Slashdot Mirror
AIM's New Terms Of Service
acaben writes "AOL has posted new terms of service for AIM, that include the right for AOL to use anything and everything you send through AIM in any way they see fit, without informing you. A sample passage: '...by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy.'"
or
You no get signal!
(apologies to O'Reilly)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I suppose if they want the rights to some irreversibly encrypted garbage, they can go right ahead.
In response, I have to say this: GPG goes over AIM very well. ;-)
Azh nazg durbataluk, azh nazg gimbatul, Azh nazg thrakataluk agh burzum ishi krimpatul! This sig blocked by Slashdot.
Does this apply to people like me who use Gaim? If I never have to click on anything to accept the terms of service, do I still have to abide by the terms of service simply because I'm using their services?
and any information I care about goes through their SecureIM service.
So to AOL: I say this much, exploit fjkd;arjaiwor398u233209u''rju98e32 any way you want guys!
...in bed
Sigh. Where's Gim when you need it?
I'm just guessing, but I think they dont want customers. I'm not sending much thru AIM with those terms of Service.
Also, what about users of GAIM, et al, that havent agreed to those terms? Can they enforce this there?
emt 377 emt 4
...Is that any smart business will not send proprietary information through AIM.
Of course, I say any smart business because I know some dumb ones will. Doesn't Microsoft have a similar policy with Hotmail?
I also really doubt if this were ever tested in court that it would stand. This is evil, but about what I'd expect from AOL.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Incase you forgot, AIM has built in encryption...just create the keys.
not surprised, i never expected any privacy in the first place when using aim.. even more reason to use gaim-e.
I wonder whether this would even be legal.
trillian, gaim, etc
if you really want to fuck with the yellow child molesting bastards at AOL, encrypt all your im traffic.
Best of all, give the shitheads a giant middle finger and stop using the AIM network period.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Perhaps we're about to see AOL/Time Warner roll out a new tv show... When 12 year old girls chat to each other over AIM - Uncut and Raw!
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Those who do read it, and who do raise a fuss, are going to be met with very little interest ("You don't like it? Use another service.") But I hope, and I foresee, that such a broad and far-reaching "license agreement" gets shot apart in court one of these days. There are just too many possibilities for abuse - imagine if your phone company decided to record and use whatever you said on the line in whatever way they wished, without your permission. It'd never fly.
I dunno, but that sounds like typical terms of service for something like Instant Messenger, and doesn't sound very surprising or new at all. Granted, I haven't thoroughly read their ToS before... They're supposedly used so that they can distribute your messages (IMs) without any possibility of "infringement," but who knows?
PGP 9.0 Beta comes with an AIM encryption proxy. Available for both OSX and Win32. www.pgp.com
In addition to my original post linked in the write up here, I've written a follow up pointing out the insanity that AIM's business service AIM@Work uses the same Terms of Service, while expecting businesses to uses it for their internal messaging system.
AOL has exhausted all their resources for selling your private information to spammers, and they need a new source.
Even though it looks pretty bad, just remember that the service is so popular that the chances any conversation would acutally be used in any meaningful way by a third party would be about as small as they are now.
ing sucks
Help a College Student
How can I grant them the right to use something I send over AIM if I don't own the material? Say I send a poem out of a book of poems that the author has copyrighted, but I am not the author, nor do I have permission from the author to redistibute. Esentially what I've done is illegal by sending it to someone else over AIM, but AOL says that I've given them the right to say use that poem in a (weird) commercial. How can they insist I give them that permission if I don't myself have the right to give it.
Note to self: If I ever make any poems, don't send them to editor over AIM.....
1. Trillian. SecureIM, but Windows only.
2. SILC. Open encryption standard, many *nix ports.
3. JohnyTech. Windows encryption for a bunch of different IM protocols.
That ought to get you started.
*** formica has quit IRC (connection reset by phear)
FUD.
Actually, the traffic mostly moves from peer-to-peer. It's not like private messages and files all go through AOL's servers and then get to the other party. That would be a huge amount of traffic to deal with.
To confirm this, all it takes is less than a minute of looking at network traffic logs to see messages and files being transferred directly from one person to another.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
Too bad for AOL that I always encrypt my messages whenever I'm talking about anything meaningful. They might get a few 'Hey's and 'Hi's, but that's all. Of course, there's the moral issues behind this, too. I'm seriously considering jumping to another IM service that isn't trying to pull shit like this.
"We retain the right to spy on you, profit from any good ideas you have, and tell your wife about your girlfriend."
I'm just guessing, but I'll bet no one thought to run that last part past their management team...
99% of what goes over AIM is garbage anyway.
(I know, I produce a lot of it)
I use iChat via a
How will these updated terms of service be presented to me so I can be sure to discontinue my use rather than agree to this absurd policy?
that's another TOS I won't be signing.
.mac subscribers (like me) who use AIM for their old .mac names? Not very well, I think.
.mac subscribers? Does the iChat stuff still get routed throught AIM??
How does this affect former
What about current
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
In light of this anti-personal freedom act on the part of AOL, I would like to give a shameless plug to my project, the Free Secure Instant Messaging Protocol. Please, do not be sparse in criticisms, and if you have any, please help to fix them. The only way it can succeed is through the communities feedback and suggestions.
thisnukes4u.net
off-the-record messaging is a standalone library which has also been included in a gaim plugin - its encryption with NO digital signing at all, however it still provides authentication (unlike trillians secureIM, which doesnt let you know WHO the hell you're talking to, despite the encryption.) it works for both nix and windows versions of gaim - i'm no encryption expert, but i sure um...feel a lot safer when using it.
perhaps someone more qualified than i can peruse their whitepaper and give some more informed feedback as to the security/robustness of the protocol/implementation :)
Why aren't you using Jabber instead?
It's Free Software, it's non-evil and there are clients for every platform out there.
You can even use it for cool stuff like IM'ing system alerts to you, as a cheap replacement for SMS on mobile phones (AUD$0.02 vs AUD$0.25) and to publish and subscribe to news feeds.
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
Well now what will I use to transmit all of my sensitive information? :(
They could scrub all the text for phrases like "I have a great idea" and then human parse them for interesting bits. Lots of false hits, but some gold in the rough to take, steal, and go to market first with the ideas? Who knows. Comb for ideas, sell to other companies and VC firms. Skim the filthy froth of the weary intarweb and sell it!
