|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Lex Neva added a comment - 15/Jul/07 08:49 AM
Just out of curiosity, what federal crimes would people be guilty of if they mask their IP address?
Great idea!
Only thing is, I think it should only block the last 10 IPs used by that avatar. Last 10 IPs or so should be enough to stop most alts without opening a huge window for mistaken identity. Assuming LL is already capable of telling which accounts are related/alts, I'd rather this issue just asked for parcel/estate ban-list managers to have the ability to ban all related accounts without suggesting how they implement it on the back end.
Also, /me is a little startled by the "Yes, there is the risk of an innocent not being allowed to enter a parcel thusly protected" comment. I hope I never have to live under an estate manager so careless with how innocents are treated. /me echos Lex's request to know which federal laws are broken by masking an IP address. Masking yer IP address is not illegal and there are many ways to do it. Some ways are simple. Some ways are hard and I dunno how to do the hard way but I know it can be done cuz I've seen it done.
Hard way, spoof yer IP. Something to do with running a program that reassembles packets as yer computer sends them so yer IP address changes to whatever you want but yer traffic still gets back to you. Not illegal but violates the TOS of many ISPs. And I think most firewalls protect against this so it's not common. Easy way, use a proxy. I use Tor proxy from http://tor.eff.org/ Of course this is hard with SL cuz SL uses so much bandwidth. Even if SL could be modified to use a Tor proxy the average Tor proxy is overloaded and only gives like a max of 200 Kbps. So even tho I could bounce SL music and video streaming thru Tor it's so slow I don't even have them enabled. Voted, but adding the following...IP address ban should be temporary like 10 or 15 minutes as a last resort to kick out a griefer for a short window of time while cleanup is done. Most griefers will get bored during this short window and go find someone else to prey on.
But just like locks only keep the honest people out a dedicated griefer can get a new IP in a few minutes cuz even without masking yer IP you can just turn off yer cablemodem, unplug the cable, turn it back on, reset it, plug the cable back in and you usually have a new IP. And no that's not a hack or an exploit it's what technical support at my ISP tells me to do if my cablemodem can't get an IP after a power failure. LOL I'd go for Angel's variation, but probably on a time-wise basis rather than-
 I agree: any means of de-anonomysing avatars, and making people responsible for their actions, is very welcome indeed.
I share Angel's reservation about dynamic IPs, and wonder if there is an even more sophisticated means of determining which IPs are dynamic, etc., than the "last ten rule" posited. Incidentally, there is anecdotal evidence that IP bans are already used for grid-wide bans imposed by the Lindens. Masking one's IP address is not a federal crime.
Masking one's IP address to circumvent security measures designed explicitly to keep you personally from accessing a computer system or server over the Internet is very explicitly illegal, according to the The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (as amended 1994 and 1996), Section 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers, Subsections a.5.A through a.6.A. Anyone using anonymizing software in order to evade security measures explicitly designed to keep them from accessing an online system or systems is guilty of felony under this federal law. No. This is not a good idea.
http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/how-do-I-change-my-ip-address It would only hurt innocents. Where an ISP allocates a dynamic IP address from a range, the ban would apply to an address that is only temporary.
The banned IP address could then be allocated by the ISP to another SL user, who would find themselves banned. (Dynamic IP addresses are used by my ISP, who charges extra for static ones) In short, this is not a valid proposal. Why not ban ALTS instead. Its safer than banning IP (since in several cases whole schools or universities could be blocked)
I agree with Benja, and he didn't even talk about proxy tunneling tricks to lure ip banning systems.
The world is well enough locked by now, if virtual worlds become the same sh... just because a minority use tricks against a limited count of users...what's the outlook ? the solution might be to beg exclusively for home ISP email adress, so few fraudsters will remain unreachable, free email accounts would be then restricted at registration, many websites already do that. There should be a way to vote "no" on a proposal here. IP banning is generally just not a good idea at all. Most of the more knowledgeable griefers are already using ways to hide their IPs. Many people have IPs which are shared with other people. I was banned from a website for several weeks because someone else on that network got the entire IP banned. It is never acceptable to punish innocent people for the transgressions of the guilty.
