Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL: We're Not Spying on AIM Users

Posted by timothy on from the but-your-tos-says-you-can dept.

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.

66 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. Right... by maotx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
    1. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What does AOL being a giant multi-billion dollar company have to do with this? If it's private, you don't trust anyone with your communications, except the receiving end. Please don't try to take a cheap jab at a company just for the sake of it being a company. Especially in this case since you've probably been leeching off AOL's servers for years without a second thought (you don't use the official AIM client with the revenue generating ads, do you?)

    2. Re:Right... by maotx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What does AOL being a giant multi-billion dollar company have to do with this?

      Money has a tendancy of corrupting. The bigger a company grows and the longer they are around the more likely you are to hear of some shady practices.

      Please don't try to take a cheap jab at a company just for the sake of it being a company

      I didn't for the sake of it being a company. I did it for the sake that they SAID in their TOS that they can. If AOL was meant to be a secure company then maybe I'd trust my secure communications with them.

      Especially in this case since you've probably been leeching off AOL's servers for years without a second thought (you don't use the official AIM client with the revenue generating ads, do you?)

      And why would I when they use interfaces I don't want and allow me to use someone elses for free?

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    3. Re:Right... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    4. Re:Right... by ticklejw · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have one word for you. Er... two... they're sorta hyphenated:

      gaim-encryption

      Of course, this doesn't mean that I agree with or approve of AOL or anything they do... I'm just saying, if you have to use the protocol, it provides a level of protection.

      --
      "Software is like sex; it's better when it's free." -Linus Torvalds
    5. Re:Right... by Epistax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Companies don't answer to people. Despite popular belief, no you can't vote with the dollar. You know how when electing a candidate you need to pick the one that you agree with the most, but will still disagree on many issues? With companies it's much worse. With maybe 3 or 4 companies most industries, what are you voting for? If you move from company A to company B, and they disagree on 50 issues, who's to say which reason they'll assume? (a lower rate? a specific feature? a privacy issue? due to what? something company A just did? something company B just did? something one of them mentioned doing in the future?)

      I'm much more trustworthy of entities which are not in it for the money, and are actually forced to accept feedback.

    6. Re:Right... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think when people here use the word "corporations", what they really mean is "publicly-owned corporations". Look at everything they wrote, replacing that term as I indicated, and it'll make a lot more sense.

      Two guys in a garage are not a publicly-owned corporation with a listing on a stock exchange, whereas larger corporations are. It's when corporations become large like this, and their only motivation is stock price, do they commonly exhibit the evil characteristics we're all so familiar with.

    7. Re:Right... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When people complain about the user interface in GIMP, or missing features in Firefox, or what-not, the standard Slashdot reply is: "It's free, you have no right to complain. If you don't like it, use something else."

      So my reply to this situation is, "AIM's free, you have no right to complain. If you don't like it, use something else."

      Maybe I'm growing older or something, but doesn't it seem like almost every Slashdot story now is "whine whine whine" over some stupid inconsequential detail? Especially the "your rights online" stories... OH NOES! PEOPLE LOOKING AT TRAFFIC CAMERAS CAN SEE IF YOU'RE PICKING YOUR NOSE! Christ.

      --
      Comment of the year
    8. Re:Right... by ModernGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      To make a long story short, I had a friend go through the classic "I love everyone and you mommy" to a goth, "Fuck the world". Well, while going through this transition, he smoked pot, had syber sex, and swore a lot, but his parents didn't know. Until AOL stepped in and send all of his conversations to his father. Like a normal ho-head, he told his dad he only tried it once, blah blah, even though his dad knew he did it a bunch since he would email all his friends about it when he did it. Well, his dad takes everything from him and he rebels even more. To keep this short, his mom dies a few years later, and he breaks out of it all and is a normal person. AOL watched my friend, and decided to step in the middle of things and send all this stuff to his dad. Don't know what you think, but it sounds to me like they DO monitor their stuff.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    9. Re:Right... by WebMink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree. This whole hypefest may be a storm in a thimble but it reinforces the need to use an end-to-end encryption that you control. Personally I think Ethereal is a more real threat than the AOL ToS but the solution is the same.

      For encryption, I'm not an advocate of gaim-encryption as the answer. It means that people all need to use Gaim and that's just not practical. Personally I think OTR is a better option. As well as a GAIM plug-in it offers a proxy so that any IM tool can be made secure, and it addresses the weaknesses gaim-encryption ignores - from their FAQ:

      The gaim-encryption plugin provides encryption and authentication, but not deniability or perfect forward secrecy. If an attacker or a virus gets access to your machine, all of your past gaim-encryption conversations are retroactively compromised. Further, since all of the messages are digitally signed, there is difficult-to-deny proof that you said what you did: not what we want for a supposedly private conversation!
      Best of all, it's dead simple to use.
    10. Re:Right... by sulli · · Score: 2, Informative

      No Mac OS X version. Is there something equivalent for OS X?