The following terms and conditions apply to all users who either registered for AIM services or downloaded AIM updates or software on or after February 5, 2004. AIM users who do not register for AIM services or download AIM updates or software on or after February 5, 2004 and are members of the Netscape Network will remain bound by Netscape's terms and conditions. All other AIM users are bound by the aol.com terms and conditions.
I suspect the vast majority of Slashdot users signed up for AIM years ago, if they did at all. This shouldn't affect them.
My userid is prime!
reason number 18513 not to use aim for anything
This is not a "if you don't like them don't use them" kind of argument.
What's wrong about this is how sneaky it is. Terms of Service agreements are not read by the vast majority of users. So, they're basically screwing their AIM users without informing them. I don't consider little lines in Terms of Service informing them.
So, let's hope the media and slahsdot and others can make people aware of this.
You wonder how privacy rights are lost. It's the naievety of the common man.
Philosophistry
It seems to me that "posting" means something like the profile that many users have. You give AOL the right use/make available that content however you want. Maybe they define posting somewhere, I didn't read the TOS or anything. Most all of AIM's traffic (messages) between clients are direct connections anyway, it's not like all AIM traffic travels over AOLs network at some point or anything.
Gaim/Adium/otherwise libgaim-based folks, don't forget Off The Record encryption, which can encrypt your messages regardless of the protocol. No worries if you have things to say over AIM that you REALLY don't want others to see. But if that's the case... why are you saying them over AIM anyhow?
How will this affect Apple's iChat?
.Mac service. Will they just move to using the .Mac service solely?
There's no way Apple will go for this, and their app uses the AIM service as well as the
If they stop using AIM, there will be no way to have a proper videoconference with PC users. There is currently no other solution than using iChat on the Mac and AIM on the PC together. Yahoo Messenger only supports a webcam feature, no audio, but if you were to run Skype side-by-side, I assume that would work.
It's all about the clean solution, though, and if AIM's new terms cause Apple to have to rethink its instant messenger service, we may be without a decent conferencing solution for a while.
Harsh move, AOL.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
Why wouldn't it, you are using their protocol on their servers. Seriously, think about shit before you post.
Yeah! Google save us! And while you're at it, come up with a cure for AIDS... Cancer too.. Hell, you're Google, your the greatest.. ever.
i know i wont be doing anything illegal, so i dont mind :D
C'mon guys. Entertainment value aside, even assuming the interpretation is correct (and it looks right, I'll admit) there's no way this was intended. In a few days the TOS will change again, and we'll be telling jokes about AOL for years to come. Well, more jokes, anyway.
Don't get me wrong -- eternal vigilance and all that. If it hadn't been caught, it probably would have stayed there forever. It just goes to show that no one reads these things, including the people who write them.
The snippet from the privacy policy (here) with emphasis from me:
Hotmail had the same terms of service and no-one really cared about it. They grew even bigger. NO ONE EVER READS THE TERMS OF SERVICE.
Two Towers-Two Worlds.One seeks triumphs and freedom for man.The other deems man unworthy and wrecks them.
Not knowing how an AIM account works at all, I wonder what would happen if you put something in your profile like "I do not give AOL permission to use anything under my copyright without written consent and appropriate compensation." Obviously it invalidates the Terms of Service and they would more than likely kick you off if it was noticed but what would happen if they did use your copyrighted work under those circumstances?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
They will never get my plans for the death ray!! AHAHA!
-1 (Troll) is antihammer
By posting the copyrighted (?) poem, you are violating the copyright (remember all those words about not distributing by copying or transfering by any electronic means, etc, etc?). For the most part, publishers ignore such trivial distribution violations, but they don't have to.
ROT 13 and DMCA them if they UN rot it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why would I RTFToS?
emt 377 emt 4
I. R. C.
Simple, a time-tested protocol, easy, tons of free/open source and free-beer-ware clients, and it doesn't take a genius to set up either side. If you don't like the big chat networks (I don't) set up your own. Really, it doesn't require a hell of a lot of resources to run an ircd.
If you are paranoid about security, run the ircd in a chroot jail.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Does this mean that they could now be considered responsible for the content that is passed over their network?
For instance, if someone were to send a bunch of sick kiddie-porn crap using AIM, does that mean that they can be held accountable for it?
Probably not, but they should be.
$0.02 (CDN)
Hey, how about getting that guy, whathisname, the one did that thing in Central Park, to interpret your chat session in plastic sheeting or whatever, like a big condom over the Empire State.
Free association really sometimes scares me...
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
From MSN Messengers Terms of Service
This term is worse then the AIM condition, yet, i don't see this slashdotted.
This is precisely one of the reasons everyone should start paying attention to the XMPP standard. We shouldn't be trusting a corporate entity and closed standards with what has become a very viable form of internet communication. Just like the standards we use for http, ftp, ssh, and everything else, we all need to start supporting the standards for Instant Messaging too. It's time to get everyone we know off of AIM. And start showing them jabber. And those of us with programming skills need to contribute to the servers and clients to make the better and well known.
Way to go! THEY won't get you now! Yippee, I am sure the MAN is all upset that he can't find out what is going on in your little world. You oh so important person...now the man won't find out where you're going to eat pizza later today! ooohhh
AOL was forced into doing what they did, so that they don't get sued when the government walks in and confiscates everything in yet another mis-use of the Patriot Act.
Its OK to hand over your inaliable rights when its to protect you from the enemies your government made for themselves.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Seeing as how these terms were introduced on February 5, 2004, I wouldn't exactly call them "new." In fact, I had already come across these ridiculous terms a few months ago in one of my first forays into the world of 'reading the licensing agreement.' I was a little taken aback at first, but then I realized that most of what I, and most people, say over IM is complete garbage anyway and probably hardly worth the expense of any kind of data mining. Plus, if I ever really wanted to send sensitive information, I'd find a better way. So essentially, I think, this is a non-issue. But I could be wrong.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/
Have fun, guys!
mstyne: real name, no gimmicks
How would people feel if their phone company came out with a new terms of service which said that anything which was spoken over a phone on one of their lines becomes the property of the phone company itself and may be reproduced, rebroadcast, that its users forfeit all rights to privacy, etc...?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Workarounds for this are *not* the point. Most everyone here is able to figure out how to encrypt their IMs if it really is sensitive data. The two concerns of note are:
/. humor here) why am *I* not going to be compensated? And poets, lyricists, and authors who share parts of their work over AIM? Big mistake, AOL turns around and sells your song to Brittney Spears and she makes it a number one hit.
"You waive any right to privacy." This pretty much explains itself as something nobody wants. I don't like people eavesdropping on my conversations, even if I'm talking about my dog. It is disrespectful and a breach of trust.
