| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (15)

Posted: Dec 23rd 2007 8:03AM Ghen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What a comedy of errors that is.

Posted: Dec 23rd 2007 9:32AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jeez, thats alittle..much. But I guess its necessary

Posted: Dec 23rd 2007 9:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The funny thing is that the age-verification system was supposed to make in UNnecessary. Apparently this is not the case.
Reply

Posted: Dec 23rd 2007 9:53AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
wow. just wow.
so we go through all this, and it doesn't even replace the existing, irremediably invasive system? So now we have two contemptible policies in parallel? This is absurd.

Posted: Dec 23rd 2007 10:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They just don't check it. Somebody AR a system sends email. Not that that makes it all less comedy than. But one thing I cannot believe, they suggest military identifications as acceptable. Well, while most of the countries consider giving passport number illegal, I can safely bet that there is no country that will be happy for its citizens to show military ID's to some company from San Francisco. Are they crazy?

Posted: Dec 23rd 2007 2:23PM Ghen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In the US its quite acceptable to hand over everything except your social security number to anyone that asks.. Basically all of our IDs are in the public domain and you assume that anyone with the right authority can check up on it.

Its how we stay so 'land of the free' ha.

Its really only when someone steals your social security number that you're in trouble, so that number is only given out to get other IDs like the driver's license, passport, or credit cards.
Reply

Posted: Dec 23rd 2007 3:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, we all knew the unspoken thing about "age verification"; that it was meaningless in practical terms but just enough, perhaps, to satisfy lawyers that appropriate care had been taken should little Timmy be exposed to Dolcett.

Actively demonstrating that even _you_ don't believe in your "age verification" system really isn't a terribly good idea, though, I would have thought. One has to continue to pretend that the fiction is true, or else it will not be useful should courts interfere.

Posted: Dec 24th 2007 5:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So they are not trusting a system in BETA....

God you are getting worse than the Herald.

Age Verification is undergoing testing, it has not gone fully live, so quite rightly they are not depending on it right now.

Posted: Dec 24th 2007 5:54AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As far as we know, and from everything we've heard, the 'beta' aspect is to deal with people *not* being able to verify. Once people *are* verified, as far as we know, they'll stay that way at the end of beta - therefore, if you trust the data then, you trust it now, no?

Posted: Dec 29th 2007 6:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not necessarily.

People are stating on the forums how they can verify using information from a dead or ficticious person (someone verified as Elvis Presley and someone else as Danger Mouse). This is another aspect of the Beta. Basically until people can verify using ONLY information from a living and genuine source (yes the system would be susceptable to identity theft) then it will remain in beta and be a secondary system to the system that is currently in place. Hence the Avatar's account was suspended.

Reply

Posted: Dec 29th 2007 6:32AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We have no indication that that aspect of the system is going to be corrected. As far as we know, Aristotle/Integrity doesn't concern itself with whether the information regards a living person.
Reply

Posted: Dec 25th 2007 3:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The only accounts that should be suspended are the Lindens themselves. Bloody idiots they are.

One screwup after the other ever since they enabled this bull verification.

Posted: Dec 26th 2007 5:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That could be fair... I banned myself once from the forum I administered because I went too autocratic.

Posted: Dec 26th 2007 9:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's a common misconception that private companies can't ask your SSN. They can, and do, all the time.

A government agency can't ask your SSN for identification purposes without the proper paperwork (through the OMB), but there is no such law preventing or restricting private use of SSN for identification.

They can even refuse you service if you refuse to give your SSN. Credit card companies do it all the time. Go try to get some credit without giving your SSN and see how far you get.

Posted: Dec 27th 2007 12:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wonder how often a Linden gets reported as being underaged................




and also wonder if that number is changing now with this thing they want people to believe on....

(also, curious about if there was change in that number during that "broadly offensive" period as well)

Featured Stories

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW