Re:So what good is this article?
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 2
Thank you, I was just looking to post that link. =)
A few random comments to the overflowing posts here if I may....
Yes we are called an "anti-aol" site. Yes many who work on the site are "anti-aol" or hate them, moreso I would say that the majority of us simply see the crap they pull on such a daily basis that we have become rather cynical in our views towards them. Some of us have been doing this, involvment with sites concerning AOL and its behaviours, for upwards of 7 years. After years of hearing the same thing daily by the same company screwing over yet more people, you do tend to sound like you "hate" them.
The violations are listed in in the seperate link at the bottom of the page along with other previous articles on this Client/Appliance. Again the link: http://www.observers.net/gamera2/gpl.html
Yes the site has had some issues with the onslaught of "attention" the readers here have chosen to give it, therefore there are mirrors in the following locations:
(Additional mirrors will be posted should the need arise)
For those questioning the motivations behind the article we posted on observers.net, I have this response.
When I originally received the "Baby G" as we call it, known to the open market as The Touchpad, we had already been tipped by an internal employee that there were possible infractions of the GPL. This is true of much information that comes through our site, not much of it is sought out, its normally handed to us.
Truth be known, prior to our tip, our only interest in the appliance was the linux based client and if it would spread out beyond just the appliance.
If there are any other questions or comments that anyone would like to have addressed, please feel free to contact me via email or to post it here and either I or a member of my staff will attempt to address it in a timely fashion.
On the entire issue of AOL violating the GPL, my comment is simply an echo of another poster. And who is truly surprised by this?
I'm going to list items that have been either misrepresented or misinterpeted so that you all may discuss the origins of this suit with knowledge as your base.
The lawsuit came after the Department of Labor investigation was over six months old. The individual that started the DOL investigation, had already passed his statute of limitations to gain financially from the investigation should a favorable decision be made. His reasons for starting the investigation was the unfair practices America Online employed upon its "volunteer force". Specifically, the termination and removal of many of the leadership of the guide progam on AOL, the attempt to charge us to work for them, the removal of all benefits for working for them, and the placement of a management team that destroyed the bulk of the program we were all in.
I was the one who started the lawsuit after joining the Dept of Labor investigation they informed me that the investigation would not be over by the time my statute of limitations was up. Out of everyone involved in the DOL investigation, I had the most concrete documentation of what our working conditions were like, the rules, logs, etc of our employment. I was urged to file a lawsuit to enable the usage of the 100 plus megs of data that has now become proof in our suit.
I filed the lawsuit with approximately 1 week of the statute of limitations remaining, with the DOL the clock doesn't stop, with the courts it does. If I win this case I believe I will only get 1 weeks worth of pay. Mr Williams has a slightly longer S.ofL. than I but not much. This is important to note due to the high quantity of people claiming we are doing this for money.
Neither of us will get much of anything financially.
When we were hired, we were hired as Remote Staff a term now used to describe ACI (AmericaOnline Communities Inc) employees, paid remotes who supervise the "volunteers". Our applications and agreements with AOL said we would be compensated with an Overhead account the value of which was $10 per online hour.
Partway through my employment with AOL, they removed our overhead accounts, tried to charge us 3.95 per month for our accounts, removed almost all tools we used to help members, and fired and terminated anyone who spoke out against them on any issue, including myself and Mr Williams.
My Account was noted do not reactivate contact operations security and my screen names were locked up so that nobody could create them. If I attempted to sign on with a friends account or one made for me, it was terminated. What did I do? I spoke out against an abusive management team and reposted a post from another guide showing AOL was lying to us about removal of 800 number access.
What were the rules of our employment? 300 plus pages of them, including but not limited to: peer reviews every 90 days, timecards beginning and ending of shifts, posting shift reports, the ability to remove chat privledges from members and have accounts checked for validity, as well as have their accounts actioned via reports we made upon them, mandatory training where exams and modules were the norm, observed shifts to ensure we were able to do the work required, forms to fill out in order to go on a LOA either medical or personal which had to be approved in order to receive (at one time they fired several parties with terminal illnesses due to their inability to do shifts, a few signed on from hospitals in order not to be fired) a Minimum time requirement (at one time was 14 hours per week) , formal procedures for disciplining guides which could be special classes they had to take to be "reformed" or removal of privledges etc.