So, for what it is worth, this issue has my "no" vote. This is an invasion of privacy, and a bad idea, as it is merely another block in the wall of the security state advocated by Angel Fluffy and others.
It is not up to the residents to have access to other people's IPs such as to ban them, as they will often do this perversely, not in good faith, or by mistake. LL could monitor the anonymizer IPs themselves, and not make up little stories to themselves about how dissidents in repressive regimes need them. Discretionary action is used on each permanent ban. So any reasonable Linden can look at the usage data of the person using the anonymizer, and see if there is also a pattern of ARing this avatar as he uses these anonymizers. If he uses them and does not have ARs and doesn't seem to be crashing the grid, he could be left alone. I strictly vote for that.
since most people bringe trouble are not realy IT professionals, a straight IP-block would help in several situations. this could be
i would expect to have several people complaning, because this will although stop some peoples income using multi free avatars same time do drain camping money. but this is a request so stability, availibility as well as prefenting griefing - it´s a security issue and superseeds other effects. however, to keep this a quick usable tool and minimize side effects for dynamic IP user (as i am at home...) the features must be:
cheers, This would be a better suggestion if it only asked for a way to ban somebody and all of their alts, rather than explicitly mentioning IP addresses...
Banning by IP is a bad idea. Not everyone uses a static IP address. Almost all ISPs in my country have Dynamic IP addresses. If you get assigned an IP address that has been used by a griefer previously you will be banned for someone else actions.
Just look at the problems they have with email black lists where big IPS keep getting banned because of a spammer and then all their innocent customers have their mail bloacked too. Linden Labs have it within their power to block a customer by their MAC address. This is the hardware address of the modem or network card. A MAC addresses is unique in the whole world. They are never reused. An estate tool that blocked based on that would be much better. Although it is possible to hack your MAC address on some hardware to change it, only the technicaly minded would be able to do this. I understand this is how LindeLabs ban someone perminantly. I also understand the hard core griefers have a website with instructions on how to avoid it. I honestly think a Credit Card to join SL is not unresonable. Even if it is not charged. Then Linden Labs can ban based on the Credit Card number. Also they can link accounts based on the CC number so banning one alt bans them all. If they must have free accounts, why not restrict them to help island and a few other linden run regions? Darling. I think this is a bad idea, I am with the others the dynamic IP issue is just too great.
Banning by MAC would be better, but even that has its flaws as most broadband routers nowadays have the ability to change their MAC address right on the menu system (which incidentally would also change the IP if it were dynamic in most cases). @Prokofy - There is no privacy issue here, if you bother to read the proposal it specifically says the IP would never be revealed to the client and would remain private to Linden Lab's systems. The ban would be placed by using the avatar name and leaving it up to Linden Lab to determine parcel access. One problem, I realised in banning by IP, is suddeny because a griefer uses your local internet cafe, nobody else can use that cafe to access Second Life ever again. So I suspect prha[s there should be more in the activation email side of things. Or we as citizens just blanket CC athentication to our lands.
