Slashdot Mirror
AOL: We're Not Spying on AIM Users
The Llama King writes "America Online tells the Houston Chronicle's TechBlog that, despite a recent Slashdot posting to the contrary, AOL Instant Messenger's terms of service do not imply that the company has the right to use private IM communications, and the section quoted in the Slashdot article applies only to posts in public forums -- a common provision in most online publishers' terms of service. AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein says flatly: 'AOL does not read person-to-person communications.' He also says AIM communiques are never stored on AOL's hard drives. The original Slashdot item was linked throughout the blogosphere -- it will be interesting to see if AOL can extinguish this fire." (Read more below.)
It could be that they don't actually take advantage of its terms, but the Terms of Service seem to broadly favor AIM's right to do exactly what they say they're not doing; rather than drawing any distinction between IM services and public forum posts, the actual terms seem clearly to apply to all AIM products. Here's how they put it:
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.AOL could probably erase many of the worries about conversation snooping if they would provide a definition of the words "post" and "submit" as used in the following paragraph of their ToS (which says it applies to "any AIM Product"), and explicitly disclaimed an "irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote" the contents of online conversations:
You may only post Content that you created or which the owner of the Content has given you. You may not post or distribute Content that is illegal or that violates these Terms of Service. By posting or submitting Content on any AIM Product, you represent and warrant that (i) you own all the rights to this Content or are authorized to use and distribute this Content on the AIM Product and (ii) this Content does not and will not infringe any copyright or any other third-party right nor violate any applicable law or regulation.
"We're not evil. We promise. Trust us. Just because we say we can doesn't mean we will."
I personally use AIM but that doesn't mean that I'm going to trust any communications I want private with a giant multi-billion company.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
Didn't MSN MEssenger once have a similar claim in its TOS?
I'm sure there was some storm in a teacup around it a while ago.
liqbase
I already uninstalled my AIM and done gone somewhere else with my IMing.
Their PR parrots and Legals should have collaborated BEFORE they opened their big mouths on this matter. Now they are having to play catchup, in a BIG way.
Bad timing aoHell. In this day and age, that kind of legal play can lose you a couple of million users as fast as your CSRs (customer service reps) can field them.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Why are people walking around surprised that AOL would, at the very least, not guarantee absolute privacy in conversation?
The best way to deal with this is to always treat any conversation, ESPECIALLY over the internet, and ESPECIALLY on a service like AIM as insecure. Period.
Everyone and their mother who read that previous Slashdot anti-privacy post will of told ten people. Everyone who reads this one, will probably forget about it in ten minutes and revert back to thinking AOL is logging all of your chats. Damage is done.
-Imidazole
Hilarious Office Prank!
Maybe, CowboyNeal (who posted the original) would be nice enough to go back and put an Update at the FRONT of the old story, as an act of good faith and fair reporting. :-)
----- Lotus Super 7 - A real car.
Once again a big hoopla is created over a bunch of Slashdot idiots NOT READING THE FAWKING ARTICLE or doing anything other than shallow psuedo-research!
Of course, if it's on SlashDot, it must be true!
Just when I was getting used to DeadAIM's logging after a couple of years, AOL has to go do something like this. Does anyone know if GAIM logs your aim conversations? I am going to switch to something with encryption.
the Political Inquirer
This is another case of agreements being way beyond what a company needs, but lawyers saying "well what about this one bizarre case that might happen once in a hundred years where you might want to use this clause?" So the company makes an agreement like this one, not counting on geeks like us to actually read it and cause trouble.
Companies exist only to enrichen their owners and shareholders. All decisions are based on this one fundamental truth.
If they have the authority to do something, and it becomes in the company's best interest to do it, they will do it, without hesitation.
Translating what they are saying now, it just means "it's not currently in AOL's overall best interest to monitor instant messaging traffic, so right now we're (probably) not doing it. But we can change our minds at any time, without notice."
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
i like to live dangerously
(parody of their stupid commercials)
It really wouldn't take much to store all AIM communiqués.
I'm sure there's a clever compression tool out there which can take advantage of common data such as "ME TOO!" and "I'M OFF TO MASTURBATE. BRB."
Everything being in uppercase helps too.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
AOl probably has no intention of doing what they've demanded the rights to. It's prbably illegal anyway whatever the customer agrees to. What they do want is sufficient legal protection that they can avoid any spurious legal challenges that people might beempted to do based on the basic functionality of the system (including logging, temporary storage, occasional viewing of private messages during maintainance etc.)
