Aristotle's age verification not good enough for LL?
by Tateru Nino 
Dec 23rd 2007 at 8:00AM
Filed under: News items, Second Life
The Second Life Grid Grind's Jamie David got an email from Linden Lab for his alt account, Agelock Short. It appears someone reported Agelock Short for being underage, and the account was suspended pending an age-check, as is commonly done in these situations.
The problem is that Agelock Short was already successfully age-verified as an adult through Linden Lab's age-verification arrangement with Aristotle/Integrity. That apparently, is not good enough.
An age-check is performed by Linden Lab when they are in doubt of the age or identity of a user. In order to complete one, the user must send "a legible copy of a government-issued identification document (state ID, driver's license, passport, military ID, birth certificate) that clearly includes both your name and date of birth. This is the only type of identification acceptable for establishing age eligibility." (quoted from the Linden Lab age-check email sent to Agelock Short, with our emphasis added)
We are at something of a loss here. Either Linden Lab does not bother to check Aristotle/Integrity's age-verification, or does not trust it. Is there a third alternative that we may have missed?
If Aristotle/Integrity's age-verification isn't sufficient for Linden Lab to establish your age or otherwise cover itself legally, or to establish any trust or confidence on their part, why then was it implemented in the first place?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ghen said on 8:03AM 12-23-2007
What a comedy of errors that is.
Reply
Vince said on 9:32AM 12-23-2007
Jeez, thats alittle..much. But I guess its necessary
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 9:39AM 12-23-2007
The funny thing is that the age-verification system was supposed to make in UNnecessary. Apparently this is not the case.
Adz Childs said on 9:53AM 12-23-2007
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.
Reply
dandellion Kimban said on 10:40AM 12-23-2007
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?
Reply
Ghen said on 2:23PM 12-23-2007
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.
Ordinal Malaprop said on 3:33PM 12-23-2007
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.
Reply
Bee Mizser said on 5:23AM 12-24-2007
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.
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 5:54AM 12-24-2007
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?
Reply
Bee Mizser said on 6:20AM 12-29-2007
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.
Tateru Nino said on 6:32AM 12-29-2007
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.
Daman Tenk said on 3:28PM 12-25-2007
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.
Reply
dandellion Kimban said on 5:48AM 12-26-2007
That could be fair... I banned myself once from the forum I administered because I went too autocratic.
Reply
Gigs said on 9:06PM 12-26-2007
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.
Reply
TigroSpottystripes Katsu said on 12:09PM 12-27-2007
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)
Reply