, well, maybe I'm just mixed up here, and have been mixed up about it all this time. But I THOUGHT there were the security orbs that just push you out of that land, and some that push you to farther away, but not all the way home.

Seems to me like I've run into those myself. Wham, and you are suddenly the next sim over. (But not home.)

coco

__________________

Travis Lambert

There's (at least) three different methods security/privacy orbs use, and many use multiple combinations of the below:

-llEjectFromLand (Same effect as right-clicking an avatar, and selecting Eject from the pie menu)

This ejects the target off your parcel, typically into the next. Strange results happen when this is used near sim borders, however - and sometimes avatars get sent several parcels over. llEjectFromLand is TOS compliant in nearly all cases, and is not considered a 'push'.

-llPushObject (Works similar to how a gun is used)

This actually pushes the target away from the device. Depending upon the amount of force used, it can push the target extremely far. Using llPushObject in a security/privacy system is often a TOS violation unless its used on damage-enabled land, and will show up in recent pushes for AR purposes.

-llTeleportHome (Same effect as setting your land to damage-enabled, and 'shooting' the avatar)

This teleports the target to their home location, and is also not considered a push. Teleport Home is a TOS grey area, and may or may not be considered a TOS violation depending on how its used/abused.

Cocoanut Koala

Is what I thought, then.

coco

Aaron Edelweiss

Nitpicky point, it pushes the avatar in any direction it wants to, not necessarily away from the object.

Huns Valen

I see talking but I do not see voting!!!

VOTE FOR GOOD TIME YOU HAVING

Don't be a hater of freedom. Vote today.

__________________

Aaron Edelweiss

Sorry Huns, I think whoever pointed out that if privacy were more available then security orbs would be less useful, had a point. I don't think a reporting method for scripts containing specific functions is the way to go.

Travis Lambert

I don't see any harm whatsoever in the proposal, so I threw my vote in

I do see this as a bandaid upon a larger problem though. We're never really going to be free of overused red bars & privacy scripts, until there's technical ways residents can have privacy when they want it on the mainland.

Huns Valen

My proposal is a lot easier and more likely to get implemented than selective visibility. Plus, even if we had selective visibility, some people would leave their ejection scripts running because they either forget about them or just don't care what happens to anyone else.

Not everyone who wants to keep others out is doing so because they are using a fuckbed. Some people just prefer to be left alone.

Aaron Edelweiss

And what better way to be left alone then to keep anyone from knowing you are there. Whether you are using a fuckbed or not.

I don't think your proposal would be that easy to implement. I think the time it would take to implement would be better spent on other things.

If you want to create a proposal that adds a mandatory safe time to an avatar when they enter a parcel, for 20 or 30 seconds, durring which teleport home and eject silently fail on them, I'll vote for that.

I'd also vote for a second one that added coloring to the mini-map for no-entry and maybe autoreturn <= 5 minutes.

Chalice Yao

From a programming standpoint, this is a horrible kludge to implement.

1. A script has no idea about its own contents. It's a single-threaded process that just chews through the instruction it's directed to next, without having an actual idea about what comes next.

2. Same goes for the sim. It has absolutely no data about scripts, except what they have already done so far, and wether or not an object has a running script in it, which has nothing to do with the sim accessing the script's bytecode itself.

3. what if the eject or TP-home functions in the script are merely chat triggered by the owner? Or if the script actualyl only is looking for a specific av on a blacklist? People'd avoid parcels where the owner only wants a specific person out.

4. what if it is actually a gadget that's an attachment on the owner's av that he carries around for easy /10 ban blah usage?

5. What if the prim changes parcels? there is no event that gets raised from prims -exiting- a parcel.

In light of all that, and it being a HUGE effort to implement for small gain, I have a new suggestion:

Simply let people flag their parcels in the parcel settings to show up as secured. zing. easy to implement, same effect.

Daisy Rimbaud

These have different usage restrictions and some can be evaded (e.g. by sitting on things). Teleport home is the one I found most reliable when trying to defend a parcel (Tesscatraz) against dedicated intruders.

Huns Valen

I dun think so...