Lets be honest if the service is free to you in a monetary sense, it's nice to think that there are no other costs to you. I'm not a nut in a shelter somewhere in the tundra - but a little paranoia can be healthy. I have met and worked for enough companies/individuals to know that altruism does not currently stand as the dominate principle in business. (though, evolution of society...OSS...who knows what will happen) It's just common sense to assume that there are hidden strings attached to something given to you for "free" from a corporation (and most individuals, even you grandma). I never buy anything on my Super Saver Card that I don't want the Super Saver Company to know about, and I treat AIM/MSN/Hotmail/Whatever the same way. If I want a private conversation I use something I can control - Point to point with encryption.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
Don't forget to not use their servers as well. Oh wait, then you aren't using AIM.
stuff
Sincerely,
Your neighborhood AOL conglomerate
When I first read the post regarding the TOS I didn't think too much of it. I just noticed a lot of people getting bent out of shape because they failed to notice it did not apply to instant messages, rather to chat rooms and message board postings. This however did not stop me from griping to many people online about the TOS's blatant disregard for privacy rights. Bla bla bla etc... As of last night my account is blocked and I have no idea why. I am still able to log into my AOL account to check my mail, but instant messaging has been disallowed. I am out of the states right now and in the middle east so tech support (if you would even bother to call it that, as anyone who has called AOL before would likely know how crappy the service is) is somewhat out of the question due to international phone calls being expensive and whatnot. Any suggestions as to how I can figure out what the hell happened?
It's all over teh place!!11!one
You don't have to agree with any terms when you are using someone's server, as long as you are not doing anything illegal. Do you also have to agree with some terms when you send an email? No.
Always have, i suppose this aim stuff applies there too now... I understand this if people have AGREED to the use, but I don't remember getting a new TOS sent to me when AOL took over icq
I've never been able to find the option to actually -delete- an AIM account. Has anyone else?
"The original Slashdot item was linked throughout the blogosphere -- it will be interesting to see if AOL can extinguish this fire."
I would think it would be fairly easy to put out the fire. Instead of making the assurances below in public, put them in the TOS in an invariant section.
"AOL Instant Messenger's terms of service do not imply that the company has the right to use private IM communications, and the section quoted in the Slashdot article applies only to posts in public forums -- a common provision in most online publishers' terms of service. AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein says flatly: 'AOL does not read person-to-person communications.' He also says AIM communiques are never stored on AOL's hard drives."
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
To be fair, Slashdot at least says, on every page, " All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2005 OSTG."
So, to tie it with a meme:
1. Register Anonymous Coward as your legal name
2. Find all AC posts.
3. ???
4. Profit!
At least it's good to see the "Blogosphere" really pays attention. They don't. Which, really, makes them just like journalists.
*ducks*
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Doesn't GAIM use AOL user IDs? You have to click through agreements to get an AIM ID don't you?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
C'mon, people. AOL has better things to do than monitor people talking to their internet girlfriends. What possible benefit could it serve? I mean really, if you're doing something over AIM where privacy is a serious concern, you're probably not too bright in the first place (and by the way, I'm from your bank - we seem to have lost your account information). What do you thinks gonna happen - someone on AIM mutters the word "ICQ" and instantly hundreds of America OnLine programmers come bursting through your door with free AOL discs?
(insert conspiracy nuts claiming that they can install monitor programs for the FBI/NSA/PETA. Also include the people who will claim that this is the first rights infringement on the path to a corporate controlled world where Pepsi can recruit you into slavery and Bed Bath and Beyond owns your house because you "Just had to have that towel rack")
yeah, let's make a big deal of someone reading our IMs but totally forget that email can be read too. Here's an idea...don't write anything online that you wouldn't want publiched. Problem solved.
That said, I doubt AOL employees really care about your fucking IMs.
xXx-@DeathBecomesME@-xXx: LOL
supertard: heh
xXx-@DeathBecomesME@-xXx:dude, did you see that one show? LOL
supertard: yeah lollerz!1
*rolleyes* who fucking cares if they read your chat logs?
It isn't security through obscurity, it's security through absurdity.
http://xkcd.com/386/
When will my anti-spyware apps start seeing AIM as spyware, and offering to remove it for me?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
available on Windows, Linux et al
Actually, available on Windows, Linkus, thats all No OS X version.
I know, the source code is there, but I asume if a binary was easily compilable it would already be there for download.
"In each such case, the submitting user grants OSDN the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license." - Thus go the TOS of slashdot.org. Surprize, surprize!
I tried to submit this story to ./ sometime back but of course, they wont accept it :-)
Once again I can whip out my cock and webcam-cyber on AIM with the send images feature. Knowing that some tech in Virginia is watching kinda kills the mood for me. (My penis is camera shy.)
It compiles on Mac, Solaris, FreeBSD and OpenBSD (I didn't check NetBSD so I'm not saying just BSD). Have you even tried it?
When I called AOL to cancel my account, I was told that they would never use the information without first informing the user and only if there was some complaint, I had specifically mentioned IMs. Now, how could they use any information if they don't look at person-to-person communications and don't store it?
AOL will have to change the ToS. The cat is out of the bag. Drudge Report is carrying the story as of this morning.
Howdy all. Let the flames begin! I'd flame myself too!
;-)
I made the horrendous mistake of installing AOL over a weekend for their trial so I could quickly download Netscape's installer which I'm ultimately using now. I've canceled my AOL account, cleaned out the registry, set my only T-Bird SMTP server to my site, had it working for a couple of days, etc. Now somehow, AOL (aka "Big Brother) manipulated itself as my sole SMTP server, thus preventing me from sending messages (I can receive all day long).
Now, someone tell ME that AOL isn't taking over PCs.
Regards,
Kory
I wonder if things like Trillian's SecureIM would help there...
not using aim myself, just curious..
