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.'"
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
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?
"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.
You're kidding, right?
You can bet everything you own that AOL archive every message that's routed through their system. Their new TOS means that when Government Agency X comes a-knockin' demanding all the messages User Y posted in the last three years, they can simply turn over the records without having to go through all that annoying stuff of warrants, sub-poenas and so on.
In fact, it doesn't even have to be Govt Agency X. It can be anyone. If they want to let them search the archive, they can.
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
Help a College Student
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
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'
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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