Sounds an awful lot like an employee handbook doesn't it? I volunteered for BSA amongst many other organizations. We were trained what we were allowed to ask of a volunteer. We could not remove one without just cause and a paid scouter had to be in the decision making. It had to be problems with children not being treated properly or improper dressing etc. It could not be because they said the scoutmaster was an idiot, on AOL however, all you had to do was question management on any issue and you would be removed.
As someone who directly oversaw 45 scout leaders, trained hundreds more, was on district level scouting, I can speak quite firmly and accurately that the relationship with America Online was not a volunteer one.
So why did we do it?
Why did we let ourselves get into a situation where we were basically used and abused, and not leave? I can give you dozens of answers.
Many "volunteers" were disabled, terminally ill, or unable to function fully in society for a variety of reasons. Online they found a niche that they could not find offline. They were the ones truly dependant upon AOL. Ultimately, they were the ones hurt most by AOL.
Others got into the "power" of being a part of AOLs staff. Some abused it, some used it to pick up people for relationships/sex.
Still more enjoyed helping folks.
Me? I did it to get a paying job because I felt that by getting in on the ground floor I could work my way up. Almost all of my closest friends have gone onto paid positions, but they kept their mouths shut, I didn't.
And the prevailing reason all of the groups above had in common? Online addiction. It IS an addiction and many many many people are hooked firmly with it.
Now, should the lawsuit affect other organisations that use volunteers? Yes and no.
MSN pays their hosts, because their lawyers told them to. People who performed functions like we did on AOL or on MSN should be paid and compensated, as employees.
No this should not affect everyone, if the person running the site, lets use mine as an example, does not turn a profit off of your providing customer support, technical assistance, TOS enforcement (like we did on aol) then there is no problem. IF the company is making money hand over fist? Then they should pay the hosts.
I AM sorry volunteers are losing their free accounts, and I wish that didn't have to happen. But unfortunately, it does and will continue to happen. Too many companies have taken it upon themselves to follow in AOLs footsteps and use people with their permission yes, but use them illegally.
The law states that if the employer controls the relationship, it is not a volunteer one. The law states that you can not abuse someone just because they said you could.
I'd like to leave you with the following comments.
An AOL "volunteer" was fired for not performing her shifts because she was hospitalized with toxemia.
An AOL "volunteer" was fired while being hospitalized for a progressive disease.
An AOL "volunteer" signed on from a hospital bed to do his shift while undergoing chemotherapy because he was told if he did not he would be fired and terminated.
Innumerable "volunteers" were written up for being 30 seconds late for a shift so they could be fired.
9 AOL "volunteers" were told that after organizing the guide strike that they could come back only if they underwent a "reconditioning" class for several weeks.
By my count, out of people I know, 74 "volunteers" were fired, 34 labeled security risks and terminated, 0 were given an avenue for recourse.
The Agreement was that I was hired as remote staff, an employee that was compensated with an overhead account that had a value of hundreds of dollars a month which AOL then removed.
I find it highly amusing that those screaming about this have absolutely no clue as to what I was hired as. I was NOT a volunteer when hired, AOL called me a volunteer when MANY guides questioned the legality of the situation and when told they would have to pay for access threatened to strike and were fired and terminated for it.
Perhaps an education of the facts involving those of us who filed the suit is in order? Unless you know the details of our agreement with AOL, you can not logically argue this topic.
We were given special accounts, they were called overhead, the intimidation was that if you disobeyed their mindset, you were banished from the service and thus cut off from your friends, family etc. Keep in mind this is pre AIM/cable/dsl and MANY areas did not have ISPs.
Actually going in I did not realise what AOL was, naive of me but true. I was not someone who "sought out" a position with America Online, I was recruited with the line of, nobody is there to watch the children they are alone easy prey for the pedophiles, nor was a I called a "volunteer" when I started.
I was listed and hired as Remote Staff and Compensated with an Overhead account. I had time cards, peer reviews, 300 plus pages of policies and procedures, over a month of training, etc. I could be written up for being 30 seconds late for a shift and fired if I missed my shifts. If I voiced my opinion I could be fired, terminated, and labeled a security risk for voicing my opinion.
Thats volunteering?