I heard someone being paranoid about people intercepting his communications through unshielded telephone lines if Broadband-over-Powerlines was offered. I think we've gone too far. Some paranoia keeps you alert, but you people are running around with a tinfoil hat, just bent on finding a big corporation that you think is trying to screw you. MS, Valve, AIM and so forth. The minute any one of these actually does something to any one of you, I'd be interested to hear about it. Until then, there's no reason to have this hive of paranoia.
I have to wonder what people are so concerned about. Unless you are doing something illegal or stupid (like sending your SSN and DOB around) what would it matter if they did this? Does it matter if someone reads your vitally important message about how you kicked ass at the LAN party?
I'm really asking what the concern is, not being a smartass.
Yes, you still need an AIM ID. Which involves going onto their website, which is defined in the TOS as being an AIM Product. And if you somehow manage to get around that, you're still using their servers, so you're *still* using an AIM Product. If you look, you accept the TOS just by using any AIM Product, so just by going to their website you're expressing your acceptance of their TOS.
AOL is not being "nice" by avoiding person-to-person correspondence. They're avoiding liability. Think about how many child predators there are lurking on AOL. If AOL said they had the power to review all person-to-person communications on their service, they could be sued for negligence for failing to detect and prevent illegal activities (like the activites of terrorists and sexual predators). It's much easier for them to turn a blind eye, much like P2P services do with regards to file sharing.
I wonder - what about people using .mac accounts on iChat? Do they have to click through AOL agreements to get to that point?
(I know that isn't an option for everyone, but it is something to consider.)
On the drive in to work this morning, the local radio duo covered this story in their news segment. It was interesting to hear the radio jocks debating some of the same things being talked about here - Does this really apply to IM? How annoying that it applies retroactively. etc.
- Jasen.
Gaim Encryption plugin Use gaim, use plugin. Give friends, etc. an ultimatum. I strongly encourage the use of this in more sensitive environments, especially if you're slinging account numbers around.
This message brought to you by the letter Q and the number 8.
"AOL is answerable to its shareholders. "
And to the law, and the people of the United States throught their elected representatives.
Corporations are not nations, immune from all considerations other than profit. They are entities licensed to exist by the people of the U.S. and other nations, for the benefit of all. They are our servants, we are not theirs.
Um....
So, let me get this straight. A bunch of non-lawyer geeks (i.e., Slashdot's editors) read through a Term of Service agreement and misread and misunderstood what it said. They then take this faulty information and disseminate it wide and far. And it's still AOL's fault.
What am I missing? The TOS looked pretty damn clear to me. Slashdot owes AOL an apology and a correction.
I'm just glad AOL is a scummy and well-capitalized company. This kind of shoddy reporting could utterly destroy a smaller entity's reputation and put them out of business. On the basis of bad reporting. Amazing.
AOL could probably
Or not. They can claim till they're blue in the face (or until some other newer tech controversy overshadows this issue) that they really aren't evil. But as the service provider to millions of generally untechnical internet users, they will be unlikely to give up their advantageous contract provisions with their userbase on the whole because those terms only count in one place: the courtroom. It's the same thing as with Craig's List. Craig has a great service. But read the tos. By posting, you agree to abide by the tos, and if you fall afoul of the tos, he can fine you for each post, and in order to fight those fines, you have to go to a California courtroom. Those provisions for fines I'm sure were instituted to fight the problem he/they are having with spammers and scammers, but after reading the tos (now that it is a huge box instead of a small one), and carefully working through posts in categories I've watched in the past, there are posts from legitimate individuals and small businesses that arguably can and do violate the tos but no one complains and no one flags the ads because even though they arguably violate the tos in one area, they appear to be legitimate ads that aren't in controversial categories such as stuffing envelope jobs or get rich while surfing for a small undisclosed fee categories.
What's the problem with the CL fines if he promises or makes it a practice to use it only against spammers and scammers (that we know of without being privy to confidential settlements)? Simple. CL is no longer owned exclusively by Craig Newmark or private individuals anymore. Ebay, a public traded company that is answerable to shareholders now owns a percentage of CL (25%?). CL must now answer to its shareholders including another public owned company. They now have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders regardless of how much of a do-gooder Craig Newmark is. What happens when Ebay increases their share? Or another shareholder sells their shares for millions to another company that wants to go head-to-head with Ebay, or is a competitor to CL itself and decides to drag CL's reputation through the mud by finding technical violations on their tos and forces CL management to hit up all the technical violators with fines over the last three or five years or more of posting? Or if the outside shareholder finds their own books in trouble, are about to miss a quarter big, and decides to shake the CL fine tree for some funds to boost the quarter temporarily and then worry about fixing CL's reputation at a later date after they dodge their own quarterly bullet? Or they decide to unload the shares instead of worrying about lost CL userbase?
Could AOL change their tos? Sure. Depends on how big the controversy gets, whether it impacts their bottom line, whether some other tech controversy or geopolitical event will draw attention away from this issue, or how successful their efforts are at explaining away any controversy regardless of whether one really exists or not depending on your point of view. If they clarify, they lose the edge they have in court over those very provisions. If they are able to weather the storm and retain those terms, the better it is for them next time they find themselves in court and in need of those provisions.