The other concern is the right to publish content created by you without your approval or compensation. This is a gray area since originally the copyright belongs to you, but in compilations they're granted use of it? If I write something and they profit off of it (insert obligatory
The real question we need to be asking is what can we do about it that addresses the problem rather than tries to work around it. Any ideas?
Am I wrong that that makes all chat go from one client to the other directly? No AIM servers involved?
Was looking again at jabber earlier today... it's come along way, with a solid, well defined, if perhaps slow moving, process. Many features have been fleshed out, including ssl, tls auth, db backing, multi-network bridging (msn, aol, icq, etc), server-to-server networking, group chat, legacy presentation (ie jabber to irc gateways), etc. Much more solid than other IM networks, and much more open.
Anyone remember back when Geocities (they might have been part of Yahoo at that point) did something similar to this? Basically, anything you posted from there on out on a Geocities site was freely distributable for any purpose by Geocities.
Did anything *bad* ever happen as a result of it, other than a lot of people got scared away from GC as a host (which is probably a good thing, since it sucks for a multitude of other reasons)? I don't recall seeing any high-profile messes as a result.
I suspect this will be the same way -- the people who know what it means will take care to avoid letting it affect them, and the people who don't know what it means very likely won't have anything worth redistributing anyway.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
and probably elsewhere.
Oh this is great. So some AOL wank can use the pictures of my nude ex-gf that I'm sending to a pal for whatever he wants? I think I'll stick to the string and can, thank you.
(Don't mod me up, save that for Deep Fried Geekboy.)
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
oughta TOSs this one out the window.
Here's a suggestion. Just post the interesting part of the TOS (and a link to it) as your away message. Everyone will read it.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
Link to Jabber.org just in case folks need it.
:/
This news bugs me, as an AIM user. I've been using Jabber since I found it about a year ago, and I've loved it, I just haven't loved the fact that so few of my friends use it. Considering this, though, I forsee a potential mass-migration to Jabber. It would be the sensible thing to do, though from my experience, it probably won't be what people do.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Me: Wanna cyber?
HotChick101: Maybe
Me: maybe?
HotChick101: you won't think im a slut?
Me: oh no dear
HotChick101: alright let's do it
Me: what are you wearing
HotChick101: nothing
I have AIM, I use it through Trillian and I think I have two people on that contact list, and those people are on my MSN or Yahoo list anyway.
Infact most people I talk to use Yahoo or MSN and to a lesser extent ICQ. AIM is dead to me.
"Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
Various neo-coon agendas may well play a part in this, but it seems unlikely that AOL would loose a suit brought for actions of law enforcement.
I get insightful for that?
;-)
I didn't mean that to get insightful, I was going for funny... at least one person got it right
Customer: Yes, hello i would like to cancel my account.
,like what?
Representative: Sure that will be fine. what's you account screenname?
Customer: DumbGuy05
Representative: There seems to be a problem with that account.
Customer: Oh really
Representative: We have been monitoring your instant messages and discovered you are evading taxes, having sex with a minor, smoking pot, and constantly visit something called tubgirl. Please continue being a paying customer or we will have to report you.
Customer: Oh thank you AOL is the best!
Why in the hell would AOL do something to so blatantly alienate so much of its userbase? Are they that desperate to lose customers and run themselves into the ground? I think the others are right though, most people who would even consider using AIM at all more than likely wont ever read the ToS.
Oh well, thanks to Slashdot as always for keeping me informed, and in turn, everyone I come into contact with.
If everyone is so worried about privacy...
Just use AIM's Direct Connect feature. I'm pretty sure when you're directly connected with someone, the things you send don't go through AIM's servers...
I use iChat on my Mac, and I got my friend to use AIM because it's compatible with iChat.
:)
Are there any other compatible alternatives that my friend could use instead? Short of him buying a Mac, of course, although he would if he had the money...
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Like this? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cure+for+canc er+and+aids&btnG=Google+Search
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
I tried to use gaim-encryption with gaim on Windows at work. (We use AIM at work. Seriously.) It didn't seem to interoperate with anyone's vanilla AIM client with encryption. That is, no one was getting my IMs. I didn't have time to fuck with it, so I turned it off and just used unencrypted transport.
You say it works for you, then?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
When I worked for IBM, we used AIM all of the time to coordinate information between teams. Of course, IBM can always use something else - but it just might be cheaper to give up and buy the IP or AIM, and the network division. :-)
People bugged out by the hundreds of thousands, and the offending policy was changed within days.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Some one here on slashdot aptly said, GTK on OS X is like putting Janet Reno in Playboy.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
"AIM users who do not register for AIM services or download AIM updates or software on or after February 5, 2004 and are members of the Netscape Network will remain bound by Netscape's terms and conditions."
Netscape Network TOS
is there any way to use aim and not have big brother watching? i have too many buddies that use aim and i know i could never convert them all to a different im service like jabber.
can i somehow encrypt aim messages even if the other users aren't using encryption? what about third party services?
thanks for any advice
-mr silver
Most people seem to be against this, but I, for one, welcome our lack-of-copyright-on-words enforcing overlords.
What I like about this is that there is no longer any doubt of whether or not you should encrypt anything sensitive - the answer is not "Maybe" but a resounding "Yes!"
If we're really lucky, it will also cause a unification of encryption standards across third-party (possibly even first-party) AIM clients.
Stunning. Simply stunning. It really is time to migrate away from AIM like a Jew in Germany in 1939.
If you can read everything that gets sent over AIM, why don't you fucking stop all the AIM spam I get.
Hint: If you see the same message 10000 times, IT'S SPAM.
So, no more using AIM for intra/inter office communication...
thought you had a trade secret, oops sorry AOL owns your ass!
thought you had the next big thing, whoops you told your buddy on AIM, now AOL just released it... I've never heard of a worse policy to scare people away from a platform.
>emt 377
sob r3,1$
Need Mercedes parts ?
So long, AOL, we barely knew you.
Why is this a problem?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
The immediate response is, "Oh no! They're going take all my AIMs. They're destroying the world!"
The truth is that there are some managers who were told by their lawyers that this should be put in "just in case of suit x,y,z". Terms of service are protective measures in the MAJORITY of software.
Most likely this is for a situation in which AOL comes up with a good idea and someone sues saying, "Hey, I came up with that idea a year ago and talked about it over AIM. You stole it!" Many people have ideas, it is only original if you do something with it. Just covering their asses.
