Re-entering the RedZone: the JLU

Controversy has recently been growing (yet again) around the so-called Justice League Unlimited within SL. This is a group of self-styled “law-enforcers” that has long been active in-world, supposedly protecting the innocent against dirty wrong-doers, with their avatars garbed in comic book superhero outfits.

Leaving aside their explicit violation of a certain comic book publisher’s IP rights – this group has long had a less than stellar reputation, and is not above overlooking inconveniences to their “duty” such as the Second Life Terms of Service. Evidence is now emerging that the JLU are (again / continuing to be) involved in RedZone-like data-gathering – and going a lot further in the process by attempting to put together dossiers on anyone in-world they consider a “threat”.

Avril Korman has written an excellent piece on the JLU’s activities, and it is a recommended read. For those that feel the same level of concern for the JLU’s activities as they did with RedZone, there is also an on-line petition aimed at Linden Lab to have the JLU’s activities properly scrutinised. You may also wish to consider adding your own e-signature.

Additional Reading

Update – 2nd September

6 thoughts on “Re-entering the RedZone: the JLU

  1. The evidence against JLU on all of this is, as far as I can tell, some anonymous postings (of what claims to be some people’s personal information) on a rather dodgy website. It could all be completely fake, it could be stolen from somewhere other than the JLU, it could be gathered by the same anonymous person that’s posting it. It would be useful, I’d say, to point to whatever actual evidence there is (beyond anonymous unverifiable weblog postings) that any specific person (JLU or not) did any specific thing…


    1. It’s a tough one to weigh-up, I admit. The current leaks are perhaps questionable, but are not the first. “Party AR-ing” by the JLU has been so widely reported that it is hard to dismiss as well – and is certainly questionable where the ToS is concerned.

      The problem with these situations is that separating fact from fiction becomes difficult as time goes on, as RedZone demonstrated. Over time, both sides of the argument become increasingly entrenched in their views – and each become as invasive as one another. This was again shown during RedZone where some concerned over the issue went so far as to start publishing real life information on the individual responsible – and in doing so, came close to crossing the line (some might say they actually crossed the line entirely), while others became less concerned over trying to deal with the wider issue of media exploits in the Viewer code, and more concerned with subjecting the individual to trial in the court of public opinion.

      It’s a tough nut to crack. Where JLU is concerned, this really isn’t the first time accusations, claims and counter-claims have surfaced. Does that make them guilty? No. Does it mean they should be subjected to greater scrutiny? I’d say yes – as long as, again, “scrutiny” doesn’t devolve to the degree it did through RedZone. Of course – then the issue because precisely how does anyone scrutinise anything within SL – or in this case, potentially outside of SL?


      1. Yeah, exactly. 🙂 Subjecting them to scrutiny is certainly a good thing (they probably even enjoy it as part of the Superhero RP, heh heh). As long as, as you say, it remains civil and within ToS and all. To my mind the people who are disclosing various people’s personal information on a public website are DEFINITELY acting antisocially, regardless of what the JLU might or might not have done.

        As far as I know “Party AR-ing” is perfectly legitimate, and even encouraged by the Lindens at times. If something bad is going on, and you can get multiple people who witnessed it to AR on it, that lets the Lindens know that it’s not just one person making something up; I’ve done that myself on occasion. Of course if it means getting people to AR something that they DIDN’T actually see themselves, that’s probably not good…


        1. Where “party ARing” is concerned – LL are OK with those who witness harrassment, etc., taking place, as you state; the issue has always been those who haven’t witnessed a situation being asked to teleport-in after the fact specifically to raise an AR in the guise (so to speak) of an “eyewitness”. This has frequently been reported by thoses as modus operandi with the JLU, and at least one Linden (and I wish to God I could find the precise quote) has described as “uncool” in reponse to such activities.

          I have to say, I was quite involved in one discussion set over RedZone, but did pull out (and now rarely post on the forum in question) largely because of the manner in which the discourse switched from trying to deal with the exploits in question and raising user awareness, to an obssessive and invasive delving into the lives of those directly involved in the creation of RedZone.


    1. Actually, the Kryptonradio article is already linked-to above, but thanks for providing it here as well :).


Comments are closed.