Would a slashdotter walk away from cable service if the only way of getting it was to provide a social security number? Walk away from cell phone service? Walk away from internet connectivity? Or would a slashdotter moan about it and in the next breath give
Am I the only one who cringes at the sound of that word? Blogosphere? Why the hell does every little thing on the internet need it's own unique buzzword name? It's all the same internet! Get over it! It's already named!
Not to troll but Gah! blogosphere is definitely a term that needs to die. It only exists so that people with Blogs who need to feel important, can.
Regardless, the NSA is certainly intercepting all of these transmissions as they intercept everything that goes overseas plus a great deal of stuff that "might possibly" go overseas. Also, the FBI can direct AOL to intercept all these tranmissions and lie about it to their customers.
Did anyone see the Law & Order episode last night where they used "traceroute" to trace back an old bank transfer, and got an IP address of 396.163.101.1?
Fink. The gaim version in Fink works fine.
No one seems to know this, but AOL has *always* LOGGED and and ARCHIVED all instant message conversations. That's right, everything that you've ever said on AIM is kept on AOL's servers. How is that used? Who has access to it?
What does AOL being a giant multi-billion dollar company have to do with this?
Case 1:
Mr. Aspiring Songwriter writes a song, and asks some friends for their opinions. He sends the lyrics and an MP3 to friends using his AOL email and/or AIM. The song becomes big a year later. AOL searches their records, and finds he used the AOL network to transfer the work. According to this license, AOL may now:
- publish the song on the internet,
- include the song on CD,
- use the song in a movie,
- use the song in advertisements, and
- have their current boyband record it
without ever giving any compensation to the Mr. A.S.
Case 2:
Mr. Writer works on his book or movie script. He sends each chapter to his agent from his AOL email. AOL can use his work without compensation.
Case 3:
Mr. Small Business writes software. His team uses AIM to discuss the code being developed. AOL may use any of the code transferred on their network for any purpose without compensation.
Case 4:
Mrs. Sporting Goods owns a small store. It does not have an e-commerce website; her AOL email address is enough for the few online orders. One of her customers becomes famous. AOL may publish information about the athlete's purchases and any concerns discussed in her emails. (They may have difficulty justifying the use of the athlete's emails, unless the athlete also used AOL software.)
If this license was used by a small private business, the materials collected could soon become the most valuable resource of the business. AOL is already part of a major media conglomerate, and the threat of using all meterials transferred on their network without compensation is real. AOL's music and movie divisions should be drooling over the ability to find free resources.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
there are several pieces of software (such as IMSecure by ZoneLabs) that will encrypt your instant messages for you... you can also import free email security certificates from Thawte or use the public one from AIMEncrypt.com... if you use both these methods you will have at least some level of security. check out information about this article: http://www.coolprofile.com/security.html. obviously nothing is completely secure.
Please don't stick up for a multi-billion dollar company just for sake of sticking up for it... Hrmph!
It's amazing to think that companies determine TOS like this is ok. When they get caught with thier hands in the cookie jar they look like G.W.B. trying to tap dance.
Darnit, where's that "Grammar Nazi" moderation option?
"He also says AIM communiques are never stored on AOL's hard drives."
/super obvious?
of course not... they don't have the need... all of the "communiques" are stored on the NSA's servers.
If they tried to log all of the messages that cross their servers at every moment of every day, it would turn all but the best servers into smoldering piles of rubble. There are just way too many people signing on, signing off, sending messages, voice chatting, sending pr0n to each other....
Do you know that a few years ago I had AOL (they don't EVER present themselves as "America On Line" here in France, because it could be a liiiiitle marketing penalty) and EVERY data that I received and that I sent get across the ocean to go back to my place ?
For example, if I accessed a french web site, data were going to the USA before arriving to my computer...
AOL is a shame... Of course they log everything...
Hmm... if the TOS is something only Lawyers can read clearly, what's the point? This would imply only lawyers should use any product with a TOS (or EULA), since anyone else would not be able to figure out what they're getting themselves into. As long as the quote posted on /. from the TOS is accurate (was not manipulated in any way) they don't owe AOL an appology for anything. It pretty blatantly states that AOL reserves the rights to anything you pass through their servers. :D
Use the GAIM-Encryption plug-in for your sensitive conversations.
gaim-encryption has been around for some time now, if you are that worried about someone else (AOL or otherwise) reading your IMs take the steps needed to ensure they can't.
Pretty simple, next question please...
You agree to some terms when you sign up for an email account. Can you send an email without some email account? In most cases: no. I suppose there are some apps around that allow you to send email without an address (through some forums, etc...), but in every case I've seen you would have had to agree to some terms in order to do even that.
AOL doesn't read person-to-person communications? Conversations are never stored on AOL hard drives? I'm sure they've simply contracted some other company to do it.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
You still didn't answer the question. What does AOL being a multi-billion dollar company have to do with this? Note, the point of the question was why is this attribute of AOL the problem? You've pointed out, it isn't. The problem is AOL has its hands in a lot of things. But having money doesn't necessarily make one bad. The parent implied that this whole thing was bad simply because AOL has money, which is absurd.
This just in: "AOL instates their own patriot act!"
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
MOD PARENT UP +1 insightful
and usually the re-definition of innocent is retroactive in some way, in order to maximise the
hilarity.
