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.'"
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
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
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?
Absolutely. Go right ahead and plan on your average AOL user getting on board the clue train and encrypting their messages. Oh yeah. Really.
Is it fascism yet?
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.
"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...
Folks, it is time to start putting your letters in an envelope. You can no longer trust the letter carrier to protect your privacy. Envelopes are cheap...so start using them.
Heh, while I don't like AOL's decision, I fully support their right to make it. Millions of people freeload off of the AIM system. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using it.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Help a College Student
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.
Do you really trust AOL to have choosen and CORRECTLY implemented a good crypto system? Do you trust they haven't backdoored it? Do you think any home-rolled cryptosystem (or even implementation of a solid design) can be trusted without peer review?
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Everything goes through AOL's servers.
And it couldn't possibly be any larger than the amount of data Echelon has to deal w/ regularly, my guess is they're doing this as a way of appeasing the govt. "Sure, we'll change our privacy policy, but please allow us to use your beefy data centers..."
[o]_O
Until they change it just enough so that you can't use it without updating it and are then bound by the new terms.
What?
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'
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Everything goes through AOL's servers.
I know for certain the file transfers don't - I get two megabyte per second speeds transferring between computers on the LAN here, far faster than my DSL permits over the 'Net.
That's no surprise. Is that bug still there where AIM completely ignores the preference to not show that at login unless you click on junk in the AIM.com window at least once?
At least their preferences are laid out in a sensible Netscape-style window with the categories on the left. The problem is that there's just too many damn useless features to configure, as well as the fact that the actual preferences menu item is buried deep within a pull-down menu titled "My AIM". What the fuck does that tell me as a category and what options are under it? With the narrow amount of space in the menu area, it would be much better off with an "Actions" menu for everyday functions and a "Tools" menu for all the extra wacky features that nobody uses.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
I might use Gaim under Windows if somebody does something with the damn Windows port of GTK. For something that should merely be an API wrapper, it sure does a crappy job. 4-bit system tray icons in Windows XP? Double-u Tee Eff?
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
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...
As I understand it, encryption is useless unless both users have enabled it. On my AIM list right now, 1/75 users has it on. 90% of the people on my list don't even know what encryption means in this context. I doubt these people will care about the new TOS and will likely not go to the trouble to turn encryption on. Just my guess...
Untrue...
Companies that provide services over the internet must obey the laws of each country which their services may be used in. If a country has laws disallowing this, AOL may find itself (if pushed) in a situation of having to make many localized copies of AIM.
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
"If you use Freenet you can legally share anything."
So on Freenet, hosts can magically connect with eachother wihout knowing eachothers IP addresses?
Suuuuuure.
Keep on drinkin' that coolaid.
Also...I fail to see how using Freenet to share the lastest movie would somehow make it 'legal'.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Which is why I've always used strong encryption to IM my friends. If AOL wants to break my 4096-bit RSA key to sell my "lol"s, then they're welcome to...
Hmmm...wonder how long before any encrypted messages are blocked? After all, it is THEIR servers the messages are going through, so they can filter.
"If you use Freenet you can legally share anything."
."
What? More like: "If you use Freenet, you can share anything without getting caught, even if said sharing involves illegal and morally unjustifiable copyright infringement, child pornography, credit card lists, . . .
Hope this helps appease your conscience.
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?
"You may only post Content that you created or which the owner of the Content has given you."
Yes, but the problem is, when someone posts my work without my permission, or in a fair use situation, AOL has no way of knowing.
Now the person's use may be considered fair use sine they are not taking commercial advantage of it while AOL's and cronies' may not be since they are taking commercial advantage.
The person posting under fair use may be violating their TOS, but how is AOL to know?
all the best,
drew
In any event, from here on, no one has any right to post my work anywhere where these sorts of terms are asserted.
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
If you use Freenet you can legally share anything. Why? Because nobody knows (or can ever know) what you're sharing and what you're downloading.
So if you break a law and don't get caught, it's legal? Riiiiiiight.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
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.
Copyright is a totally manmade concept. We don't even have to have it. If we didn't, would that be immoral?
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?
If you don't get caught, you don't get punished. Thus, the end result is that the same thing happens to a law-breaker that happens to a non-law-breaker (i.e. nothing). Therefore, effectively, a law was not violated.
So what you're saying is that Jack the Ripper, effectively, never broke the law?
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
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.
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.