@Darling
While your idea is sound (Its too easy for dynamic IP's to get someone other than your griefer banned), you have a few incorrect assumptions. LL can block people by their mac address, but most high-end network cards and/or routers have it in their ability to switch this address to whatever they want. Alternatively, you could use the hacked viewer known as ShoopedLife which just sends a random address each time you connect. I'd go so far as to say that most of the griefers are technically minded enough to know how to change said address or download a hacked client to mask it. Credit cards were done before. Not everyone has a credit card, and the number of people who do not is large enough that this stonewalled a good deal of people in other countries from even accessing SL. Hence why it was dropped altogether. (Coincidentally, the amount of griefing shot through the roof the very next day) Here's what i suggest. A CD-Key like system used in blizzard's games like starcraft and WoW. Let's say that when you sign up an account, ANY account, you have to give a legitimate address. LL then mails this address, free of charge, an activation key on a postcard consisting of a string of alphanumeric characters. This has the side effect of getting your address into LL's system. Anyways, you cannot access SL (or can, but only a handful of preselected locations) until you've typed the activation key into the site. You are then activated and good to go. But, let's say that J Random Griefer comes along and decides to make an account. Ok, fine. He cannot make an account unless he gives his physical address. If he decides to make more accounts, the address will tie all of them together, leading to a blacklisting of the address, and by proxy, that person's access to second life unless he gets the activation code mailed to a friend's place or something. While its not pefect (and i can imagine the postage cost would be rather high, even for a postcard), each person has a finite number of friends and/or PO boxes. @Tsukasa Karuna
1) I did not suggest banning on IP. I said that was a bad thing because of dynamic IPs. 2) I suggested MAC addresses are better, however I noted they can be changed. The CPU ID is another good number to ban with. Again there is the problem of the open source client which can send fake information. The bottom line is that anything that trusts the client side to identify you can be bypased. Besides the cost, mailing CD-Keys to people can also have the same problem as IP addresses. In a block of units where young people live the occupants can change every year. Leaving the next occupant banned. Or even worse!! Your ex-boyfriend uses your address to make a griefer account and gets you banned! If we cant use credit cards, we should use age verification as compulsory. I hope LL are heading in that direction. Personaly I still favor credit cards. I'm not saying to dump free accounts. I am saying even free accounts should have a card on file. Those people who are not using pay accounts are not putting money into the game. Money needs to go into the game so LL continue to make a profit. There are no profits to be made from griefer accounts, or even free accounts. Darling Darling, are you seriously asking for compulsory age verification of 11,000,000 accounts?
Credits cards, as has already been pointed out, are not widely used in mainland Europe. Having a card on file does not put a single cent into the game, on the other hand someone without payment info on file can make something, sell it and finance their second life in that way, i.e., via the spending habits of those accounts who do buy L$ via credit cards. Age verification is automated. The time it takes to do it is the players time, not LL time. Why not use age verification on everyone?
Why not give the option of Credit Card or Age verification? If you dont have a credit card or a drivers licence or a birth certificate your probably living in a hold in the ground without internet anyway! There needs to be a way to identify someone using a source external to their computer hardware. Anything technological can be bypassed. CPU ID, IP address, Netword MAC address, etc are all trusting the SL client software to send the infomation and thus it can be bypassed using the hacked clients sotware on griefer websites. Lets face it, we are not looking to ban some noobie who lets loose with a cage gun in their first week here. We want to ban the people who make a new account every day and use it to crash regions, drop replicating objects and other serious forms of griefing. I'm not using secondlife to do anything I would be embarased about, but I understand some people do, and they might not want to give their details. However LL know who you are anyway. If they really need to find you they can trace an active sessions IP address to ISP and then sophia the ISP for your details. Darling. Can we rename this issue?
---Allow Ban By Computer What I think the supporters are really asking for, is for Linden Labs to use WHATEVER logic they already employ to uniquely identify a computer to ban a whole computer from access to SL, and employ that on other bans. With a little bit of searching on the web, you can see the battle between griefers and community members, where Linden Labs is storing some characteristics about a computer, and displaying this message to offenders the governance team has banned: "Login Failed. Second Life cannot be accessed from this computer. " We don't care what that logic is, we just want this person and all of their alts to leave us alone. Giving us the option above for our estate ban, group ban and mute would be excellent: Mute Jon Doe and their computer. This solution would not be perfect, but it would eliminate 99% of the casual and unmotiviated troublemakers. The only interesting curiosity would be if their ALT comes and IMs me: I don't think SL would or should tell us that Jane Doe and Jon Doe are the same computer. I think system should present them with a message allowing them to identify why their access is restricted: Your computer has been banned from The Estate "EnvyIsGreen". Contact Linden Labs for further information. Linden Labs can check and see which banned computer on my list matches this avatar and facilitate some type of dialog for unbanning Alts are a significant reduction in the effectiveness of bans, and the ease of creating an alt to return and grief and harass are becoming increasingly easy and common. I have filed numerous ARs on someone's multiple accounts, someone who knew me outside of the internet and was using SL as a tool to harass me. All the while, this person was creating new accounts and using them to IM me or visit my land when I was blocking/banning/muting the previous usernames.