Are any of us so innocent as to voluntarily become Truman?
It stated "He also says AIM communiques are never stored on AOL's hard drives."
Does AIM allow you to send a message to an offline user to be delivered when they log on?
If so then where are they storing the message prior to delivery?
I do know ICQ does this and it is owned by AOL.
Does ICQ's TOS read similar and/or the same?
Is ICQ's message traffic legally covered under the AOL TOS?
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
Would anyone seriously exchange information of any importance over AIM?
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
Quoth the poster: "Hell, I'm not a big company and I don't really give a crap..."
...which is why you've posted twice on this thread... hmmmm?Preliminary:
IANAL, simply an over-analyzing citizen. (:>)
Thoughts:
Interesting. And I agree, AOL is pretty lucky that they have such a huge loyal following... lest it be immediately canned.
I'm curious to see where the misinterpretation occurred, as I am not understanding what you understood. I read the ToS and came to a similar conclusion as that of the editors (and yes, I only look for the facts).
What parts of the ToS assure you that AOL and all related sub-entities really can't/won't/? keep copies of any IM conversations that occur between User A and User B? And if "assure" is not the word best describing your sentiment, feel free to insert your own.
IANAL
What if you send parts of your own already published book to a friend through AOL? Or someone elses? What if you send an mp3 disguised as your own that's really using some samples of some famous work (happens all the time with DJ/producers remixing famous tracks into their own special genre (i.e. drum n bass versions of hiphop songs)).
If AOL were to ever publish those tracks then the actual AOL user could be losing out but then AOL would get into hot water with any material that actually was already copywritten.
Did I miss something here? Should I have seen the full TOS?
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
I once worked with a guy who'd spent time at AOL's NOC. This would have been several years ago, back before they were quite so huge. Back when companies like AOL and Prodigy were standalone services and not glorified ISPs.
He told me how they'd bring up particularly interesting private chat conversations on a big screen so they could all follow along and laugh together.
Maybe he exaggerated, but I never knew him to outright lie. If he said it happened, I think there's a very good chance it did, at least to some extent.
Maybe someone else could verify that this used to go on. I'm sure things are much different now, with AOL being such a huge outfit and presumably having a bit more oversight.
Any other ex-AOL'ers out there who could confirm or deny?
Of the 'major' IM services (MSN,AIM,Y!,ICQ), AIM is the only one that allows you to direct-connect, and encrypt. (Not via AOL's AIM software though).
I have gotten most friends(that use windows) to switch to trillian, and have it automattically set up to do the 'secure link' which also helps w/ employers w/ prying eyes.
I believe that GAIM also allows encrpytion over AIM, but it isnt compatable w/ trillian's, which is unfortunate. I also believe that the Jabber protocol supports it depending on your server. (Google i hope when you launch your service, you include this function)
Im glad
...create liability issues for AOL if they DID read your AIM and e-mail traffic?
I thought one of the main reasons AOL is not liable for copyrighted works or illgal/illicit content passing through their services was their status as a common carrier--they don't read it, so they're not responsible for it.
If they start looking through messages, wouldn't they lose their common carrier protection, and so open themselves up for lawsuits related to every instant message or piece of mail that infringed a copyright, threatened someone, hurt someone's feelings, etc.?
Please cite the line(s) that state this...please use the entire passage (meaning, do not use choice sentences/words). I would like to see where AOL has full unfettered rights to any information sent over its system. Especially for those people who pay to use AOL e-mail, I want to see where it says that AOL owns the copyright to the information and can use it as it see's fit including making a profit from it without permission or compensation to the author.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Chocolate rations have been increased from 30 to 35 grams. Remember citizens, Oceania is our ally. Oceania has always been out ally.............
In about 1993, I downloaded the AOL client so I could join, the AOL revolution. After I started the application, the hard disk on my i486 running windows 3.1 kept accessing,,,,,,for a long time. I got onto the internet, but my disk kept accessing. I was later told that a friend of mine had reverse engineered the AOL code because he was also curious about the accesses. He found that the AOL code was searching hard disks for geographic data, and other information. His take on it was that AOL code was searching for spies on American soil. (Big Brother)
could be that they don't actually take advantage of its terms, but the Terms of Service seem to broadly favor AIM's right to do exactly what they say they're not doing; rather than drawing any distinction between IM services and public forum posts, the actual terms seem clearly to apply to all AIM products. Here's how they put it:
No, it doesn't say any such thing. Come on! You were wrong. Grow up and admit it. The only thing worse than being wrong is refusing to admit it.
The short version:
The ToS specifies the rights that AOL has. Storing your IMs is not a right specified in the ToS. Therefore, AOL doesn't have the right to retain your IMs.
The longer version:
If the company does not specify it has the right to do something (i.e., the contract is "silent" on the issue), the company generally cannot do that thing. Contracts are read this way to better protect the consumer. And it also just makes sense. If the company could do anything except what was specifically prohibited, then the consumer would have no rights except those explicitly guaranteed by the contract, which, coincidently, was written by the company. Traditional contract law does not allow this. Here, where AOL does not reserve their right to retain info, they may not do it.
In fact, there are two doctrines of contract law that apply to this type of situation.