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    11. Re:Right... by peculiarmethod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really have to argue with you on this point..

      "Do you really believe a company that generates billions of dollars is going to assign someone to just read your IMs? Are you afraid of an ad hominem attack or something? It sounds really unreasonable to me."

      It's not valid to say one shouldn't worry just because it's numerically unlikely that something will happen. Sure, most communications will be trivial, and it will be financially unsound to sort through those without some major technology like carnivore. This is not the point. The company in question took the time to pay lawyers to hash out that part of the contract, which means they've put even more time into having research/marketing/development look into it. That's a lot of man power, which means they expct to do SOMETHING with the information.. one whatever scale. Sooo.. think about it this way. Seeing as how this deals with communications (speech), how would you adjust your opinion if you removed yourself from reality, and just pretended for a second that the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights was written on a system like this first, then moved to public domain. Who would own it? Even if the people did, the company would have the right to lease and sell those words. Now.. removed yourself from this fictional land. Isn't it possible that someone on the AOL system will have communications just as sensitive, important, or personal as these huge documents? Shouldn't we be allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy and ownership of our own words? I mean.. we are PAYING them for this service.. should we have to pay them, AND work for them? (by work, I mean they may profit from our most personal creations, our thoughts/words)

      enough of that.. I think you can see my point.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
  2. MSN Messenger had similar claim by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 :: faster than paper
    1. Re:MSN Messenger had similar claim by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hate replying to self, but found an article about it being changed.
      here

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  3. too late.. by TheHawke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Surprise? by mattmentecky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Surprise? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Surprise? by DarkMantle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's more the fact that they claim to own your conversations and can do as they wish with it. This implies they may be reading it, or just logging it.

      Either way, if i'm sending lyric clips to a friend of mine who lives 100+Km away, I don't want them selling the chorus to someone else.

      And to add to that. How many people use an IM program of some sort for work? Should aoHell own their ideas too?

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    3. Re:Surprise? by GreyyGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The issue isn't privacy. The issue is who owns your ideas. According to AOL's TOS, you give them the right to use your ideas and comments however they want.

    4. Re:Surprise? by Twanfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

  5. No fire extinquishing here... by Imidazole · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:No fire extinquishing here... by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, since you ask...

      The CIA and NSA are answerable to the government and, in theory, the people. AOL is answerable to its shareholders. The CIA and NSA will do what is necessary to carry out their mandate within the legal boundaries the government provides, AOL will do everything it can get away with to make money.

      Quite frankly, I'd sooner trust the CIA and NSA and I'm a tinfoil hatter.

    2. Re:No fire extinquishing here... by makomk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The CIA and NSA are answerable to the government and, in theory, the people.

      Very much in theory. I mean, how can an organisation be answerable to a group of people who cannot legally find out what the organistaion is up to?

      At least there isn't a law preventing the press reporting corporations' misdeeds - yet. (Though whether they'd dare report them is another matter entirely...)

  6. Maybe there should be an edit... by lotussuper7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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. :-}
    1. Re:Maybe there should be an edit... by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

  7. Lawyers by MagPulse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Companies have no morals by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Companies have no morals by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Never forget that companies are made up of people. While I agree that if it is in a company's interest to do something and they are able to, they will, don't think that they'll do it "without hesitation". The person making the decision may well hesitate; the people implementing it may well hesitate; but ultimately it'll happen, I agree with that.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  9. i like being spyed on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    i like to live dangerously

    (parody of their stupid commercials)

  10. Storage by CleverNickedName · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  11. The TOS is a CYA by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.)

  12. "Free" not as in Beer by Fox_1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  13. Re:Answer by krymsin01 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't forget to not use their servers as well. Oh wait, then you aren't using AIM.

    --
    stuff
  14. AOL cares by d'oh89 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Amercia Online would like you to know that the authors of the recent changes to the Terms of Service have been sacked. We have replaced them with a group of llamas and an unlaiden swallow. Please continue to use our free service and tell all of your friends that it is now safe again to use our software. We promise to only disclose Instant Message logs with a court order. As those are extremely hard to get nowadays (excluding DMCA, Patriot Act, etc.) there should be no need to worry. And please take off your tinfoil hat now.