This seems like a simple solution that would do a wonder of good. This is a great idea. For all of you complaining about the 'risk' it places on people with dynamic IPs, you do realize that the chances of banning a specific IP address which would then be passed off and ban a legitimate, innocent SL user are so small as to be statistically insignificant, right?
This idea would be of particular use in role-playing sims, where staff and RP admins have absolutely no ability to determine if people are playing alts to further their own RP at the detriment to others. Even having the ability to identify alts would be acceptable - and forget about 'invasion of privacy' complaints; this is the internet, there is no such thing as privacy here to he who truly wants to know who you are. Ask \b\ and Anonymous. Thank you! And I hope to see something come of this someday. @Profoky - lighten up, man. I know Angel Fluffy is a little crazy, but aren't you going a little conspiracy-theorist crazy over there? Pull your head out of abovetopsecret.com, take a deep breath, and realize the world is a much brighter place than you think. Besides, text-based chat clients and games (IRC, MUDS, MUSHES, etc) have gone the 'ban the IP/hostname' route since the dawn of time, and it works very well. Why can't it work here? Why shouldn't it work and be allowed here? @jaereth enoch: Your right, the chance is very very low. And yet, it can happen, and if implemented, will happen occasionally. I'm primarily a RPer on SL, and at times I RP on several other flash/java based chats as well. Just last month, after resetting my cable modem, I went to one of my regular sites... and was confronted with a ban message. Now, this is a site where I know the owner quite well, and I KNEW this had to be in error... and indeed, it was, after emailing him, it was discovered that, my chance, my ISP gave me an IP address that had been banned months ago when I reset my modem.
Regardless of this, there is what I see as a bigger issue here. If this tool were implemented, the dynamic IP address would be the only big issue.... IF you can guarantee that it'll only be used as intended. But unfortunately, human nature is human nature... how long before someone who runs a store/RP area/any sort of high traffic sim starts to 'accidentally' IP ban people so they can try to find if they have any alts. I don't want a stalker who happens to own/administer land I pass through/visit to be able to use this to figure out what other accounts use the same IP I do. Basically, in my opinion, the privacy and false positive risks, although small, are still existent, and existent enough to make this an unacceptable addition. Unfortunately all the suggestions here are either easily worked around by changing ip or changing mac address, or cutting of service to legitimate customers. If these are implemented especially in terms of banning the actual computer, internet cafes, schools, full range of ip's could be banned. To people who love to hurt others this also opens up a whole new way to grief people, giving them more jollies.
The only way I currently see to have a solid ban is to issue dongles. Security USB dongles. The dongles cost a fair amount, say 20 bucks (or the going rate) and premium users are offered a discount on their dongle (encourage premium membership) The price is negotiable. The dongle does not have to be physcal or sent by mail to the user. There are ways in place to "make" security dongle out of an exsisting USB stick that a user might already have or can purchase. You buy the code and download it from LL and install it on a usb drive, OR for a fee and some snail mail patience, they will mail you one with a nice LL logo on it, all juiced up and ready to go. Since you pay a fee for the code on the dongle your much less likely to grieve at 20 bucks a pop. This has the added benifit of security, where you can take a dongle to an internet cafe and log into your account, and not have to worry about the next guys stealing your password or someone sniffing your traffic in a hot spot due to the information is key encrypted and usless to hackers to write a new one on each use of the key to the usb. Everything is crackable but inserting your key and logging in, get issued a new key and that is written on your usb then your usb immidiatly removed is the lessor of the risks but still plausable. Aside from the internet cafe deal which is very very arguable, this does provide a way for LL to deny access based on dongle info and make the key on that dongle usless. The griver just paid 20 bucks or more for his fun and helped make second life for the rest of us better by contributing. The downside to this is free users are the vast majority of users on sl, and in conbination probably provide LL with more money than us paid premium users believe it or not. The question is how to restrict free accounts when they provide so much good verses the free grievers on the same free accounts. I don't think it is plausable to do much as far as restricting new accounts unless it has to do with exchanging money to rl money or some other restriction. Free accounts keep more businesses afloat and more islands filled than any other "paying" members. After all these years a very vast majority of my friends, some who started before I did years ago, are still free accounts. I know personally they have spent and contributed more time, L$, and real dollars than the average paying member. Find a way to limit free acounts without smashing the dream of a free and wonderful world to explore "free or not" that does not take away from the experience we all reap from having free accounts that truly enrich our lives and we might be on to something. Right now I really do not see this even as an option to LL much less us land owners. I don't see a real solution to this problem currently. "Yes, there is the risk of an innocent not being allowed to enter a parcel thusly protected, as ISPs typically spray and reuse IP addresses across their many clients. But this would be another useful control for land/sim owners to wield. It would give griefers considerable barriers to entry to perform their dirty work."