The first is that "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others." By listing specific things it can do, AOL is essentially saying it cannot do anything it does not list. So by specifying that it could keep "posts" and other specific types of information, the contract would be read as prohibiting it from keeping other types of information (IMs, in this case) not specifically discussed.
The second is the doctrine of "contra preferentem" which literally means "against the party who proffers or puts forward a thing" and is defined as "used in connection with the construction of written documents to the effect that an ambiguous provision is construed most strongly against the person who selected the language." (Black's Law Dictionary). So where AOL puts forward contract language (and the parties are of unequal bargaining power), the contract will construed against AOL.
Both the doctrines work quite nicely together, as you can see. Maybe this really is one of those things that a lawyer is just going to read differently -- but reading the ToS it seemed pretty clear to me that IMs were not one of the things that AOL gave itself the right to collect.
Gaim does compile easily on OS X, but it looks ugly and doesn't seem like a Mac app.
Also, Adium uses gaimlib and works very nicely - I prefer it to any other IM client.
> He also says AIM communiques are never stored
> on AOL's hard drives
they use the bazilion CDs they have left.
they were planing a second wave of "free internet" cds. but since the gov prohibited them on the basis of enviromental damage, they don't have to waste hard drives space for some 11 years.
Wasn't Jabber a Free Software equivalent of AIM ? I'm using Gaim (as a client) with Jabber as a protocol, and find it correct.
Free life and privacy require Free Software.
Bye Bye AOHELL (nice way to write it, found in another posting)
Is the link in the parent safe for work?
Nothing.
google is supreme.
These participants in the blogosphere seem to be really good at spreading hearsay and unfounded speculation, possibly as a form of pseudo-journalistic wankery. That is why I propose the term blogobaters (alternatively, blogsturbators) to describe these people. I think it's a much more fitting term than bloggers.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
Ask and ye shall recieve:
Content You Post
You may only post Content that you created or which the owner of the Content has given you. You may not post or distribute Content that is illegal or that violates these Terms of Service. By posting or submitting Content on any AIM Product, you represent and warrant that (i) you own all the rights to this Content or are authorized to use and distribute this Content on the AIM Product and (ii) this Content does not and will not infringe any copyright or any other third-party right nor violate any applicable law or regulation.
Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content. In addition, 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. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses. Direct from the AOL ToS
Ask and ye shall recieve:
Content You Post
You may only post Content that you created or which the owner of the Content has given you. You may not post or distribute Content that is illegal or that violates these Terms of Service. By posting or submitting Content on any AIM Product, you represent and warrant that (i) you own all the rights to this Content or are authorized to use and distribute this Content on the AIM Product and (ii) this Content does not and will not infringe any copyright or any other third-party right nor violate any applicable law or regulation.
Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content. In addition, 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. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses.
Direct from the AOL ToS
Sorry about the formatting errors in the last one....
When you Direct Connect (IM Images) in AIM, doesn't that cause all communication to go directly between clients and bypass the AOL server? Seems like an easy solution if you need to send something private. I'm often DC'ed anyway for sending pics and large amounts of text, with no rate limit.
Can you send an email without some email account? In most cases: no.
Ummm, yes you can. You must not have heard of Telnet and port 25 before. Connect to your own or any mail server in the world that allows relaying, and send away.
Do some research, k?
Inject.
Interesting. The view from here has the Gooble/Yahoo thing as the next story. But yet your post is in the normal "Re:......" form although it has no parent. Did:
1) You have more than one response in progress?
2) Intentially spoof it?
Not to say I trust it at all. I don't. (BTW, where the fuck is encrypted iChat, Apple?!)
sulli
RTFJ.
When you're sending unencrypted traffic over a public network, you should have no expectation of privacy. Whether or not AOL is logging traffic is not relevant, since the traffic is, for all practical purposes, public information.
At first read, I thought this meant: *my own thoughts mind you* "If you create anything using an AIM product then it is the property of aim, but if you are just transmitting it via AIM then it remains your property." On second read, well ouch --- though, it kind of contradicts itself.
In one area it says "You or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product..."
Then it goes to say that "AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating..." - This i understand - they are saying if they make something from your copyright (probably with permission, as to the statement above it) they retain that property (i.e. making a remix of your song).
But then....
"By posting Content on an Aim Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to..." rape you.
This last part just seems to contradict my first quote...now while I assume they do this in some attempt to protect themselves, they should really acknowledge this TOS. I mean it literally states they can take ownership of anything you make and post there (assuming you are the owner...I would think AOL would have a hard time laying claim to Metallica's music if Metallica never actually posted their music through AIM).
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
It's also in the TOS that by posting or submitting anything via AOL, you are certifying that you are the owner of said content.
Slashdot wasn't wrong, just a lot more excitable than AOL expected. The terms of service do say basically what most of the people here interpreted them as saying (I read some passages 5-6 times just to be sure). AOL did not say the excited customers read it wrong, but rather that they shouldn't be concerned because AOL claims not to have any motive to log your conversations. I agree. The TOS looks pretty darn clear. "You waive any rights to privacy." Not even any conditionals there.