The automatic response is that there is some evil plot to take your AIMs or something like that, but it is just business and covering their asses just like any other big business with tons of money that some lawyer thinks he can get his hands on because of a hole in the Terms of Service.
Hmm. I wonder what would happen if I use AIM for sharing a couple copyrighted eBooks? Does this mean they now own the rights to those as well?
If I give you a ride you agree to blow me. If you are a male and I decline the bj I can assign you to blow some guy I owe money to. If you are female, whether or not you blow me at the time, I can call you up at any hour of the day or night and demand a blow job. You are my bitch in perpetuity. You waive your right to be treated like a human being.
Thanks for the inspiration AOL!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
AIM is not worth the sweat on my ball sack...Why are we talking about AOL???????????? Anyone who knows anything about techology knows AOL is for the non REAL computer user. I for one will not talk to anyone on AIM, only MSN, and Yahoo..........I don't know anyone who uses AIM...
Clearly AOL doesn't want the TMOBILETERRORIST to have a monopoly on celebrity porn. These terms of service will help keep their bases covered.
The reason they are probably doing this is because of the new policy about third party clients? Although I agree that this is a highly shady new policy, it seems striking that it would come so shortly after the announcement of "support" for third party clients. Sounds like they are trying to keep themselves from getting screwed over by them by someone *else* doing all these evil things they've said they're not responsible for.
Many financial and energy trading companies do use AIM as a primary means of communication between traders. This is an unfortunate but undeniable fact. I wonder what impact, if any, this may have on potential reuse/sale/dissemination of information AOL might gather this way.
I thought this new policy was part of AOL's new business strategy..."piss 'em off, bring 'em on."
I'm not marketing genius, but I'm not too sure this will work. But I guess in a world where differentiation is the key, it's certainly a bold attempt.
It almost sounds like it might be time to "p2p-ize" a chat client. A combination of torrent/AIM-like functionality that relies on all of its users to provide the service to each other. That might make AOL very happy, but their paying customers are still stuck with an outrageously invasive policy. Oh, the irony.
I wonder how this affects the use of iChat AV on Mac OS X.
.Mac account.
Since many of my contacts use AIM on Windows, I log onto iChat with my AIM screen name instead of my
Does AIM's new EULA for the service violate any special agreement they have with that service's use through Apple's IM client?
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
if i'm not mistaken, Microsoft did this EXACT same thing with Messenger, and then was forced to back down from it. Now if someone(or something) can force billy down, I don't see how a 3rd world isp like aol can actually let this ride out. Any bets on seeing a new ToS in a few weeks? Although to be honest, I've not met anyone using aim in 3 or 4 years, does anyone actually use it? (trillian plz, k tnx)
looks like i done gotta stop talking to my al-quesadila friends about bombing the United States to holy hell. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!
"In an information economy, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing at all"
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
I don't think the TOS is saying that AOL has the right to use your content for profit. I think if you make a statement on AIM like "AIM is the best", they have the right to use that to promote AIM.
If you post a patent idea, you still own the idea. They even say:
1. you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post
2. AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content
Isn't this the same as any TOS for blog sites? Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Thanks,
Eric
There have been numerous stories here about MS's license on various products. In the end, most of them simply say that the system belongs to MS. That includes not only the software, but anything that is done on the system. i.e. all your base belong to us. AOL just simply moved to a more MS style license because not enough ppl punished MS for their garbage.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You encrypt your posts? How will people read them?
I hate to sound like an AOL sympathizer, but the TOS specifically refers to "posts." Besides IM, AIM also provides message board services (or so I'm told by people who don't use Trillian, Gaim, or Psi).
Does "posts" refer to regular IM usage? AOL implies not, referring to "message board posts, chat participation, and homepages."
My reading of this is that AOL retains usage rights to everything you post on their static forums... forums which basically anyone can access. While I would feel better if this were not the case, that is a good bit better than AOL reading the I.M.'s you send to your co-workers.
It sounds like CYA to me. As if AOL were giving themselves the right to decide to add access to the chat forums online or through AOL's proprietary service. It's the kind of CYA that inspired them to prohibit people from using AIM "while driving, operating hazardous equipment, or engaging in other forms of hazardous activities."
On the other hand, go ahead and tell everyone on AIM about the TOS, without explaining that it's only posts. Then try to switch everyone over to Jabber. Please. The whole I.M. universe right now is about as convienient as sending E-mails from CompuServe to AOL in 1992.
The ______ Agenda
Isn't AOL considered a "Common Carrier" and therefore immune from prosecution because they claimed that they do not, will not and cannot monitor the content going through their "wires". This was back in the days when ISPs were getting shut down if they allowed child porn through their servers or something like that -- and the bill came through that said that ISPs were responsible for the content of their users, unless they were Common Carriers such as AT&T and AOL (and any other big company that could afford to buy a Senator).
Now here comes along AOL saying that they WILL monitor and so, I have to ask, if we send child porn through IM, doesn't this mean that if AOL lets it go through, AOL can be taken down for allowing trafficing of child porn because they have given up their common carrier status?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I don't see why they exclude people that haven't downloaded AIM updates after a certain date. Does that mean I can get an old client and be excluded?
This probably means I should stop sharing my cure for cancer through AIM, since AOL could win the copyright claim in court through the simple size of its bankroll :)
This is unfair and unethical business practice. It should be illegal. Send your comments to AOL at this page.
Jabber!
I've been using it for over a year now.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
We're eeeeeeevil.
But we are incompetent, so we want the rights to everything said by the mass hordes of 12 year old teenageers along with all the grown men pretending to be 12 year olds, oh and all the law enforcement officers pretending to be 12 year olds also.
You see, here at AOL we have this great plan for generating new compelling content for our subscribers. How does it work you might ask? Well, have you ever heard the story about how an infinite number of monkeys could produce the works of Shakespear given an infinte amount of time? Apply that to our stable of 12 year olds IMing and *BAM*, pure gold baby!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How to Kill a Company Dead in One Step by America Online.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
what about programs like trillian, would the tos still apply? and what if you havent agreed to the new ones, only the old ones, will it still apply. and doesnt that kinda mess with "right" to privacy or something. *shrug*
That comes from the gmail terms of use. What you say in gmail belongs to you. Sure they can parse it and toss in their adds on the side and have to release it under subpoena (next paragraph in the ToS), but they can't publish it or anything like that. It is not, as many people incorrectly interpret, simply a matter of Google promising they won't use your emails illicitly. They have legally bound themselves not too.