I'm on both sides of this coin. I'm an Estate Manager (which I sincerely hope would be the ONLY type of land owner/manager able to perform an action such as this) and I also have a Basic account until the benefits of Premium membership hold more value. This proposal seems to be made in favour of Power Mongres over legitimate people who wish to have as peaceful of a sim or parcel of land as they possibly can. I understand the need to get rid of trolls and idiots who seem to enjoy nothing more than angering others, but no matter how many lulz-launchers I see I can't force myself to give any inkling of compassion to the people who ban others based on even sillier reasons. The only thing worse than someone who enjoys GETTING banned is someone who enjoys BANNING OTHERS for little or no reason. The risk is not worth the reward, period. Quote:
"Yes, there is the risk of an innocent not being allowed to enter a parcel thusly protected, as ISPs typically spray and reuse IP addresses across their many clients. But this would be another useful control for land/sim owners to wield. It would give griefers considerable barriers to entry to perform their dirty work." Not really true. Most real griefers these days use proxies to evade bans and hide their 'real' accounts. These proxies use a new address on every relog, and they just go wild. And if it's a 'normal' account/user doing the griefing, repeated legit ARs will get them suspended, and in the extreme case of repeated occurances, hardware/IP banned from the grid. After that they need to resort to proxies, and the IP ban'd become useless again anyways. I honestly don't see any advantage in being able to IP ban on a sim-scale. I do not agree with this one at all. Banning by ip or mac would be very bad for anybody who is behind a firewall. For example, one person misbehaving on a college campus would end up denying access by everybody on the campus because everything coming out would appear to be coming from the firewall. This is a bad idea.
Ok here's a real possible soulution. Instead of ip ban which would hurt innocent users on dsl connections as well as other forms of dynamic ip's . There could be a more specific ban done by user uuid. This way they could be personally slammed WITHOUT AN IP BAN! For an example, let's say Joe Black was a griefer, AND was slammed by a uuid ban, they would be able to log in HOWEVER they would be alpha, and phantom and any object rezzed by them would be denied, not to mentioned maybe communication from said uuid would be blocked so all they could effectively do is sit and watch and do NOTHING. Yes monitor their ip and if another user logs in on the same ip within a short period of time after joe logged out with the same ip of course follow the same uuid ban. but this would render the guy harmless for said period,(if not possibly indefinatly).