This would be a part of the metadata. It can be extracted from existing scripts simply by examining the compiled code. You don't even need to look at the source. The compiler is deterministic, so there is a definite way to examine the bytecode and see whether it calls either of those functions.

The sim must have visibility into script metadata, or it would not be able to do things like report the owner's key or determine whether the script has permission to call certain simulator functions, such as llEjectFromLand.

An acceptable loss.

Makes no difference whether it is on an avatar or not, the only thing this would care about is whether the script has the power to actually eject or TP someone home.

The flag can be updated once every few minutes or something, it does not have to be real time.

Except many people will not bother, such as the type of person who hasn't logged in for months but still insists on keeping interlopers out of their fuckshack.

I'm not opposed to having a flag to mark a parcel as "secured" but the reality is that many people will not bother.

Chalice Yao

That -would- be a way. On compiling (which now gets done server-side, so makes things easier), set a sort of metadata flag as soon as the instruction is encountered. That flag would be set on the script itself. Then in set intervals, the parcel checks the objects on it for such scripts with that flag, and marks itself for the minimap.

Can't quite agree there, really. Lots of commerical parcels have skyboxes for development of products above them, and such areas would naturally be secured in some way, making lots of those parcels flash as 'dangerous' on the minimap. Lots of people would be naturally inclined (especially new folk), to visit such parcels less after reading 'don't step on the red grass, you'll get kicked out!'

I'd just check objects, not the AV.

Aodhan McDunnough

Sensors have range anyway and shoppers are generally flying at fairly low level. It's a simple enough matter to restrict the evaluation height. So an eject script that exists above some certain height (350m is ok) can be made to not mark the region as "protected"

This way you can have a protected skybox and a free-to-visit shop below.


An alternative might be for the map to get colored if the eject or push script is at +/- 100m from your current altitude.

Chalice Yao

That sounds like a good solution. The map already changes its display of objects depending on what height you currently are at..it going orange (50m above/below protected area) or red (don't move in or you're likely to be eaten by a grue) seems a good idea.

Huns Valen

That actually makes a lot of sense. After the simulator knows how to figure whether a script is "armed", it isn't much extra work for it to keep a small array of the heights of objects containing such scripts. I might like a bit more than 100 meters of warning, since in aircraft I may be climbing or descending & would like a bit more warning. This would also increase the quality of the warnings, since you would not get warned about an "armed" parcel with a sensor at 100 meters if you were at 700 meters.

Daisy Rimbaud

I can't help but think that the negative effect in terms of increased lag would outweigh the slight benefits.

Aodhan McDunnough

Considering the huge volume of data our clients receive I don't think the additional lag will be significant. As is it already tracks the position of every scripted item (red beacons) in view so I don't think it's a stretch to add one more bit (digital bit) of information to the script location that indicates that the script has an eject/teleport function.

Beebo Brink

I set up a security orb because I didn't mind people walking or riding across my land, I just didn't want them landing on my skybox and making themselves at home. Ban lines would have kept the casual stroller out and would have had no protective effect at the height of my sky box.

But I have to admit that the 10-second warning and teleport home is a bit draconian. After reading through this thread, I've turned off my security orb to mull over the whole privacy issue. In the overal scheme of things, the orb is probably more obnoxious than peeping toms and unwanted visitors.

For the moment at least, I'll fall back on Freeze-Eject for anyone who makes themselves obnoxious while I'm inworld, and when I'm offline why should I care what happens?

__________________

WarKirby Magojiro

Is it a psyke security orb?

__________________
Wounds, both physical and mental, heal in time. bones reknit, therapy and drugs make you forget. Life goes on.
But nothing cures death. Please remember this.

Beebo Brink

Yes, and I believe it has a variety of options for just what to do with intruders. I had chosen the most extreme, so when I have time to study the manual again I'll consider my options and see if some lower settings might be enough.

The event that triggered my purchase was finding a noob hovering under my floor at a time when I was working on skins and walking around my studio in the buff. I'm not particularly modest about my avatar, but I was in a pissy mood that day and basically went at having some peeping tom ogling me when I was trying to concentrate.

The desire to has worn off since then, but it will probably return again. So I've got to find a balance between a reasonable sense of comfort on a tech platform that renders privacy a quaint concept.