I'm sure AOL isn't really interested in what 12 year olds gossip about or finding criminals, but these new terms still place your words in the possession of AOL Time Warner. Focus on this part:
AOL can make money off of what you say or do while using their client and they can cut you off. I know engineers who use AOL to assist with telecommuting. If they did something dumb like mention that "the new ShinyDooDad 2000 is going to replace all of its cams with widgets, fixing all the problems of the 1000," we might see AOL suddenly start a ShinyDooDad subsidiary.
Bottom line: If Google sold an email, they'd get a nifty fine, probably a handsome lawsuit, and a rather sharp slap on the wrist. If AOL sold an instant message, they'd just have to declare the profit on their 1040 or whatever corporations use for taxes
Looks like AOL wants to promote jabber. There are plenty of good jabber clients available and the servers are in good shape as well...time to move on past AIM, ICQ, MSN, the whole lot.
At least they are honest about it, unlike some other services like, say, short messages on cellphones which give you an illusion of privacy. Face it - we are in an era when to have any privacy you have to actively protect it and sometimes it might be even illegal (example - encryption in France).
I know a lot producers who use AIM. Here in the UK, where 98% of the Durm'n'Bass leave, people send each other tunes they are working on on AIM. That inculdes all the next big releases that will be cut to vinyl and end up in the big clubs in London. I guess we will have to find an alternative... /me goes warning all my Buddies...
I remember reading them and it said just that. They can read your conversations and use them in any way they see fit...Mind boggling really.
By reading this sentence you agree that everything you ever think or do is my property in perpetuity.
By not reading this sentence you have broken the terms of this EULA and agree to forfeit everything you ever have or will own.
You Genetic Code and any Intellectual Property Deriving in any way from You belong to US.
Please mail your first born children to work in our Data Mines.
Thanks for the tip
Say after me: We do not have the right of complete privacy on the Internet, because when we are on the net we use other people's resources, without paying for it. Ok? By "other people's resources" I mean routers and the like. Sure, you may be paying your ISP for Internet access, but you're not paying for use of the equipment outside of your ISP's network. And since we're not paying for the use of this equipment, we have no right to make any sorts of demands, such as complete privacy.
Sure, it would be nice to have complete privacy, I agree, but we cannot demand it. These are the terms we have to accept to use Internet. If we don't accept them, then we don't have to use it.
Btw, I realise this post won't make me popular. If you disagree, reply instead of modding me down.
-Enfors-
Guys, I'm amazed at how calmly you're discussing this issue! Most of you're discussing workarounds -- e.g. how to use gpg or secure-im to avoid being eavesdropped on.
In my opinion the real issue is that the statement "You waive any right to privacy" may be the most evil statement in any EULA ever. Shouldn't these six words alone cause an outrage beyond belief here?
I hope we don't compete with any of the companies providing that service!!!
If the terms & conditions for something are onerous the solution is really, really simple. Just don't use it.
So if you're an AIM user you should stop using it a.s.a.p. and make sure the last thing you do is explain to your AIM buddies why they shouldn't use it either. Then cancel your AOL account and explain why.
If even about 10% of the user base did this then pretty soon afterwards the onerous terms and conditions would dissapear - along with the assclown who decided to add them to the service.
Oh but I forget. People really are sheep and will do exactly what they're told by "bigger boys". And let's face it the average AOL user isn't the brightest spark anyway (otherwise they'd be using a decent ISP !)
So I guess it's business as usual... Small guy gets shafted by "Mega Corp" (tm) but still carries on using "Mega Crack" (tm) 'cause "it's just so good".
Idiots one and all.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but I thought that in the US that it was illegal to capture Internet communications such as VOIP, email, etc. Granted aol added this into their TOS, but wouldn't this still be riding the edge of legality?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder how long it will be before people realize that Skype is also a disruptive IM client. Its P2P architecture and rapidly growing distribution will threaten incumbents like AOL, especially when they adopt terms of service like this.
So, if you sent a libellous comment via AIM, would that make AOL liable for it?
You must think in Russian.
"AOL does not read your private online communications when you use any of the communication tools offered as AIM Products. If, however, you use these tools to disclose information about yourself publicly (for example, in chat rooms or online message boards made available by AIM), other online users may obtain access to any information you provide.
Your AIM information, including the contents of your online communications, may be accessed and disclosed in response to legal process (for example, a court order, search warrant or subpoena), or in other circumstances in which AOL has a good faith belief that AIM or AOL are being used for unlawful purposes. AOL may also access or disclose your AIM information when necessary to protect the rights or property of AIM or AOL, or in special cases such as a threat to your safety or that of others."
The content referred to in the Privacy Policy is for posts in AIM forums and message boards and such, and the point of all that crap in the TOS is so that AOL has the legal right to copy and display anything you put in the forum worldwide, for as long as the forum/website exists, and you can't in any way sue them over something you post in the forum. It's NOT saying "we will read your IMs and reproduce and use them however we want". Please mod this up so at least some people read it and stop freaking out and spreading FUD unneccessarily.
-Jay
/me disables AIM in Adium
Sadly most people I IM with a) have no interest in online privacy (the old "I've nothing to hide!") and b) use the evil MSN Messenger anyway.
I love Jabber, but until it catches up, I'm recommending Skype as the IM platform for the home user. Everything is encrypted and just works, and the official (but unfortunately only) client is available on three platforms.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Oh well.
or notice or hear you telling them this.
6079SmithW: Do you remember the thrush that sang to us, that first day, at the edge of the wood?
AntiSexJulia: He wasn't singing to us. He was singing to please himself. Not even that. He was just singing.
6079SmithW: We are the dead.
AntiSexJulia: LOL! We are the dead.
AOL System Msg: You are the dead.
~Philly
you give up any right to privacy by using any communications device. that's the purpose of these things...to communicate in a public arena. while the individual may have some notion of privacy because there is a one to one or one to many conversation going on, the truth is that you are using proprietary software to do this. the maker of the software can, by law, impose any restriction they wish for its use. i'm not saying it's right...that's just how it is. if an individual wishes secure private communications, they are more than welcome to build their own tool or use encryption.
Is it 5:30 yet?
What about Apple iChat, does this apply to those users as well, particularly the users of (dot) mac accounts: they are paying for that name, they are not useing aim...
Of course, the same could be said for every right you possess. If you never piss off anyone with power in the government (or any friend, relative, or associate of same), you'll have nothing to worry about. Same here: If you never own any IP, or if you do and neither you nor anyone you communicate with ever makes the slightest mistake handling it (like not reading & understanding the EULA of every medium you communicate through), then it probably won't be legally stolen from you. Sounds like good odds to me...