    Sincerely,

    Your neighborhood AOL conglomerate

  15. Re:bah by TheoMurpse · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, GAIM does log if you want it too. I live in Texas, where logging only requires one-party consent, and thus I log every conversation I have, then manually delete the ones I don't want (spambots, etc).

    http://gaim.sf.net/ is the GAIM site, so you don't have to go looking for it later.

  16. Highly coincidental by HiMyNameIsSam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  17. Re:bah by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  18. Is it possible to delete AIM accounts? by fialar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've never been able to find the option to actually -delete- an AIM account. Has anyone else?

    1. Re:Is it possible to delete AIM accounts? by Gamma_UCF · · Score: 2, Informative
      From TFM:

      To remove a screen name from the Sign On screen

      1. Display the Sign On screen, and select the screen name that you want to delete.

      2. Press the Delete key.

      Note

      - You cannot delete screen names but only remove them from the Sign On screen.

      Copyright © 1997-2004, America Online, Inc. All rights reserved.

      I believe the rules are the same as AOL members. After a certain period of time of inactivity (about 3-6 months), the screen name will go unassigned, and may be able to be taken by others afterwards.

      --
      -Gamma
  19. How to put the fire out. by zotz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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
  20. Kidding me... by The-Bus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This was already deduced in the original story by this post. To wit:

    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.


    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.

    1. Re:Kidding me... by justforaday · · Score: 2, Funny

      Comments are owned by the Poster.

      Remember kids, all your base are belong to him...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  21. whatever. by untaken_name · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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/
  22. So AOL is officially spyware, right? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!
  23. Re:bah by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  24. Slashdot.org's TOS are no diff... by bstuffer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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 :-)

  25. Too late by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2, Informative

    AOL will have to change the ToS. The cat is out of the bag. Drudge Report is carrying the story as of this morning.

  26. Remember, this is Slashdot! by agraupe · · Score: 2, Funny
    It is our job to be completely paranoid about something that most of us probably misunderstand!

    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.

  27. Re:Answer by jgoguen · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  28. Re:Answer by emilymildew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.)

  29. Gaim-Encryption by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  30. Meme killin' time by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

  31. Yes, for OS X by bach37 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fink. The gaim version in Fink works fine.

  32. AOL can use copyrighted material w/o compensation by solprovider · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  33. Of course by joel2600 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "He also says AIM communiques are never stored on AOL's hard drives."

    of course not... they don't have the need... all of the "communiques" are stored on the NSA's servers. /super obvious?

  34. Re:bah by carcajou · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read the excerpts and it sounds like they are saying they can use any info passed through their server...if you set Gaim up to use your AOL account, and it is passed through the AOL server, then they will still have (in their opinion) the right to use the info you transfer...

  35. Re:Answer by SirTalon42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Use the GAIM-Encryption plug-in for your sensitive conversations.

  36. It's not as simple as that. by mindaktiviti · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  37. If its important, encrypt by grendel_x86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 /. isnt the real world, that would really suck..
  38. Re:Huh? I don't get it.... /. was Wrong. Apologize by sampson7 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  39. Re:AOL can use copyrighted material w/o compensati by secondshadow · · Score: 2, Informative
    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
  40. Not that many people have much to hide... by neo5064 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    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-1.1.4 .exe?download

    You can get a nice GAIM Encryption Plugin here:
    http://gaim-encryption.sourceforge.net/

  41. I read the TOS, it's just legal ass-covering. by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:I read the TOS, it's just legal ass-covering. by Baricom · · Score: 2, Informative

      That may be the intent (I actually believe it is); however, that is not what they said in the TOS. If they want that to be the intent, they should have their lawyers re-write the contract, as Yahoo did.

    2. Re:I read the TOS, it's just legal ass-covering. by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that no matter its intent, as it is present written it *will* be widely misinterpreted, because its language is so ridiculously overreaching. AOL's lawyers should be dosed with anti-hyperactives, and sent back to the drawing board.

      Let that be a lesson to folk writing contracts: if you do too much ass-covering, you wind up splattering shit all over.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  42. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! by SandiConoverJones · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The sky is falling, the sky is falling! They're out to get me! (I used to be paranoid, but now I know that everyone's out to get me!)

    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:

    me: How's your day going?

    DH: Ok, I guess.
    me: Boss being a twit?
    DH: Yeah, BRB.
    me: You going to be home on time?
    DH has gone away
    DH: You still there?
    me: Oh, hi! You there?
    me: If your're there can you pick up a loaf of bread on your way home?

    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