Web Textures

Summary

This page is about dynamic web textures, a feature to allow an LSL script to assign an image URL to a face and cause it to dynamically update from the script.

This raises a potential issue regarding Expected Privacy. The only practical way to accomplish dynamic web textures is to let the client download the image directly. This will expose user's IP addresses.

Benefits of this feature

1. Negates the need for scripts like XyText that are very laggy when dynamic displays are large.
2. Allows for things like streaming news service HUDs.
3. Interactive games can present large amounts of off-world data.
4. Corporations that already have many dynamic web assets can reuse them in-world.
5. Live porn.
6. Web Cams.

Potential LSL implementation

llSetTextureURL(integer face, string url);
llRefreshTextureURL(integer face);

Example with text generation script:

llSetTextureURL(1, llUrlEncode("http://example.com/getpng.php?text= " + text + "&font=futura&rez=512x512");
llRefreshTextureURL(integer face);

Suggested Privacy Protections

Because this feature would expose the IP address of an agent in a way that could identify the agent, especially on a HUD, several suggestion were made to enhance privacy protections. They are listed in order of least effort to implement to most effort.

Do nothing, just implement it

• Pro: Feature itself is very easy to implement, if images are powers of 2
• Con: Some users would freak out.

Global on/off, with one time dialog opt-in

The client could prompt the first time you encounter a web texture, and ask you if you want to enable it, warning you that it will expose your IP address to third parties. This would be similar to the way parcel streaming media prompts the first time you encounter a parcel with it set.

• Con: The user is asked to make technical decisions they might not understand.
• Con: The user must sacrifice all dynamic web content to get privacy for their IP.
• Pro: No annoyance for those who don't care about exposing IP associations.

Proxy Options

The client would provide a place to enter a HTTP proxy address for web textures. This would allow the user to enter an anonymizing proxy service if they want to.

• Pro: Easy to implement
• Con: None?

Dialog boxes

The highest risk is when using web textures on a HUD. The client could pop up some sort of dialog when attaching a HUD with web textures, asking if you want to allow the HUD to use them. Alternatively this could be done through the normal LSL permission system with a permission request, and something like PERMISSION_TEXTURE_URL.

• Pro: More fined grained control
• Con: The user is asked to make technical decisions they might not understand.
• Con: More Complex to implement.

White/Black List

Similar to Firefox/IE popup blocking, the client could manage white/black lists.

• Pro: Flexible and complete control
• Con: This would cause a lot of user input/prompting required for someone flying over the mainland, for example.
• Con: The user is asked to make technical decisions they might not understand.
• Con: The user might be tricked, they might not know who to trust.
• Con: Very complex to implement, UI elements hard to design effectively.
• Con: Reinstalling could lose settings.

Change Users Privacy Expectation

Make it clear to the users that their IP address association with their avatar name is not private information and can't be protected while still providing dynamic and seamless integration with the rest of the Internet. Pro: No technical implementation necessary. Con: Not easy.

Trusted hosting partners

Have one or more trusted hosting partners that would provide scriptable webspace on standard Linux servers. The key difference is that the partners could not allow the IP address of clients to pass through to the scripting language. Pro: Fully fixes privacy problem, with no effort required from the end user. Con: Hard to monitor trusted partners for compliance if more than one. Con: If only one then developers have no choice. Con: Business risk from close external relationship with other company if only one provider. Con: Not in the spirit of SL.

Linden Lab Webhosting

Linden Lab would could offer their own webhosting that withholds end user IP similar to above. Pro: Fully fixes the privacy problem Pro: Could also be used as a super low latency way to do HTTPRequest calls to a web server. HTTPRequest limits could be raised for requests to these servers. Con: LL is not a web hosting company.