Is this ONLY for AIM? Or have they/would they/will they include email into this TOS?
I mean, if I email my grandparents pictures of my kid, could AOL claim exclusive ownership and use of the picture and use if for promotional campaigns?
Sugapablo
As of today I no longer am. Even if they change the TOS. Why haven't we switched to an open standard long long ago that AOL can't control or corrupt?
This is one of the last big frontiers for Open Source, a place where I've seen Open Source make little headway. We need a protocol that's open, free and can do the nifty things like file transfer, voice and video chat, and and uses built in encryption. Encrypting over AOL doesn't make cut it anymore. We need to cut them out of the equation altogether.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Just remove Internet Explorer and the AIM Today crap won't even function. Or even better still, use the older, better versions of AIM (4.3 and under) that don't include all that bloatware.
I can't stand the Fisher Price GUI of XP. Is there any reliable way to get the former 4-bit icons that look like the previous versions of Windows. Yes, I have tried changing that Shell Icon BPP setting in the registry, but it doesn't do squat. The only workaround is setting the ENTIRE display settings to 256 colors, but the icons revert to XP's eye candy crap when I go back to 16-bit color or higher. Any suggestions?
Use direct connect in AIM... it doesn't go through their servers (unless they change that in the newest release).
You can even be "signed off" in AIM, but if you still have that IM window up with the direct connection, you can talk away with the person you're connected with. Hell, combine that with an encyrpted VPN, and I think you're golden.
You're paranoid, but still golden.
Jabber's not P2P; you have to rely upon servers that other people provide -- and in my experience, those aren't terribly reliable.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
I think any one reading this post that disagrees with that privacy policy should goto: https://www.truste.org/consumers/watchdog_complain t.php and express your feelings. It doesn't do any good just complaining on a Slashdot post without then complaining to those who actually have some weight in the privacy market.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
I thought it was always this way, for any 'service'..
By default Ive always assumed no privacy, unless i encrypt.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I just sent an email to the address at the bottom of this page.
... while talking to air-yd01.mail.aol.com.:
And it came back with this:
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
aimprvcypolicy@aol.com
----- Transcript of session follows -----
RCPT To:aimprvcypolicy@aol.com
550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND
550 aimprvcypolicy@aol.com... User unknown
I don't trust anything that I send out to, or receive from, the Internet. This includes any chat programs, email, web content, etc... It's a basic security principal. If it isn't encrypted and signed by a trusted source, than it's not trusted material. If it is encrypted, then it's only a matter of time before the encryption key becomes known. You increase this risk every time you send an encrypted message/packet. So, AOL coming out and telling you that have no expectation of anonymity is something that everyone in the security field has been saying for years.
Then again, I don't trust anyone, and it's not paranoia if "they" really are out to get you....
http://www.accelerateglobalwarming.com
OMG LOL TM & © AOL Time Warner. All right reserved.
you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy.'"
Where does it say they assert _sole_ownership_ of your content? Aren't they, in effect, pressing you to GPL of your content?
How progressive of AOL.
What a stupid quote (if it is even real since you don't even cite the orginator) -- that's not the point. If you are doing things over the internet that you are worried about others knowing about, don't. Simply put, if you email, IM, whatever, anything that you not wanted posted on a billboard for the entire world to see -- DON'T DO IT. Cause no matter what you do, there are ways to get to bits.
so, out of some 200 comments rated 2 or higher as i write this (not counting one comment i made in the bottom of some thread somewhere) it seems that almost everyone here has missed the point....
a) only 2 people have mentioned that these terms of service are over a year old.
b) only 2 people have pointed out that these terms of service apply to posts on message boards and forums, which they reserve the right to replicate, duplicate, etc, and not to instant messages.
c) no one has pointed out that the vast majority of the messages sent through aim are sent client to client, and never travel through aol's central server, so even if they did reserve the right to use your im's any way they saw fit, and they had the desire to, there's no way that they ever could.
man, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. one person yells "0 my g0d. teh AOL r stealing our pr1v4cy!1!!" and the whole army of slashdotters goes running for their tinfoil hats. get a grip people.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Does this change affect ICQ as well, or only AIM?
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
http://www.johnytech.com/home.asp
/
The problem with this kind of software is that it can't be tested, without a mole working in the company who's product is being modified. When you type a message in AIM, for all you know it records the characters in a buffer separate from the one that gets encrypted and sent to your friend. The unecrypted one would naturally go straight to AOL for datamining.
http://www.silcnet.org/software/download/client
At least with an open sorce solution, there's less chance of other people spying on you, but then there's no chance your friends are using it unless you've told them about it.
I wouldn't download Silcnet though, because their website sucks, they don't even have an FAQ I could spot to see what the program is or how it does it better than others.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Dictionary look-ups on AIMers? You're kidding, right? Normal AIM messages look like a base64 encoded file anyways.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
If you thought you even had any privacy to begin with, you're a loony. You know nothing's changed... AOL is merely covering its ass.
Use the Gaim-encryption plugin for "secure" conversations. If you want to converse "securely" with non-Gaim users, stick with email+GnuPG
Comment removed based on user account deletion
" You may not use AIM while driving, operating hazardous equipment, or engaging in other forms of hazardous activities."
I, for one welcome our new AOL overlords...
My question is..would this also count for file transfer..kind of more complex thing...Sening music files, or essays for school..they have the rights also?
They only need to find one encrypted msg, then they just ban your account.
...
so instead of base64 encoding use 'teen64'(tm)
encoding
a = 'lol '
b = 'cuz '
etc
Did I mention that the AIM users were using AIM encryption with each other? I even get the little lock mini-icon appearing on their buddy list entries.
So... you're saying that gaim's encryption plugin doesn't interoperate with standard AIM's encryption? What good is it then?
I mean, if you can bring yourself to answer a fucking idiot's question...
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Well, that's frickin' useless if you don't switch to gaim all over the company at once. It's like OpenOffice refusing to save documents in a format readable by MS Word.
I suppose there are probably good, technical reasons for it not working. Still, it'd be nice.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
We're supposed to be switching over to use Lotus SameTime, which has the advantage of displaying full names on the buddy list, so we don't have to figure out that "reaganchk23" is "Alice Smith". Aliases make this a non-issue after the first time you talk to someone, but SameTime makes it simple enough to look up other people as well.