Do not scream and yell at me because I was ignorant of the laws. Scream and yell at the corporation who KNOWINGLY BROKE THEM and used people like myself to get rich and then would throw them aside when they got what they wanted. With no recourse, no possibility of fairness.
I am neither vindictive nor spiteful, I personally gain very little financially with this suit, my goals are simply to force America Online to pay everyone that WORKS for them. And it is a REAL goal and one that will be made true.
Let me throw a few comments at you that you answer hmm?
How do you fire a volunteer? Aol does it constantly.
How do you tell someone they are a member of a family/community, then terminate them and tell their "family" they can not speak with them?
Why is it the victims fault here and not the person who knowingly broke the law?
How on earth do you justify a corporation using intimidation and fear to force people to toe the line? When they are NOT paid?
How do you justify the actions of a corporation breaking federal CHILD labor laws by having children as young as 10, YES 10 years old, hosting chats where they are exposed to all sorts of vile language?
I volunteered for BSA, the PTA, and Just Say No, don't speak to me about volunteer spirit, speak to me about the law, because that is what my fight is based upon, that and whats morally right.
Face it, there's a few people getting very, very rich off the labors of a bunch of volunteers...
No truer words have ever been spoken, this isn't about myself of Brian Williams, my co-plaintiff, trying to get rich, its about us trying to stop an employer, AmericaOnline, Inc. from exploiting individuals in order to turn a profit.
I personally will receive one weeks back pay for the Federal suit, the person who started the DOL investigation will not receive a dime, Mr Williams will not receive much in monetary compensation either, this suit was not created for money nor:revenge", it was created because America's Largest ISP is breaking Federal and State Labor Laws, as well as tax laws.
If there is a party to blame about the reprecussions from the suit, blame AOL, they knowingly broke the law, we can only be blamed for being stupid enough to be the free labor.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, I was just looking to post that link. =)
:;grin::
A few random comments to the overflowing posts here if I may....
Yes we are called an "anti-aol" site. Yes many who work on the site are "anti-aol" or hate them, moreso I would say that the majority of us simply see the crap they pull on such a daily basis that we have become rather cynical in our views towards them. Some of us have been doing this, involvment with sites concerning AOL and its behaviours, for upwards of 7 years. After years of hearing the same thing daily by the same company screwing over yet more people, you do tend to sound like you "hate" them.
The violations are listed in in the seperate link at the bottom of the page along with other previous articles on this Client/Appliance. Again the link: http://www.observers.net/gamera2/gpl.html
Yes the site has had some issues with the onslaught of "attention" the readers here have chosen to give it, therefore there are mirrors in the following locations:
For the article alone:
http://www.hypr.net/observers
http://www.kraproom.com/obs/
For the entire site should anyone feel that masochistic to view
http://leguin.org.uk/mirrors/www.observers.net/
For the downloads of the software:
http://www.soldierx.com/gi.html
http://eso.nu/~bball/gi.tar.gz
http://kungfoo.net:2080/gi.zip
http://wilmer.linuxfriends.org/gi.zip
(Additional mirrors will be posted should the need arise)
For those questioning the motivations behind the article we posted on observers.net, I have this response.
When I originally received the "Baby G" as we call it, known to the open market as The Touchpad, we had already been tipped by an internal employee that there were possible infractions of the GPL. This is true of much information that comes through our site, not much of it is sought out, its normally handed to us.
Truth be known, prior to our tip, our only interest in the appliance was the linux based client and if it would spread out beyond just the appliance.
If there are any other questions or comments that anyone would like to have addressed, please feel free to contact me via email or to post it here and either I or a member of my staff will attempt to address it in a timely fashion.
On the entire issue of AOL violating the GPL, my comment is simply an echo of another poster. And who is truly surprised by this?
Sincerely
Kelly Hallissey
webmaster/owner
www.observers.net
I'm going to list items that have been either misrepresented or misinterpeted so that you all may discuss the origins of this suit with knowledge as your base.
The lawsuit came after the Department of Labor investigation was over six months old. The individual that started the DOL investigation, had already passed his statute of limitations to gain financially from the investigation should a favorable decision be made. His reasons for starting the investigation was the unfair practices America Online employed upon its "volunteer force". Specifically, the termination and removal of many of the leadership of the guide progam on AOL, the attempt to charge us to work for them, the removal of all benefits for working for them, and the placement of a management team that destroyed the bulk of the program we were all in.
