Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL Changing IM Terms of Service

Posted by Zonk on from the at-least-they're-trying dept.

gpmac writes "AOL has responded to the recent slashdot attention. America Online Inc. plans to make three small but significant modifications to the terms of service for its AIM instant messaging product to head off a firestorm of privacy-related criticisms. The tweaks to the terms of service will be made in the section titled "Content You Post" and will explicitly exclude user-to-user chat sessions from the privacy rights an AIM user gives up to AOL."

11 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Too little, too late by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've already stopped flirting with girls on IM. Although, I am working on a secret code. People that intercept my instant messages won't be able to understand a word I'm saying. I'll replace "you" with "u", "that's funny" with "lol", "skate" witk "sk8." Things like that. All in the name of privacy.

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:Too little, too late by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately, Microsoft has already shown people how to decode these messages.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Too little, too late by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately, Microsoft has already shown people how to decode [microsoft.com] these messages.

      Circumventing a content protection scheme. Shame on them. Where's the DMCA when you need it?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. From TFA... by leonmergen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We're not making any policy changes. We're making some linguistic changes to clarify certain things and explain it a little better to our users," AOL spokesperson Andrew Weinstein told eWEEK.com.

    Hmmm, is it just me or does this look like making things look better ? From my experience, lawyers usually pay a lot of attention on the things they write, and especially these kind of mistakes are the ones that plainly don't happen in published legal documents...

    ... unless they wanted to trick you into it, ofcourse.

    --
    - Leon Mergen
    http://www.solatis.com
    1. Re:From TFA... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From my experience, lawyers usually pay a lot of attention on the things they write, and especially these kind of mistakes are the ones that plainly don't happen in published legal documents... ... unless they wanted to trick you into it, ofcourse.
      No, you are full of crap. If a lawyer says, "Sign this document, and we'll execute contract A," and then has you sign a document actually only authorizing contract B, the signed document would be thrown out in court. If the lawyer knew about it, he might be liable, and he might be guilty of fraud.

      Once AOL publically said, "No, we have not and will not read AIM chats," it better have been the truth, otherwise they could get turned inside out in court. No matter what their privacy policy said.
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  3. AOL's new motto by Zemplar · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We AIM to Please!"

    From information gathered by reading your private messages, we've decided to retract former policies.

  4. From TFA... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not to quote the lion's share of the article here, but there are some things that need to be seen...

    The tweaks to the terms of service will be made in the section titled "Content You Post" and will explicitly exclude user-to-user chat sessions from the privacy rights an AIM user gives up to AOL.

    "We're not making any policy changes. We're making some linguistic changes to clarify certain things and explain it a little better to our users," AOL spokesperson Andrew Weinstein told eWEEK.com.

    The modifications will use similar language from the AIM privacy policy to "make it clear that AOL does not read private user-to-user communications," Weinstein said.

    [...]

    More importantly, Weinstein said a blunt and inelegant line that reads "You waive any right to privacy" will be deleted altogether.

    "That's a phrase that should not have been in that section in the first place. It clearly caused confusion, with good reason," Weinstein conceded.

    [...]

    Justin Uberti, chief architect for AIM, also joined the discussion, admitting the controversial section of the terms of service was "vague" and needed to be reworded.

    Uberti explained on his Weblog that the amount of IM traffic on the AIM network "is on the order of hundreds of gigabytes a day."

    "It would be very costly, and we have no desire to record all IM traffic. We don't do it," Uberti wrote.

    For AIM users who remain distrustful, Uberti pointed out that the application offers Direct IM (aka Send IM Image) and Secure IM in all recent versions.

    "In other words, you can send your IMs in such a way that they never go through our servers, and/or are encrypted with industry-standard SSL and S/MIME technology. I know this since I designed these features. There are no backdoors; I would not have permitted any," Uberti said.

  5. Don't you people watch Law and Order? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have already proved in court, many many times, that you have no expectation of privacy in such things as email and instant messaging. I'm not sure why were even discussing this.

  6. So does AOL listen? by jcm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully folks will appreciate the amount of sway that a good argument does have at AOL. If it wasn't for public discussion the TOS probably would not have been changed. But the public discussion happened and there will now be a more specific TOS statements. I wish folks would always give AOL a chance instead of immediately bashing. Was this enough to buy some good will from folks for the future?

  7. And directly from... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...Juberti's blog (the chief architect for the AIM service):

    AIM Privacy and Slashdot

    OK, I am getting tired of hearing about how "The new AIM TOS allows AOL to have all rights to anything you say on IM, AOL reads/stores all your IMs, etc."

    I take this kind of personally, because that is not something I would want to be associated with.

    First off, that blurb in the TOS only refers to AIM forum posts, not IMs. I agree that it is vague and should be reworded to be clear.

    Second, the amount of IM traffic is on the order of hundreds of gigabytes a day. It would be very costly, and we have no desire to record all IM traffic. We don't do it.

    Thirdly, if you still don't trust us, we have Direct IM (aka Send IM Image) and Secure IM in all recent versions of the AIM software. In other words, you can send your IMs in such a way that they never go through our servers, and/or are encrypted with industry-standard SSL and S/MIME technology. I know this since I designed these features. There are no backdoors; I would not have permitted any.

    I am saying this as a concerned invidual, and not as a corporate mouthpiece.

  8. because of SLASHDOT?!?!? by xxavierg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "AOL has responded to the recent slashdot attention."

    where in the article did it say that slashdot was the motivating force? i read that it was just received a "firestorm of privacy-related criticism". please, this might be a popular site, but don't take credit where none is deserved. especially when the article never mentioned any group in particular. i am sure slashdot was one of MANY groups, organization, sites, etc. that complained. but in no did it change it's policy just because of slashdot...