Slashdot Mirror
Protection From Online Eviction?
AOL has been shutting down its free Web services, in some cases with little or no notice to users, and they are not the only ones. This blog post on the coming "datapocalypse" makes the case that those who host Web content should be required to provide notice and access to data for a year, and be held strictly accountable the way landlords are before they can evict a tenant. Some commenters on the post argue that you get what you pay for with free Web services, and that users should be backing up their data anyway. What do you think, should there be required notice and access before online hosts take user data offline for good?
What has happened here was not eviction. If we are going to use that word correctly, that is.
Unless those people paid for a web hosting package, they have zero recourse and they cannot be evicted as they never paid a dime for anything. They should not have any either.
I am sure there was some sort of TOS agreed to that it was for free and no guarantees were going to be made to it's avaiabilbity, backups of data were the users responsibility, etc.
This seems to be some sort of insane sense of entitlement by some people. Some delusion that servers, data storage, and bandwidth are free. That once they find their place to squat that "they are owed" something by the people that actually own that space.
Huh?
That's ... ridiculous. "They've gone plaid".
It was a free service and the web hosting providers have every right to do whatever the hell they want. There is no 99.9999% uptime SLA. It's called, "It's free. So sit down, have a coke, and shut the fuck up" SLA.
The argument that there has to be some sort of socialist laws guarantying free and protected web space to the people is just nuts.
Anyone wonder why property investors avoid certain parts of the East Cost US like the plague? It's because they have those laws there that can keep a squatter in a place for 9 months WHILE THEY DON'T PAY A DIME TO THE LANDLORD. Meanwhile, the landlord is paying a mortgage, property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.
Those people are parasites.
What is needed are clear terms of usage. If those state the owner of the free service can take the site down with no advance warning and without providing access to the data, they can do so. The site owner in turn can decide whether he wants to deal with such a free service or not.
You obviously have to have a local copy of your data at some point. Why are you deleting it?
It's free, so how can anyone complain?
Anyone who uses a free webhost and doesn't have a backup of the website is completely without my sympathy if the free webhoster decides to delete the site.
If the site is important, spend the money for a hosted site, it will probably cost less per month than your internet connection. Besides, most ISPs give you a site with your connection.
Even if you have paid for a site, you should have your own backup. At least one.
In the case of renters, we have legal protection because if you get evicted without notice you may find yourself temporarily homeless, and that is a *huge* problem. It has direct impacts on people that extend far beyond the simple financial costs of moving on short notice.
On the other hand, getting your web site shut down really only has economic impacts that are in line with the cost of moving your web site. So, if those costs are large, you should have a service level agreement with your hosting provider. The one exception is all those old links to your web site. Requiring hosting providers to provide redirects to your new site seems minimally intrusive for all concerned, and solves the problem. However, I think the size of the problem is small relative to the cost of adding yet more random crud to our legal code. If your web presence is even marginally important, buy your own domain name and then if you get evicted set it up to point to your new host.
And it goes without saying that you should have backups of your data. You should always have backups of your data.
The correct response to these things is to make a big stink about it online, so people know who to avoid (and possibly shame the companies into handling the evictions better). It is emphatically not more nanny state regulations to protect ourselves from doing things that were stupid in the first place.
You should be backing up everything that you don't want to lose anyways in case that the online service provider isn't backing stuff up.
It doesn't even have to be malicious, Journalspace is a good example of people who didn't know what a backup was and lost a bunch of data.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
The basic reason for the notice requirement on evictions is that evictions tend to leave a person without a home. When getting cut off from online access to relatively unimportant content has the same devastating repercussions, I guess the same requirements will begin to apply.
cb_is_cool knows where his towel is.
Huh? As far as I can tell from the links, they gave about 6 weeks' notices for all these things. That seems to me like a very reasonable amount of advance notice, considering this is a free service. If users had a small amount of content, then they can just cut and paste it into a word processor to preserve it. If they had the world's most extensive blog, with hundreds of thousands of words scattered through thousands of posts, and six weeks isn't enough time to evacuate ... well, they shouldn't have entrusted such an important part of their life to a free service without making regular backups.
Find free books.
I'd like for web.archive.org to be more reliable.
This is a good warning at a time when cloud computing is becoming a popular concept to both businesses and software developers. Businesses will hopefully make it a priority to invest in and expect cross-compatible solutions and keep local backups. Software developers will hopefully listen and make these options available, even though it may be in their interest to lock up that data.
In addition, it will probably affect a lot of users who store important information or contacts lists or conversation histories that may need to be referred to daily by these individuals, and serve as a warning to them as to what can happen if they start to store a lot of important data that they cannot easily backup for use in applications that may not always be available.
