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 suppose if they want the rights to some irreversibly encrypted garbage, they can go right ahead.
More like All your Rights are belong to us
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
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!
I'm going to have to send the up the bomb then...
-kaplanfx
Visualize Whirled Peas
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)
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."?
"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...
No, you fool! You'll just give AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote the bomb as they see fit!
99% of what goes over AIM is garbage anyway.
(I know, I produce a lot of it)
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.
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
The snippet from the privacy policy (here) with emphasis from me:
Actually, the new TOS specifically states that it only applies if you:
1) Registered for AIM after February 5, 2005
2) Downloaded AIM updates or software after February 5, 2005
Unless I'm drastically misreading that, that means none of the terms apply to people who've been registered for more than a month or so and use a third party client.
-ShadowRanger
AOL is not any different from a mail carrier service because they do the same thing - deliver messages from one person to another.
You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using it.
Why not? Many people abuse telephone network by tying up lines for hours at a time, so what? It does not allow the phone company to record and sell conversations.
Actually, all messages ARE routed through AOL's servers. Peer-to-peer traffic only occurs when you are a) doing a file transfer, or b) using AIM's DirectConnect feature. Therefore, AIM can see anything you transmit over their network, and that includes all messages as well as file names/sizes/etc for transfers (but not the actual files themselves).
This is actually standard through virtually all Instant Messaging systems, partially due to the complexities of routing that NATs and firewalls introduce to the internet, and partially because client/server is just plain more reliable and easier than P2P.
(This is from a guy that's done a lot of IM protocol observation/hacking/developing)
Still IMing in the stone age?
it'll be interesting to see how AOL claims to prove that any non AIM client users can assertively agree to this license. Last time i heard you cant agree to a contract by inaction. And to the best of my knowledge, i dont think any of the 'these terms may change at any time' have been tested in court by 'agreement by inaction'
so it remains to be seen.
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.
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...
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'
They don't need an irrevocable, perpetual right to do that. A 10-minute right would be plenty.
and probably elsewhere.
You are drastically misreading that. As the date on the TOS is "February 5, 2004"
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
Okay, nobody seems to get the point of this change, so let me spell it out for you:
ADVERTISING
They don't care about reading what 12 year olds gossip about, and they don't care about finding criminals, terrorists, or anyone else. They care about *making money* by selling targeted ads to you, and they will figure out what you like by parsing context out of your chat logs. Y'know, like Google does with Gmail and Google Groups. The TOS let them do whatever they want with the data so they can store it, mine it, and sell the results anytime they feel like with no consequences.
You had better stop worrying and learn to love the bomb, then!
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.
Technology is the solution to the erosion of our rights. If it's mathematically impossible to find out what you said, then... they won't know what you said. (Same for P2P. 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. Laws don't solve problems!)
My other car is first.
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.
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.
No, the new terms are:
"Remember, it's not rape if you click 'yes'".
: )
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?
"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
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
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
I'll say *never*.
base64/uu encoding of messages produces all standard characters. Unless AOL is going to try doing fuzzy-logic dictionary look-ups, and/or statistical analysis on ALL messages, there's no way they would even know the difference between encrypted and unencrypted messages.
The above methods would be impractical, and even if not, they would have to be very, very careful not to accidentally drop an unencrypted (though unintelligable) conversation.
Personally, I think AOL is going to eliminate encryption the same way the NSA did for e-mail... Just wait silently behind the curtain, and when there hasn't been any sign of evesdroping for some time, apathy will kick-in, and encryption will just fade-out on it's own.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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 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