I was the one who started the lawsuit after joining the Dept of Labor investigation they informed me that the investigation would not be over by the time my statute of limitations was up. Out of everyone involved in the DOL investigation, I had the most concrete documentation of what our working conditions were like, the rules, logs, etc of our employment. I was urged to file a lawsuit to enable the usage of the 100 plus megs of data that has now become proof in our suit.
I filed the lawsuit with approximately 1 week of the statute of limitations remaining, with the DOL the clock doesn't stop, with the courts it does. If I win this case I believe I will only get 1 weeks worth of pay. Mr Williams has a slightly longer S.ofL. than I but not much. This is important to note due to the high quantity of people claiming we are doing this for money.
Neither of us will get much of anything financially.
When we were hired, we were hired as Remote Staff a term now used to describe ACI (AmericaOnline Communities Inc) employees, paid remotes who supervise the "volunteers". Our applications and agreements with AOL said we would be compensated with an Overhead account the value of which was $10 per online hour.
Partway through my employment with AOL, they removed our overhead accounts, tried to charge us 3.95 per month for our accounts, removed almost all tools we used to help members, and fired and terminated anyone who spoke out against them on any issue, including myself and Mr Williams.
My Account was noted do not reactivate contact operations security and my screen names were locked up so that nobody could create them. If I attempted to sign on with a friends account or one made for me, it was terminated. What did I do? I spoke out against an abusive management team and reposted a post from another guide showing AOL was lying to us about removal of 800 number access.
What were the rules of our employment? 300 plus pages of them, including but not limited to: peer reviews every 90 days, timecards beginning and ending of shifts, posting shift reports, the ability to remove chat privledges from members and have accounts checked for validity, as well as have their accounts actioned via reports we made upon them, mandatory training where exams and modules were the norm, observed shifts to ensure we were able to do the work required, forms to fill out in order to go on a LOA either medical or personal which had to be approved in order to receive (at one time they fired several parties with terminal illnesses due to their inability to do shifts, a few signed on from hospitals in order not to be fired) a Minimum time requirement (at one time was 14 hours per week) , formal procedures for disciplining guides which could be special classes they had to take to be "reformed" or removal of privledges etc.
Sounds an awful lot like an employee handbook doesn't it? I volunteered for BSA amongst many other organizations. We were trained what we were allowed to ask of a volunteer. We could not remove one without just cause and a paid scouter had to be in the decision making. It had to be problems with children not being treated properly or improper dressing etc. It could not be because they said the scoutmaster was an idiot, on AOL however, all you had to do was question management on any issue and you would be removed.
As someone who directly oversaw 45 scout leaders, trained hundreds more, was on district level scouting, I can speak quite firmly and accurately that the relationship with America Online was not a volunteer one.
So why did we do it?
Why did we let ourselves get into a situation where we were basically used and abused, and not leave? I can give you dozens of answers.
Many "volunteers" were disabled, terminally ill, or unable to function fully in society for a variety of reasons. Online they found a niche that they could not find offline. They were the ones truly dependant upon AOL. Ultimately, they were the ones hurt most by AOL.
Others got into the "power" of being a part of AOLs staff. Some abused it, some used it to pick up people for relationships/sex.
Still more enjoyed helping folks.
Me? I did it to get a paying job because I felt that by getting in on the ground floor I could work my way up. Almost all of my closest friends have gone onto paid positions, but they kept their mouths shut, I didn't.
And the prevailing reason all of the groups above had in common? Online addiction. It IS an addiction and many many many people are hooked firmly with it.
Now, should the lawsuit affect other organisations that use volunteers? Yes and no.
MSN pays their hosts, because their lawyers told them to. People who performed functions like we did on AOL or on MSN should be paid and compensated, as employees.
No this should not affect everyone, if the person running the site, lets use mine as an example, does not turn a profit off of your providing customer support, technical assistance, TOS enforcement (like we did on aol) then there is no problem. IF the company is making money hand over fist? Then they should pay the hosts.
I AM sorry volunteers are losing their free accounts, and I wish that didn't have to happen. But unfortunately, it does and will continue to happen. Too many companies have taken it upon themselves to follow in AOLs footsteps and use people with their permission yes, but use them illegally.
