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. -Gordon On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Zabb65 <[email protected]> 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: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