Twinstiq, game news
This is AOL we are talking about here. A month is barely enough time to recover the text of the website, much less the images.
Yes, absolutely. There should be a law against anything that might cause even the slightest inconvenience. Nothing bad should ever happen to anybody, and if it does, someone has to pay.
In the computer room at my college, many years ago, there was the following sign:
Rule 1: Always make a backup.
Rule 2: Always make a backup. (This is a backup of Rule 1)
Just because things are now on Web 2.0 services over the internet doesn't change the fundamental dictum. If you care about the data, it is you who needs backups. If you don't make backups, obviously you don't care (enough)...
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
I've had about 4 reminder emails over the past 6 months telling me that AOL pictures will be closing, even though I don't use it - I just happen to have AOL as my ISP (or used to, until they sold everything to Carphone Warehouse / TalkTalk..)
So in that particular case, I got quite a good "eviction" notice in plenty of time, even though I don't occupy the building!
...is the public housing project of the internet.
Something that could help mitigate the consequences of things like this in future is something that I have been looking for for quite a while now.... a FF extension that will automatically save all the contents of all submitted forms.
FF already (mainly annoyingly) saves some of what gets entered into forms, but it won't save this rant, for instance. It'll save every possible typo varient of an email address that you might enter, and offer you the typos until the end of time, but the content you might want again in the future? Oh no.
Has anyone seen an extension like this? Or know of an extension that may have this feaure?
Car analogies break down.
I paid for it as part of my contract with AOL. Push has come to shove. See you later AOL.
I remember MP3.com around the year 2000, when it was actually cool. Indie bands could post their music in any of zillions of genres, and you could listen with a click. I fell in love with one particular genre, the New Age genre, which consists of lots of trance tracks. But when MP3.com started down the "we host your CD library for you!" I knew that the game was about up and that they were about to be sued into oblivion (which happened), and wrote a bash/wget script to download everything I could of the MP3s. I still have this collection of MP3s today, almost 10 years later. In fact, I'm listening to it right now.
Aren't backups great?
If you care, take a look at the SLA. And if it's free, don't cry about not getting what you didn't pay for in the first place.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I own a few servers, and both sell hosting to paying customers, and give free hosting to some friends.
I try to always keep everyone informed on what's going on. Last time I upgraded one server to a newer model, I gave everyone on that server 4 months notice and kept the old server running for 2 more months after the new server was up and in regular service. And I keep meticulous daily backups, and have been known to mail DVDs of their own data to those who ask for them, even for those who host on my servers for free.
But on a free service, people, you don't have "rights" to "demand" jack shit. If you don't like my terms for free hosting, then shuffle your cheap ass off to another host. Web hosting is one of those services where you get what you pay for. If you want guarantees and a formal policy, then you're going to give me some of those little American government generated pictures of dead presidents in return.
It never ceases to amaze me how people with no financial investment or payments at stake are so readily willing to tell equipment owners what to do. And because of them, I'm just as readily willing to tell freeloaders to kiss my web hosting ass.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
IMO it depends on whether you're paying and have a contract or not. If you're not paying (in cash or in some other form), then the host should be entitled to terminate without warning. They should be required to provide a way for you to back up your content, but if you haven't been using it they shouldn't be obliged to do anything. You get what you pay for.
If you are paying, then at least 30 days' warning should be required and the host should be obliged to provide some way for you to transfer your data off. If they're taking money, they don't get to simply disregard their customers. A caveat to that should be that if there's a written contract then the terms of that contract should apply. If the contract lets the host terminate with no warning and no opportunity for you to recover your data, and you were dumb enough to sign it, then you should suffer the consequences. If there wasn't a written, signed contract (eg. all there was was the host's standard ToS that you didn't have to explicitly sign), then minimum requirements should apply regardless.
Give me a break. if you want some sort of TOS, buy an account.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In New York City, the tenants' rights are pretty strong. It's almost impossible for a landlord to evict a tenant who pays the rent, and it takes 6 months to evict a tenant who doesn't pay the rent. My landlord has to renew my yearly lease, at an increase regulated by law. After living here several years, I'm paying about half as much as the people who are now moving in paying what we call "market rent."
That's because (1) There are more tenants in New York City than landlords (2) We had a long tradition of socialist movements in New York City that taught people how to organize into tenants' organizations and demand that our City Council pass strong laws protecting tenants. The strongest, most aggressive organization was the Metropolitan Council on Housing, whose leader, Esther Rand, openly supported the Communist Party (Lenin never liked landlords). For all their faults, those Communists knew how to organize people.
Surprisingly (for those of you who believe in the free market) it works pretty well. The landlords are still getting rich (some of them very rich). There's lots of new housing being built. And a lot of people are able to live in New York City who could never have afforded to live here otherwise. There were some houses abandoned during the economic downturn of the 80s, but that seemed to affect both rent-controlled and uncontrolled housing equally, and it happened in cities without rent control too.