Actually, the two are quite different. You still own, and can still sell your intellectual property (copyright, patent) that you have sent over AIM, but you cannot sell an exclusive right to your property as you have already granted an irrevocable license to AOL. AOL is not asserting that they own it, just that they get to use it as they see fit. It's like having an easement on your land saying that your neighbor can cross to get to his property. Your neighbor owns the right to cross, but doesn't own any portion of your land. Bryan "back to studying for the patent bar" Paschke
Just a thought....do large corporations pay lawyers big bucks to write EULAs that are so vague yet all inclusive that no matter what the company's future wishes might be they will be able to claim in court it's covered in the EULA?
billy - yes I know...but I actually DO read the damn things every time
From the first cited paragraph in the story, this sounds like it wouldn't apply to third-party software, i.e. gaim, trillian, etc., that use the AIM protocol and happen to run on oscar servers. So, if that's true, how could AOL sift out the conversations they were "allowed" to read, even if they wanted to?
"My heart is in the work." - Andrew Carnegie
It was a crappy song anyways.
Besides, if AOL couldn't do that, I'd be scared to be on AIM. Imagine all the criminal things they would talk about. And what authority would they have to prosecute the people who say they just killed the President after he was just assasinated???? Hmmm?
but personally, I don't want to worry about some third party reading through posts or messages not intended for them. To remedy this problem, I recommend grabbing GAIM with one of the many GAIM encryption plugins. As a bonus, paranoid folks won't have to worry about the (insert governmental agency of choice) snooping on them.
4 .exe?download
More information regarding this topic is available on the technology blog "It's Geek to Me" located at http://itsgeektome.blogspot.com/
For Windows users, you can grab GAIM here:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gaim/gaim-1.1.
You can get a nice GAIM Encryption Plugin here:
http://gaim-encryption.sourceforge.net/
A friend linked me to the original posting about this on Slashdot, and for about a day I marveled that some information of value had been posted here.
Then I found out that, of course, it's false. Guess it's back to never reading Slashdot and never taking anything posted here seriously. Enjoy your futile ranting.
I read the TOS, and concluded it was just a case of lawyeritis (inflammation of the lawyers). The actual intent seems to be to establish that AOL shall NOT be held liable for copyright infringement due to copyrighted material (specifically meaning words written *by* AIM users) being passed through their servers.
So if you write something and send it via AIM, you have given AOL the right to "reproduce" it on their servers, and therefore you cannot sue AOL for copyright infringement, nor can you claim that AOL owes you anything for "distributing" it. (However, this does not *assign* the copyright to AOL.)
IOW, it's just overly-paranoid ass-covering as performed by lawyers, probably due to some asshole having actually sued them for "storing my works on your server and thereby infringing my copyright" (even if that's just for the few seconds as it passes through) without grokking that this is how sending stuff via AIM works.
[I can readily see someone like Harlan Ellison going off the deep end about this natural side effect of transmitting data, thus getting the lawyers in a tizzy.]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Nice analysis, thanks.
A ways upstream, I said something to the effect that as I read the TOS, the point here debated seems to be largely CYAism in the event some moron decides to sue AOL for copyright infringement because what said moron wrote was "copied" by AOL's servers. Thoughts?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I actually haven't heard of Telnet being used as an email client, but I'm not that "into" the IT world. No need to be rude, now. :/
Question though: Are those a legitimate way to send email? (is connecting to some person's mail server through telnet and sending away OK?)
Wait now. This sounds like its only on message boards eh? I've never heard the term "post" applied to an email attachment or IM attachment. However it does say "...by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL...". So I'm confused as to what exactly they can use. Are there any lawyers on here?
That's one way of looking at it. Allow me to suggest a different point of view. Slashdot fucked up, apparently by not even pretending to verify that the report was remotely fair. All the lickspittle blogophants picked it up and made a big mess. Now, could we hope to see even token care next time some cheap-shot headline opp comes along?
Probably not, since this is solidly in the slash tradition of old fashioned sensationalism. News for turds. Dark matter.
but of course, we already all knew that because we read the comments on the last story....right?! I assume everything on here is false until I read the comments and someone proves it right!
or else!
You can read the rest on his blog.
My opinion is that the AOL flaks are doing a spectacularly awful job handling the fallout. Just saying something like, "Gee, you misunderstand," isn't strong enough. Why the TOS wasn't entirely reworded today is beyond me.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
I think it's about time someone used that "Occam's Razor" term, the meme was falling off a bit.
The state of the current music industry is such that most of the song's appeal would come from the fact that it was released by AOL, and not the song's actual content. There is no magic song, it's all marketing. The real question is, how many songs being written today are WORTH stealing? ;)
You have to love the panic mongers. If you have a deep, dark secret, don't shout it in a public place, don't share it on a public network. It just takes a bit of common sense. Yeah, they could monitor me, but is there anything that they'd want to know?
Then there is the logistics of the matter. I know that they could filter out 99% of my conversations. I know many people like myself who just leave their chat clients up as a sort of answering machine or phone replacement. If you have a potentially sleeping baby in the house, or are working on a vexing problem from which you cannot be distracted, ringing the phone for minor things is considered rude. IM is a safe, quiet conversation. I can speak to a friend, and come off as semi-articulate and intelligent, and they can't hear me yelling at my 4 kids in the background.