Of course an IP ban would be far easier but that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater though, and of course should be avoided. They can already stop offending objects (yes the grey goo fence is kind of overkill to a point as it doesn't allow much room for positive self replication, but still effective nonetheless) , so why not make a flypaper fence (like flies these offending greifers would be stuck to it for a set time Come on Lindens be more innovative will you? Stop trying to look for easy soulutions to fix chronic problems that are so easily circumvented. Instead use the innovative tool you already created and develop your creativity a bit more with it! Nuff said. Ooops I forgot something too... AND deny them the ability to transfer funds to said user heheehehe, as long as they cannot sit, cannot interact cannot be seen nor heard, Then they would be stuck like flies to the paper that they are
 HORRIBLE idea. I hate it. Here is why
1) I share my modem with several other computers. So now if my roommate gets banned I get banned. 2) It is a waste of coding time, very very very few people have static ip addresses. Most people can simply restart their modem and a new ip address is issued. On first hearing about this proposal, I thought great idea but wait...what about dynamic IPs? Then as I read the other comments, I realized that bannig is just too easy to get around. Regardless of whether you use name, IP address, registered e-mail, billing address, MAC address, etc... Somebody is going to find a way around it. There simply is no such thing as total security, or totally fool proof. I think that this proposal is just not realistic nor is it going to work. Banning in its current form is a great tool for removing the amateurs, lazy, and fools. For anybody else they are simply going to get around any added security.
I vote no on this and figure that LL will probably just let it wither if they don't shut it down outright. You guys seem to forget that this is a simple banning from a private parcel/island/estate. What are the chances that ONE you receive a banned IP, and TWO are trying to access the place your IP has been banned from. I highly doubt this would pose much of a problem...At all.
Benja has already described why this issue has no chance. It would be unfair to ban somebody with a temporarily ip. Then, some hours later, another person gets this dynamic ip by his ISP and find himself banned without reason.
Ok, the probability is very low. But nevertheless it's the wrong way. Think about other technically solutions. PS: An idea would be, to allow parcel owner's to ban IP's temporarily, maybe for some hours. That would allow to ban people and their alts in the moment they are attacking you on your parcel, and would solve the problem with dinamically IP addresses, But I don't believe that Linden will ever put any energy in such an imperfect idea ... Dont close this issue until a linden has looked at it. You are not a linden labs employee, despite your official looking name.
Clearly people have strong opinions either way, however it is fair to let the lindens look. There are other options like Machine ID, and MAC Adrress that can be used in place of IP for banning people. IP ban is a feature that LL already have and use! It is a feature that some larger estate owners have already been given power to use. I think it is fair for estate owners to have the ability to be able to detect and ban alts being used by organised griefer groups. Simply put when you ban someone from your sim it should ban there ip address as well and yes there are ways around that but the common pc/mac/linux user won't know that...
LL has a baning method that is not based on IP, rather based on your harddisk serial number etc. This is how they ban people from making new accounts. They should let us ban based on this. There are viewers that send random serial numbers, but they are used by griefers who need to make a new account every day. installing an object that bans 1 day ols accounts will deal with them.
A comment on the legality of altering/hiding IP addresses... it's perfectly legal to do such a thing. Proxies are perfectly legal and found all over the place, and they do just this. Also, someone may have a dynamic IP address because of a wireless connection or something similar, meaning their IP addresses change all the time. As useful as something like this sounds... its easily bypassable.
As I said 2 months ago....
LL have a method ot ban the computer, not the IP> it does this with harddisk serial numbers, network MAC address and other stuff that will stop people who are running the regular viewer. Only an IP ban on a static IP address will ban those people who are using special viewer. and then they can jsut use a proxy to get around it. When you get into it, the only real protection is to FORCE people to provide a credit card when they sign up, and then ban based on the credit card. This way if someone is banned, all accounts using the same credit card is banned too, with no further accouts permitted fromt hat card. The fact is that people who are commiting cybercrimes (crashing regions, crashing people's computers) are not going to be providing tracable identification. A credit card is far more tracable that the adult age validation system. Banks require a lot more ID and check it properly when they are providing credit to people. Note: When I say CyberCrimes I am talking about crimes, not griefing. Orbiting someone is griefing. Crashing a region, a players computer, or hacking open the permissions system to steal scripts is what I call CyberCrimes. If they did that kind of thing to eBay they would be in jail. Which brings up another issue of LindenLabs not calling in the police at times when they clearly should!