In contrast, Boston had a rent control law, but a few years ago they voted it out. The last I heard, the rents have gone up, it was much harder to get an apartment in Boston, there's no building boom in affordable housing, and from a tenant's POV they're worse off than they used to be. But I'd be interested in first-hand information.
I personally don't think rent control is the ideal solution. I think people who can't afford market-rate rents should be able to live in public housing projects (which also work better than you'd think), and landlords should be allowed to get as rich they want (provided they don't do it at my expense). But rent control was part of a grand bargain that the landlords in New York City struck with the tenants' organizations.
I think the lesson is that tenants can get a much better housing market, with more affordable rents, if they organize and pass laws that benefit them, than they would if they leave it to the free market. If you want to learn how to organize, do a Google search for an MP3 of Pete Seeger's song, "Talking Union." Or search for "Howard Zinn".
If you kick up a big enough stink, I'm sure they'll refund the purchase price... heck, they may even double it in this case!
I see XDrive goes away as well on Jan. 12, 2009. Makes you wonder why AOL bought it out in the first place. While I don't claim I have rights in a free service for which the TOS state clearly that it can be ended at any time without nice, it is still a pain and raises in my mind the question others have: how much should we rely on free online services? The obvious answer based on experience seems to be, not at all, but what about something really big like Gmail? I use POP3 to backup my Gmail correspondence locally, but free or not and rights or no rights, if a service such as Gmail shut down it would really rock a lot of boats.
If I invite you as a guest into my house, I can kick you out whenever I want. I don't have to give you 2 weeks notice.
Actually, that's not always the case:
(http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2007/12/06/how_to_evict_house_guest_who_refuses_to_pay_rent/)
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
AOL offered something FREE?! Did you look for the asterisk that came after the word 'FREE'? Hmmmmm..... me thinks not.....
The TEN COMMANDMANTS OF AOL:
1) THOU SHALT NOT OFFER ANYTHING FREE, UNLESS IN CONJUNCTION WITH #3 AND/OR #4
2) THOU SHALT BONE THY CUSTOMER FOR EVERY PENNY THOU CAN GET.
3) THOU SHALT DROWN THY CUSTOMER IN ADVERTISING, PROMOS, AND PRODUCT TIE-INS.
4) THOU SHALT COVER THY EARTH WITH AOL DISKS.
5) THOU SHALT PROVIDE CUSTOMER SERVICE AS HORRIBLY AS THY CAN IMAGINE.
6) THOU SHALT DISAPPOINT THY STOCKHOLDERS.
7) THOU SHALT HOLD DATA FOR RANSOM.
8) THOU SHALT NOT PRACTICE BUSINESS ETHICS.
9) THOU SHALT COLLABORATE WITH BIG BROTHER FOR LIFE-SUSTAINING CASH.
10) THOU SHALT PLACE EMPHASIS ON THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "Caveat Emptor").
If you take the bait of a 'free' (or ANY) service from AOL, then you shouldn't be using the internet. Or running a web site.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Nice job, parent poster, dispelling the entitlement mentality of the article submitter. I keep hearing all of these supposed libertarian-minded /.'ers, who turn like Sinatra after two Martinis as soon as the other guy wants to exercise his own rights.
Anyone wonder why property investors avoid certain parts of the East Cost US like the plague? It's because they have those laws there that can keep a squatter in a place for 9 months WHILE THEY DON'T PAY A DIME TO THE LANDLORD. Meanwhile, the landlord is paying a mortgage, property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.
The People's Republic of Santa Monica is the same way. The renters' rights group there is the single-most powerful political organization in the city. So powerful, that even unrelated political groups (unions, you name it) have to align with the SMRR in Faustian bargains to get anything passed (you're either with us, or against us, as Bush says). Think about owning a building in that city! There are rent control laws, so why invest in your property? So the apartments are all dilapidated and ugly But go 5 miles east to Westwood, and the buildings are new and beautiful and have underground parking and nice workout rooms. And no rent control.
Funny how people here are afraid of the government actually doing what it is supposed to do, the whole reason we formed the social compact: Protect me and my shit from other people and other countries. Can't eavesdrop on terrorists outside the country or get DNA from a mosquito or demand a convicted rapist's e-mail account. But tell me what I can do with my own goddamn property? Sure! Redistribute wealth? Awesome!
It's not libertarian if you only want the government to stay out of your life. As I used to have in my sig: Slashdot, libertarian for me, statist for the other guy.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Read the TOS please. It states that AOL can take it down at anytime and the users agreed to that.
How about people taking some reponsibilty for a change?