The law states that if the employer controls the relationship, it is not a volunteer one. The law states that you can not abuse someone just because they said you could.
I'd like to leave you with the following comments.
An AOL "volunteer" was fired for not performing her shifts because she was hospitalized with toxemia.
An AOL "volunteer" was fired while being hospitalized for a progressive disease.
An AOL "volunteer" signed on from a hospital bed to do his shift while undergoing chemotherapy because he was told if he did not he would be fired and terminated.
Innumerable "volunteers" were written up for being 30 seconds late for a shift so they could be fired.
9 AOL "volunteers" were told that after organizing the guide strike that they could come back only if they underwent a "reconditioning" class for several weeks.
By my count, out of people I know, 74 "volunteers" were fired, 34 labeled security risks and terminated, 0 were given an avenue for recourse.
And lastly, how DO you fire a volunteer?
Kelly Hallissey
www.observers.net
The Agreement was that I was hired as remote staff, an employee that was compensated with an overhead account that had a value of hundreds of dollars a month which AOL then removed.
I find it highly amusing that those screaming about this have absolutely no clue as to what I was hired as. I was NOT a volunteer when hired, AOL called me a volunteer when MANY guides questioned the legality of the situation and when told they would have to pay for access threatened to strike and were fired and terminated for it.
Perhaps an education of the facts involving those of us who filed the suit is in order? Unless you know the details of our agreement with AOL, you can not logically argue this topic.
Kelly Hallissey www.observers.net
We were given special accounts, they were called overhead, the intimidation was that if you disobeyed their mindset, you were banished from the service and thus cut off from your friends, family etc. Keep in mind this is pre AIM/cable/dsl and MANY areas did not have ISPs.
Actually going in I did not realise what AOL was, naive of me but true. I was not someone who "sought out" a position with America Online, I was recruited with the line of, nobody is there to watch the children they are alone easy prey for the pedophiles, nor was a I called a "volunteer" when I started.
I was listed and hired as Remote Staff and Compensated with an Overhead account. I had time cards, peer reviews, 300 plus pages of policies and procedures, over a month of training, etc. I could be written up for being 30 seconds late for a shift and fired if I missed my shifts. If I voiced my opinion I could be fired, terminated, and labeled a security risk for voicing my opinion.
Thats volunteering?
Do not scream and yell at me because I was ignorant of the laws. Scream and yell at the corporation who KNOWINGLY BROKE THEM and used people like myself to get rich and then would throw them aside when they got what they wanted. With no recourse, no possibility of fairness.
I am neither vindictive nor spiteful, I personally gain very little financially with this suit, my goals are simply to force America Online to pay everyone that WORKS for them. And it is a REAL goal and one that will be made true.
Let me throw a few comments at you that you answer hmm?
How do you fire a volunteer? Aol does it constantly.
How do you tell someone they are a member of a family/community, then terminate them and tell their "family" they can not speak with them?
Why is it the victims fault here and not the person who knowingly broke the law?
How on earth do you justify a corporation using intimidation and fear to force people to toe the line? When they are NOT paid?
How do you justify the actions of a corporation breaking federal CHILD labor laws by having children as young as 10, YES 10 years old, hosting chats where they are exposed to all sorts of vile language?
I volunteered for BSA, the PTA, and Just Say No, don't speak to me about volunteer spirit, speak to me about the law, because that is what my fight is based upon, that and whats morally right.
Kelly Hallissey www.observers.net
Face it, there's a few people getting very, very rich off the labors of a bunch of volunteers...
:revenge", it was created because America's Largest ISP is breaking Federal and State Labor Laws, as well as tax laws.
No truer words have ever been spoken, this isn't about myself of Brian Williams, my co-plaintiff, trying to get rich, its about us trying to stop an employer, AmericaOnline, Inc. from exploiting individuals in order to turn a profit.
I personally will receive one weeks back pay for the Federal suit, the person who started the DOL investigation will not receive a dime, Mr Williams will not receive much in monetary compensation either, this suit was not created for money nor
If there is a party to blame about the reprecussions from the suit, blame AOL, they knowingly broke the law, we can only be blamed for being stupid enough to be the free labor.
Kelly Hallissey www.observers.net