Darling, I agree with you on the statement that nothing short of a credit card at account creation is going to make people accountable. Both parts of your last note is entirely false as written, crashing a region is not a cybercrime and remotely crashing other people's computers using SL is impossible, in theory you can crash them if you can get their IP (ex. through music or video streaming) and exploit another stream but that isn't through SL and that is a cybercrime but not something LL can directly prevent or control as long as streaming works the way it currently does. It should be noted I'm not a lawyer but it is irresponsible to claim something is a legal offense if you can't back it up and I honestly doubt you have a lawyer on hand to back up your claims. Edit: Added quoted text for the exact parts of your statement I criticize. Addendum: I think that comparing a region in Secondlife to bringing down an entire commercial website (you chose EBay as an example) is entirely inaccurate. Whether SL enforces their TOS/CS in regards to going after people either in SL or in real life for bringing down regions is their choice as the provider but you can't honestly believe that every time a griefer brings down a region LL should call the FBI (inter-state crime after all) and have it investigated as a cybercrime. I'd imagine that if LL did at best they'd get laughed at and at worst, especially if they tried to do so continously, they'd get ignored or fined for filing frivolous reports. darling and gordon, credit cards are media that are not popular e.g. in some countries of europe. we use other payment card systems.
that means forcing credit cards to identify in sl would exclude lot of proper users from some parts of the world which dont use credit cards. @Gordon Wendt
Just because we call the internet server a "region" dosnt mean it is not an internet server, and covered by the cybercrimes legislation created to make the disruption of internet servers a criminal offence. Don't for one minute alow yourself to think that. LindenLabs are too leanient towards people who are crashing their internet servers. It is possible to use a LSL script to crash someone's computer, modem/router, and in some cases take out their local network. I did so to several people helping me to test a weapon idea last year. Just because the method is not published on the PN wiki dosnt mean it cant be done. @Ezian Ecksol I am sure they have some kind of bank verified payment system. If they dont, then they will never be able to pay SL memberships or buy land. @All I am not saying to kill all accounts of the grid without payment details. I am just saying not to let people make new ones. So as the griefers get banned they can not return using a new account every day. Lets face it, that is optimistic, most griefers use viewers that register accounts automaticly in a matter of minutes and are able to be banned and back inworld within a few minutes. @Darling, it may sound like a semantic argument but intranet I think would be more appropriate since it's a server inside a larger private network but either way it is in the end up to LL to take action and without their support I doubt any resident has a leg to stand on when it comes to accusing people of a crime on a server that they rent but LL owns and runs however if you ever decide to move beyond flinging legal jargon around I wish you the best of luck, maybe you can pull a Bragg and set a precedent against LL making them more accountable for this type of thing.
I did not know about the ability to crash clients with scripts so I'm glad to be corrected, as a matter of clarification I wouldn't know even if it was posted on the PN wiki as I've never visited and never plant to visit it, somewhat ironically the most common way I learn about this type of exploit is on the JIRA. I'm sorry but I have to vote a "No" Any method of IP banning would result in greifers spoofing as a victim's IP to get both them and the victim banned.
@Adeon Writer
You cant spoof a victims IP. if you try, you will be unable to login, as all the data will be sent to the victim's IP instead of yours. @Gordon Wendt intranet is not accessable directly via the internet. Each region is directly accessable on the internet, therefor they are internet servers. They are not running a http protocall like a web server, but that is irralavant. Those people who own land are renting server space. The fact that the server space is presented as land in a virtual enviroment is erralavant. The business model, policies, and technology is that of renting internet server. SL server enjoy the same protection under the law as any webserver, if and only if LL chose to make a complaint when their servers come under attack. And that is the difficult part! LL are so busy trying to appear "nice" that they let some very evil people get away with doing some serious real world dammage to other people. On a side not you would not be suing LL, you would be suing the grifer (criminal). The first step of which is to server papers onto LL to obtain the identity of the person respnsible. Of course showing that you suffered a loss when a LL server was crashed for the purpose of suing is very difficult. On the other hand, showing that there was a loss when they attack your private servers attached to LL is totaly different! As one littel griefer (criminal) has found out. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Reopened
Normal
Allow Ban by IP Address
)