But, of course, this just means that everyone has to run both AIM and SameTime.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Idiot.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Despite what they say, do any of you actually expect any privacy with these services? Don't play around with what they "should" do. Let's look at reality here. These people have never, nor will they ever protect your privacy in any way, shape, or form. Let's quit fooling ourselves. This is the way it's always been. If you believe anybody's privacy statements, then I have some beautiful land in Florida for sale. I also has some action in a famous bridge in New York if you want a piece of that. Find a way of enforcing them, and maybe they can become believable. For now, when you're using a chat program or almost anything on the net, you're broadcasting it all over. The privacy thing is an illusion.
What?
It's a little hard to respect my supervisors when they write like thirteen year olds in the chat room. 'u' and 'lol' and 'k'.
Me: Priority one! Ticket 123456---the server is on fire, notifying coordinators.
Coordinator: u sure? k
For some reason, I assumed people didn't talk like this at work. I don't know where I got that idea from.
We also use an IRC channel as something like a continuously scrolling messageboard, to post important issues we should all be aware of. And yeah, people say 'lol' in it too.
I stopped trying to fix the spelling and grammar of others a while back, but I still think they sound like idiots.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The dangers of this site have been well explained here, but how many people are going to find it and read enough to understand it? It's just sad that the general population is so completely clueless about the basics of cryptography.
"We retain the right to spy on you, profit from any good ideas you have, and tell your wife about your girlfriend."
/.er to have both a wife and girlfriend, the paradox would cause a space-time continuum collapse, leading to the end of the universe as we know it. Fortunately, the likelihood of this occurrence can only be expressed in vastly large negative exponents. Based on this one can posit that the safety of the universe is inversely proportional to the existence of your sex life with others. Not that you should stop trying. I mean, at least Don Quixote had fun. By himself. So... Pfhew! Glad we cleared that up!
You misunderstand the laws of physics. Were a
The TOS reads:
he following terms and conditions apply to all users who either registered for AIM services or downloaded AIM updates or software on or after February 5, 2004.
Many posts here are talking about using third party encryption tools to circumvent this.
This new TOS DOES NOT APPLY TO ME (nor to many of you). Why not?
I didn't agree to their terms of service.
I didn't sign up after 2/5/2004.
I don't download AOL's AIM client. I use GAIM exclusively.
AOL, use the messages I haven't give you rights to, I dare you.
1. Send interesting messages
2. Wait until AOL uses one somehow.
3. Profit.
I wonder if aol instant messenger will now be consider spyware. For those thinking a switching to Msn instant messenger Aol & Microsoft are working to allow communications with both clients.
Tell that to the dude from DOD who is being extradited to the USA for 'crimes' breaking USA law he committed while in Australia, using servers in Australia.
The laws that govern the internet are the ones owned by the richest and biggest bullies. AOL will never have to defend this EULA anywhere for precisely this reason, and if they ever do, they will win.
AOL just is saying that "if you put in you email and interests, we can publish a page on our servers and send that crap to another users if they request"
it don't mention messages, you bunch of dumb paranoids.
after all, you don't post a message to aim, you send it specificaly to another user.
I wouldn't be surprised for Google to include IMs in their next Google Toolbar upgrade.
The next version (0.8) of Adium for OS X will have built-in (and extremely easy to use... it can be set as the default) Off-the-Record messaging to allow for encrypted IMs.
Just use gaim then. Install the gaim-encryption plugin and you're good to go. http://gaim.sf.net/
I wonder how this will affect iChat users. After all, we can use the AIM service, but I don't think we go through a AIM TOS, because iChat is an Apple product. It'd be interesting to see.....
It's no different than email. You no longer have to rely on one company to provide service to you. The servers may not be entirely reliable, but it's better than relying on AOL to continue providing AIM to everyone for free forever. What happens when they decide to cut it off?
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Why not begin prefixing any comment sent via AOL IM with (AOL SUX) or some other "f__k you" banner, or just simply using the voice feature (assuming here that it's goes via direct client-connection?)
Assuming they're actually looking or care about the content and not just providing legal license for god knows what kind of stupidity or evil, they'd be hard pressed not to notice it.
I'd say that there's very little concern considering that %99 of what goes on over AIM is so incredibly boring to anyone other than (and possibly including) the participants, however, even if it's chimpanzees banging on keyboards, one should have at least a general right (or privilege, from the looks of the TOS) to be asked and able to decline the use of anything in ways they didn't intend.
Tangentially, AIM service is the backbone of Apple's iChat -- I wonder if iChat has a link-through to that TOS?
So if I understand this correctly, AOL is assuming the copyright on anything you post. So if you post something inflammatory, libelous, or hateful, AOL owns it....
So if someone wants to sue, they sue AOL?
I know plenty of co-workers and friends who use AIM at work to make work-place communication more efficient.
Do they have to worry that AOL might publish their company's ideas and new products?
Probably not... But, now my friends will have to think twice before asking "are we going to launch super blogger 9000 today?" over AIM.
Don't violate your system's integrity, choose linux...
I just know this thread will be filled with people screaming about "alternatives" like Jabber that will never become popular for any business. These liberals need to learn.
So what if AIM saves messages? They probaly already have - it's the risk you take - they are doing this to save themselves incase big brother thinks someone is doing all kinds of massive crimes through it. (shadowcrew anyone?) The common user, it makes no difference.
If you need true security you wouldn't be using AIM to begin with.
And, people wonder why I suggest using Jabber...
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
They're going to steal my new rap album I've been cooking up with my homeys over IM!!! De Don Got Da Riiiiiiiiggghhhhhtttt!
>you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries,
> assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual,
> worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform,
> distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
AIM Products For purposes of these Terms of Service, the term "AIM Products" shall mean AIM software (whether preinstalled, on a medium or offered by download), AIM services, AIM websites (including, without limitation, AIM.COM and AIMTODAY.COM) and all other software, features, tools, web sites and services provided by or through AIM from America Online, Inc. and its business divisions (e.g., Netscape) (collectively "AOL") and AOL's third-party vendors.
In this case, Apple is a third party vendor.