A typical conversation of mine:
Of course, "pick up bread" is code for pseudo ephedrine, coffee filters, drain cleaner, ether....
People can intercept your email too, so what? The implementation of Martial Law, oh, I mean The Patriot Act, has extended the government's wire tap privileges further into the phone system, with less and less of a reason needed. What about the security of cell phones? And how many of these panic mongers don't think twice before using a regular cordless phone at home. I can tell you from experience that these are not secure! I had to quit using a baby monitor, as I was sick of listening to my neighbor's late night drunken sobs to her friends about her husband. Hmm, the things that you learn when you listen to people's private calls. That was a morbid fascination for a short time, but it wore off quickly.
Much of it comes down to the fact that monitoring most people's communication would be a crashing bore. Sure, you could write content filters, as you do for spam detection, but how many false negatives, and how many false positives do you have with that? I'd expect the same level of difficulty monitoring IM's
IM is great for jotting off a few thoughts. It's not for exchanging company secrets. If you want to do that, at least use a private network, or better yet, meet in person. IM is great for multi-tasking. As you sit on hold, or buried in the 7th level of voice mail hell, you can carry on a conversation, or give and get tech support. "What was the command to fix that problem on my machine again?" copy, click, paste, Fixed! "Thanks again!" Do you realize how much easier that former scenario is than saying "Pipe, that straight line, on the key over the enter key, do you see it? It didn't work? Did you hit shift? Is the line vertical, or slanted?...(continue ad infinitum)"
With IM, you can, potentially help multiple people at one time as well. (All while playing a game of whatever keeps you from slitting your wrists on a daily basis.) As your minions actually attempt to execute what you have given them, there is invariably some time wasted. If you were on the phone with them, you'd have to hang on while they check to see if the fix worked. This way, they are still in your que, and yet you can move on to someone else.
There is also another great element to IM on a public server, with public profiles. People can, if they wish, put things in their public profile that would bring together people with like interests from around the world. I have developed many online friends due to one common interest or another listed on a public profile. Sure, for the
Perhaps, but honestly, my thought was AOL doesn't want to be held liable when someone intercepts the IM I wrote to Bill Gates in 1980 suggesting he create a new GUI to be called "Windows".
By explicitly stating that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (to borrow some criminal law language), you can't turn around and sue AOL when, in fact, it turns out that IMs are completely not secure.
Ah, yes, very good point. Sortof like "if you dance in the department store window, don't get pissed when people laugh and point." :)
If they'd just SAID that in so many words, users wouldn't be up in arms. But how would such straightforward language be viewed by the courts?? Seriously, is it legally less effective to just SAY "If you transmitted it by IM, *anyone* might see it" ??
[OT: I went to beadstore.com, way nifty stuff!! practical site but lots of errors in the HTML. Holler if'n ya wants some help.]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Hey thanks :)
:) My email is greenie20902 at yahoo.com. Thanks!
Unlike most people on Slashdot who play lawyer, I'm a lawyer who plays programmer. Please -- any help would be greatly appreciated! (And rewarded with free stuff, of course
Watch your mailbox... Incoming!!! :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I'm no fan of AOL, but to be fair I suspect this whole fiasco was a mistake rather than some evil plan to 0wn everyone's private communications. Some lawyer wrote a paragraph without really thinking it through, and it ended up being broader than intended. Everyone else at AOL who reviewed the terms of service read it as applying to public postings (as intended), and it didn't occur to them that the text could be interpreted as applying to private conversations as well.
*** Bit off topic I know, related to parent ***
;)
:)
I actually haven't heard of Telnet being used as an email client, but I'm not that "into" the IT world. No need to be rude, now.
Yep. Telnet is not an "email client" though, it's simply an app that opens a specified port. It can be used to connect to any port at any IP address. A great utility for checking connectivity (issues).
Email servers use plain text to communicate, so it is very simple to use it for email, in and outgoing.
Are those a legitimate way to send email?
I wouldn't say any way is "legitimate" or not, it is simply a (manual) method. Typically end-users don't have a mail server, it is usually hosted by an ISP or similar. More and more SMTP (outgoing) mail server require authentication, so it is not as simple as it once was. Also, typically, if I am not on YOUR ISP's network, it won't let me send out (usually get a response "mail relaying denied"). This is good, it is more secure (i.e. no spam from just any SMTP server), however, I can send out mail from MY ISP's server as whomever I choose (e.g. I can send a message that appears to be from thepope@pope.com, or you@yourdomain.com)...there's no way to block this sort of behaviour unless all email servers everywhere require authentication...then mail relaying could be permitted...but then it would require all SMTP and POP servers to be directly linked to allow for authentication.
Arg.
One handy thing is: If I am somewhere where my POP/SMTP account is not setup, I can use the local SMTP server to send out mail to someone I need to, even though I am not at my own station, and without having to set an account up on the local machine.
I know, I know, long drawn out story, and this isn't the half of it.
Send me an email to my hotmail if you wish to discuss further, ok?
Sorry if I sounded rude, I didn't mean it.
Inject.
Many years ago I had a friend who's parents would regularly request his AIM chat logs in order to check on his behavior at the time. And yes, these were AIM to AIM member, no AOL members involved. AOL lying to the public to save face? Never!