That's right. However, note what I implied: a blacklist would be worse by misleading users even more, and it would discourage TPV usage in general.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Tigro Spottystripes < tigrospottystri...@gmail.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Discrete, in both ways you can have viewers that the users think can be > trusted, but actually shouldn't > > On 29/4/2010 15:04, Discrete Dreamscape wrote: > > A list of trusted entities is virtually always more robust and reliable > > than a list of untrusted ones. > > > > Weigh the two possibilities that would occur and their consequences, > > given that the user is making assumptions, as you say: > > - User believes viewers ON the whitelist are the ONLY ones that can be > used > > - User believes viewers NOT on the blacklist can ALL be used > > > > The latter is clearly not a situation that benefits users in any way. > > > > Discrete > > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Henri Beauchamp <sl...@free.fr > > <mailto:sl...@free.fr>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:40:15 -0700 (PDT), Nicky Perian wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > A blacklist would just give potential bad actors a menu and > > > template to use for more bad viewers that could be modified and get > > > past the login screens. > > > > What you must understand is that the TPV policy is in no way a mean > > to prevent pirates from connecting to SL with hacked viewers (or > > through hacked proxies)... > > All what pirates have to do is to make sure these viewers impersonate > > an official (Linden) one (which is done very simply) and then they > can > > pursue their illegal activity without even being spotted... > > > > The TPV policy might give some better ground to LL to sue such > pirates > > when they are lucky enough to spot and trace one, but the true aim of > > the TPV is to set acceptable standards for non-hacked viewers as well > > as to provide their user with some minimum confidence that such > viewers > > will not try to steal their private data or put them into troubles. > > > > As such, the blacklist would provide a much better service to the > users > > by clearly identifying viewers which are *known* to be not compliant. > > > > With the current directory, you only got a *partial* list of > *possibly* > > compliant viewers (without any guarantee from LL) and know nothing at > > all about non-listed viewers. > > > > Henri. > > _______________________________________________ > > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > > privileges > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEUEAREKAAYFAkvZ5A4ACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmXOBQCfcpptZyKU+Tr1uv+FsJVUj04s > 6c8AmPF6F2bQpBxhVHCTLY4yrcC38sM= > =Cbvj > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