... gaim-otr http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/
I wanted to make sure you knew that the rumors about the AIM Terms of Service are totally false. First and foremost, AOL does not monitor, read or review any user-to-user communication through the AIM network, except in response to a valid legal process. The AIM privacy policy (which is part of the AIM TOS) makes that crystal clear: "AOL does not read your private online communications when you use any of the communication tools offered as AIM Products. If, however, you use these tools to disclose information about yourself publicly (for example, in chat rooms or online message boards made available by AIM), other online users may obtain access to any information you provide." The second sentence of that same paragraph -- and the related section of the AIM Terms of Service -- is apparently causing the confusion. The related section of the Terms of Service is called "Content You Post" and, as such, logically and legally it relates only to content a user posts in a public area of the service. If a user posts content in a public area of the service, like a chat room, message board, or other public forum, that information may be used by AOL for other purposes. One example of this might be a user who posts a "Rate a Buddy" photo and thus allows AIM to post it for other AIM users to vote on it. Another might be AOL taking an excerpt from a message board posting on a current news issue and highlighting it in a different area of the service. Such language is standard in almost all similar user agreements, including those from Microsoft (appended below) and most online news publications. That clause simply lets the user know that content they post in a public area can be seen by other users and can be used by the owner of the site for other purposes. Finally, there seems to be a misimpression that the change was recently made. In fact, the current AIM Terms of Service was last updated in February 2004 and has been in place for more than a year. The prior terms of service had very similar language reserving the same rights. In short, AIM user-to-user communication has been and will remain private, the AIM TOS was not changed, and the TOS includes a standard clause on publicly posted material. Andrew Weinstein Spokesman, America Online MSN TOS: 6. MATERIALS YOU POST OR PROVIDE; COMMUNICATIONS MONITORING For materials you post or otherwise provide to Microsoft related to the MSN Web Sites (a "Submission"), you grant Microsoft permission to (1) use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission, each in connection with the MSN Web Sites, and (2) sublicense these rights, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. Microsoft will not pay you for your Submission. Microsoft may remove your Submission at any time. For each Submission, you represent that you have all rights necessary for you to make the grants in this section.
Off-the-Record Messaging.
Off-the-Record (OTR) Messaging allows you to have private conversations over instant messaging by providing:
Encryption: No one else can read your instant messages. Authentication You are assured the correspondent is who you think it is.
Deniability: The messages you send do not have digital signatures that are checkable by a third party. Anyone can forge messages after a conversation to make them look like they came from you. However, during a conversation, your correspondent is assured the messages he sees are authentic and unmodified.
Perfect forward secrecy: If you lose control of your private keys, no previous conversation is compromised.
and yes, it has a GAIM plugin. i hear it will work with ichat RSN.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
haha, you know what they say, silence means "Yes" and "Yes" means anal!
- shelbinator
The first release of *a leading office productivity package* in 2002 had that TOS, too, and more: everything you wrote in the word processor, including confidential personal data, commercial secrets and work intended for publication, irrevocably assigned to MegaSquelchy Inc. a worldwide copyright, with permission to publish and an open-ended unspecified 'other uses' clause.
They (a leading vendor of operating systems and office productivity software) withdrew this TOS. They are either sensitive to criticism, ethical and responsible, or both. That, or commercially aware that no-one will buy a product that confiscates so much, even if refusal means an enforced return to Wordstar, charcoal and cave walls.
Are AOL users stupider than the usual run of MegaSquelch galley-slaves? Arguably. The next question is, who on Earth is stupid enough to draft such a clause? At least they were aware of the furore over the 2002 TOS and put in the 'retain' concession. And what do they hope to gain?
Well, AOL and its shareholders are now protected from all legal liability when ( not if! ) a corrupt or negligent employee, or some technical failure in security, releases their private conversations for malicious use. That's the charitable interpretation of their motives.
It's the open-ended 'uses' clause that leads me to be uncharitable. Frightened, even. Presumably this includes the right to pass on purchasing preferences to marketers, identifying data and medical details to insurance companies, and to collate and forward statements implying political positions and sexual preferences to GOP campaign organizers. Or the police, in China and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Paranoid, I know, but Time Warner AOL have a clear fiduciary duty to the shareholders to maximize revenue. Further, there's nothing to stop them selling AIM to a foreign company. Or a Florida spamhaus, for that matter.
And there's absolutely no way that Time Warner AOL, a prominent campaign donor and lobbyist and a powerful media outlet in its own right, is going to be criticized publicly in the USA, let alone successfully prosecuted by any organ of the Federal Government. Or even by some ambitious state attorney.
double-plus-ungood!
Funniest/scariest thing I've read all day!
However, if you were to phrase it as "Did Fred Brinkley, whom I believe to be Jack the Ripper, break the law?" the answer would be "no", even if your belief happens to be correct, *until* he is tried and convicted. Since that can't happen, then as a technicality there's no actual person who broke the law, even though some unidentified person did. Confused yet?
That's what "presumption of innocence" means.
(Ignoring, for the moment, that I know nothing about British law other than it is the source of Common Law precedence rules, and that they may not have a strict "presumption of innocence").
*posts windowsxp.iso to AOL's forum* Uhoh AOL now owns the rights to Windows XP.
If I IM does AOL think they own it? How can they assume I have the right to give up the material to them?
If you can read moron To: AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) Users From: America Online Re: Rumors about Changes to the AIM Terms of Service and Your Privacy on AIM A number of online media outlets and blogs have recently written about rumors that AOL has changed the AIM Terms of Service (TOS) to weaken the privacy of AIM users. We want to assure you that those rumors are totally false. There was no recent change to the policy, and AOL does not read private user-to-user communication on the AIM network (which is fully explained in the AIM Privacy Policy). As the policy says, "AOL does not read your private online communications when you use any of the communication tools offered as AIM Products." Despite that statement, language in a different section of the AIM Terms of Service caused some confusion about the overall policy. The other section is called "Content You Post" and, as the name indicates, it applies to content a user might choose to post in a public area of the AIM service, such as a chat room or online message board. It does not apply to private user-to-user communications over AIM. The "Content You Post" section explained that content posted in a public area of the AIM service also might be used by AOL for other purposes. One example of this is when AIM posts a photo submitted by a user for the "Rate-a-Buddy" feature so other AIM users can vote on it. Another might be taking an excerpt from a message board posting on a current news issue and highlighting it in news coverage of that issue. A similar clause is a standard part of almost all user agreements for online publishers, including news outlets, portals, and blogging sites. The language simply lets the user know that content they post in a public area can be seen by other users and can be used by the owner of the site for other purposes. Nonetheless, as some users were confused by the meaning of this section, we have clarified it by adding language that makes clear that it only refers to content posted in public areas of AIM and not to private user-to-user communication. This is not a change to the policy, but it hopefully helps make this section easier to understand. Finally, we wanted to note that the AIM Terms of Service (TOS) were last updated in February 2004, and they have been in place for more than a year, so there was no recent change other than the language clarification discussed above. We hope this addresses any rumors you may have heard and any questions or concerns you might have had. Thank you for your continued use and support of the AIM product and community.