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.

Comments

Right...

[maotx]

"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.

Re:Right...

[the_mad_poster]

First of all, it's irrelevant whether or not it seems "unreasonable" for AOL to take and redistribute your private information. The point is that they said they're willing to do it, so it should be assumed that they will. If someone points a gun at my head and says "don't worry, it's not loaded", I'm still going to assume it's loaded on the basis that they wouldn't have put a gun to my head if they didn't intend to kill me. People's actions do, indeed, speak louder than words, and AOL has obviously taken the initiative to decide that, if they see fit, they're going to take your communications and resuse them for their own personal gain.

And his complaint targeting a private company was perfectly valid. Corporate entities have shown an amazing lack of common sense, appropriate discretion, self restraint, and moral clarity in the time they've existed. Whereas an individual citizen has little or nothing to gain from spying on your point to point communications, a coporation most certainly has everything to gain. They exist for the sole purpose of making money, and in a capitalist system such as the one AOL exists in, moral fiber has no place. If they intercept valuable data, as a corporation, the only thing stopping them from taking it and using it for their own purposes are laws. They're effectively saying here that they refuse to be bound by any laws, so it can only be assumed that the intent is to glean valuable data and reuse it for, perhaps, marketing research.

The conclusion here is quite simple. If a corporation refuses to be bound to appropriate, decent behavior by the law, it won't act appropriately or decently. Individuals have no such problem in most cases because, unlike corporations, they have little or no need for the sorts of things that would require them to be bound.

His jab at a company for being a company was perfectly legitimate, even if he wasn't sure why that was so.

too late..

[TheHawke]

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.

Surprise?

[mattmentecky]

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.

Re:Surprise?

[TheoMurpse]

There is a difference between what you are saying -- what a person says via AIM is insecure -- and what the terms of service actually allow -- that AOL has the right to go as far as publish your writings in a book if they wanted to.

That is what people are surprised about -- that AOL would have the gall to allow themselves something like that.

Re:Surprise?

[Twanfox]

That's pretty dismissive, and an inappropriate way to view their TOS. That's like saying "if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind if we search your home for contraband." "Judging by the quality of items in your home, you won't mind if we steal or break a few of them." It doesn't f'king matter if the quality is good or not, no company should ever say "Hey, something you created, but happen to transmit to someone else over our network... well, that's ours. We get to do whatever we want with it."

What would happen if the phone company did that? How about your ISP for anything you ever sent? Oh, I'm sure that you probably don't mind yourself, as you haven't written anything that's truely astounding to the world of Men. However, it's the rare gems, the potential for abuse, that should be, at all times, limited. The ability to usurp someone else's writings is one such potential that should be curtailed, no matter if it's likely or not.

After all, if it's this today, what will happen tomorrow after we're used to this little abuse?

No fire extinquishing here...

[Imidazole]

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.

Lawyers

[MagPulse]

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.

"Free" not as in Beer

[Fox_1]

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.

Re:bah

[LiquidCoooled]

Eh? Encryption isn't the solution to end users logging conversatations in their IM client.
This issue relates to the main central servers eavesdropping on EVERYONEs conversations.

Encrypting the conversation should prevent eavesdropping on route, but won't prevent logging in the client.

Re:Maybe there should be an edit...

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

I don't see the need for an update. Their TOS still says what it said back then, and CowboyNeal didn't claim they actually had a habit of monitoring AIM messages.

The fact that they now say they're not monitoring, does not covince me that the TOS weren't intentionally vague.

Re:bah

[mattyrobinson69]

in gaim encryption is done client>client, the server doesn't get anything readable because the protocol doesn't support it.

Gaim-Encryption

[accessdeniednsp]

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.

I read the TOS, it's just legal ass-covering.

[Reziac]

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.]