Aristotle/Integrity: El Día de los Muertos
by Tateru Nino 
Dec 9th 2007 at 10:30PM
Filed under: Bugs, News items, Second Life
Second Life users have found a way to deal with Aristotle/Integrity's age-verification service (who's non-USA failure rates seem to be awfully high, and who's data may be a touch less than comprehensive) and a straightforward and easy way to get themselves verified.
Famous people and dead people. Also famous, dead people. In fact, people are having more success verifying their accounts with the credentials of the deceased than with the living.
Reportedly, the best success rates for the verification service are to use credentials like, for example, dead rapper Tupac Shakur, Anna Nicole Smith, or just about any other dead person (famous or otherwise) from the public lists available on the web. Success rates are apparently higher, the longer the person has been deceased, and if they had a USA address/residency.
We hear that Paris Hilton may be a popular choice also - though she's not actually dead - and, of course, two minutes with your Dad's wallet while he's mowing the lawn will get you age-verified if you're in the USA.
The verification page requires you to confirm that "The information that I am providing is true and correct, and I consent to its verification against public records or government-issued identification."
Notably it does not require you to warrant that the information is actually yours. This might be considered something of an oversight.
How many people have used false (or deceased) credentials to age-verify? Maybe a whole lot. Potentially even most of them. There's no way for us to tell.
If the data used for verification is not in fact stored - as we have been assured multiple times by both Linden Lab and Aristotle/Integrity - then there's no way for them to tell either, is there?
That would seem to indicate that there's no way to trust a verified user. In fact, given the odds, you might feel that verified users are actually less trustworthy than unverified ones. Certainly some people already feel that way.
As one user put it, "I see dead people. All the time. They're everywhere."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Lowell said on 12:30AM 12-10-2007
It's a truly bizarre system, to say the least....
Reply
Serena said on 3:17AM 12-10-2007
Wow. Great investigative reporting here. I am definatly sending all of my friends to this page.
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 3:29AM 12-10-2007
More information to come over the next day or two.
Jamie David said on 3:36AM 12-10-2007
IT is scary. Very very scary. 1984 aside it is so dangerous that those verified are assumed to be of age. People will be less likely to question somone who seems underage. Puting those kids who bypass the system at risk aside from the dangers of putingpersonal data out through the internet.
What I find most worrying is the ammount of people who have handed over their data with out thinking. In some cases every form they have as the failre rate is high. This is a shocking.
Reply
Prokofy Neva said on 6:32AM 12-10-2007
There's nothing "scary" about it, because the same premise of having people be "honourable" that Jamie David and his partner Allana Dion want to use to scare people into using their resident-created system is at work here. Most people tell the truth when asked. It's definitely not a big deal for most people who already gave their credit cards with name and address to add the *last four digits of their SS#*. This information is routinely asked for -- and given -- by these self-same credit-card companies and banks each time you call for information about your account.
The premise of this system is not about trying to keep out kids 100 percent, or be fool-proof from silly ideas like putting in Tupac 100 percent. No system will be able to be 100 percent. The point is to make it *enough* of a percent *to limit liability from litigation*. End of story. So if the police come calling, and a resident is asked about a child who worked as a prostitute in an SL hotel and interacted with adults, they can note that they used the Lindens' verification system, which cooperates with Integrity, and they did their best to prevent such things from happening.
If the police come calling and there is *no* system in place, or a home-made system put in by a resident that merely asks anonymous avatars to tell the truth without checking it in any way, then try to avoid any liability. That's what it is about: making adults accountable, and if they do so, limiting their liability.
Reply
Thibaud Merlin said on 9:35AM 12-10-2007
It's not so much the principle of Age Verification that worries me, but rather the anything but trustable method implemented by LL.
What's worse than inefficient bureaucracy?
Reply
Adz Childs said on 1:36PM 12-10-2007
"It's definitely not a big deal for most people who already gave their credit cards with name and address to add the *last four digits of their SS#*. This information is routinely asked for -- and given -- by these self-same credit-card companies and banks each time you call for information about your account."
You do of course realize that with my cc# and the last four digits of my social, anyone can call my credit card company's 24-hour customer service line, pretend to be me, retrieve balance, next and last payment info, and available credit? With one more tiny piece of information, which I "routinely give" to the banks, namely my mother's maiden name, anyone can initiate a balance transfer, reverse a charge, change my billing address and phone number, or close the account?
It is far from harmless.
Reply
subatomicdog said on 3:22PM 12-10-2007
Nice FauxNews like spin there Prokofy - LOL - how is providing an alternative to LL's broken age verification a scare tactic?
Reply
Innes McLeod said on 5:26PM 12-10-2007
Gives a whole new meaning to 'camping zombie'.
/me grins
Reply
Jamie Davis said on 6:26AM 12-11-2007
There is a large danger in the use of the word Verified. People are going to assume that means this person has been checked out and passed muster. The guard goes down and people are less concerned that the person might be a minor.
This results in kids being lass safe. This results in people trusting people who really are not who they say they are.
They say the system is in Beta so not to worry. The system is in use. It is taking information and if the postings of people who failed is anything to go by then many are feeling they have to do this.
They say the system is voluntary. But it is not. Want to access a piece of land that has verification you have to Verify or float 50 feet above. That is not voluntary and many users do not realize that because Linden Lab did not publicly express that until this latest Blog posting. I also feel that 80+% of the users never read the blog and find out about it when they run into the age verification barrier.
Reply
Becky Tardis said on 1:05PM 12-13-2007
I verified my self (With my correct info), and then logged on with the RC, and discovered that it says I was not verified. Friends of mine have said the same stuff.
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 8:58PM 12-13-2007
I have not yet seen any user whom it says is verified, even after a successful verification. That's an entirely separate bug, it appears.