Make stinking backups.
Heck USB flash drives and DVDs are CHEAP. make copies people.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Also, in contract law there is the notion of unconscionability, specifically that where one party to the contract is grossly more powerful than the other, the court can make decisions in favour of the less powerful party that would otherwise run afoul of contract law. True bargaining only occurs between equals, and the law has long recognized that.
There are actually two elements of unconscionability: Procedural and substantive. Procedural means that the process was unfair in some way; in this case, that the end user had no reasonable alternative but to sign a contract of adhesion. O rly? There aren't 100's of free Web hosts out there besides AOL? Not to mention the cheap-ass Web hosts out there. I have a great one with a free domain name for $7/month with phenomenal service that has backups in a different state! So I doubt there is procedural unconscionability.
As for substantive, were there grossly unfair - not just unfair, but so unfair as to "shock the conscience of the court" - or surprise terms in the contract? Or were AOL's TOS in line with what most free Web hosts offer? Substantive unconscionability is a very high burden to meet, and the vast majority of contracts of adhesion are upheld for this reason. Almost certainly this substantive element would fail as well.
It's this principle that is the source of the renter's protection laws that you despise so much.
No, the principle is that there are more renters than apartment owners, and therefore politicians pander to the tyranny of the majority (and those who feel sorry for them) while trampling on the property rights of the minority. Votes over principle. Just please don't call it "renters' rights." There are no such rights, only cynical politicians willing to rob from Peter to pay Paul; and the politician who does that will always have the support of Paul.
And lastly, if the cut-off of service wasn't mentioned at all in the TOS, the customers may have a remedy in tort for damages. The TOS would have to explicitly waive liability on cessation of service to exclude recovery in tort.
Dude, first off, stop trying to sound like a lawyer - it's like when a white guy tries to speak urban lingo - he just sounds lame. "A remedy in tort" - LOL.
Secondly, obviously the biggest ISP in the world has an indemnity clause in its TOS. More importantly, AOL is based in Virginia - a UCITA state - and its choice of forum and law clauses dictate all disputes are to be litigated there under VA law. So even without an indemnity clause, it's unlikely end users would win a lot of court cases in VA.
IAALBNYLATINLA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer And This Is Not Legal Advice). And I have taught business law for ten years, so I am not totally talking out of my arse.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Absolutely true that there are plenty of restrictions on what a company, or a person, can do to a victim. But I have a question for you: Who is the victim? The TOS, which is a contract agreed to by both parties, lays out that there is no guarantee of reliability, no promise that the service will continue to exist. Therefore, AOL has every right to terminate the contract. If the TOS says notice is required, then AOL must give notice. If not, then it is not required. Sure, it would be polite, but it isn't legally required. Since there was no breach of contract, there was no victim.
Right again. But who poisoned anyone? Who acted in a harmful manner? AOL provided the service as promised, as contracted by the TOS. So, again, there is no victim. There is only an upset user who didn't like the contract he signed after it was properly executed, then properly terminated.
These are the same people who assume that laws offer protections in situations they were never meant to apply for. These are the same people who sue gun companies for murder. These are the same people who offer up and/or fall prey to straw man arguments.
Like your arguments.
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
I access my *PAID* Gmail accounts (GMail managed domain email) via IMAP, and I make sure that all emails read are stored locally!!!
What the hell are people with free email accounts thinking if they do not back them up? Most of my life I've used "free" email accounts (ISP, school, free web based, etc. etc. etc.) and every account I ever cared about was backed up. Paid or not, it doesn't matter - in the end any company or service can fail (or think mirrored RAID is backup) and in the end it's YOU WHO ARE TRULY RESPONSIBLE for protecting your own data. Expecting a free service will go to any degree to protect your data or even exist tomorrow is sheerest madness in my mind.
GMail is a good example - I can't help thinking that if Google decided to delete all the GMail accounts without warning, there'd be an uproar on Slashdot.
No, there'd be two or three people like you and the rest of us laughing so hard your slashdot UID would grow by three digits from shame.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
if the terms of service say they can cancel it at anytime it's not reasonable to rely on it. dont' you think? or do you advocate a tyranny of the masses where people can happily ignore the terms on which anything is provided and enforce their uninformed assumptions later?
I've been a paying member of AOL long enough to be considered a "charter" member, and was quite irritated by AOL taking away their web-hosting @ members.aol.com --- I'd had pages up since its inception and had lots of people linking to said pages and files.
While I've gotten everything backed up and moved to a new site and notified everyone I could think of --- that doesn't address print references in journals and printed documentation --- all of which are now out-of-date.
I'd've gladly paid a bit extra, instead, I demanded a refund and cut my plan back to BYOA (bring your own access) --- how can this be good for their bottom line?
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.