Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

AOL: We're Not Spying on AIM Users

Posted by timothy on Mon Mar 14, 2005 07:37 AM
from the but-your-tos-says-you-can dept.
Privacy America Online Communications The Internet
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.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

AOL: We're Not Spying on AIM Users 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Right... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maotx (765127) <maotx AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday March 14 2005, @07:38AM (#11931246)
    "We're not evil. We promise. Trust us. Just because we say we can doesn't mean we will."

    I personally use AIM but that doesn't mean that I'm going to trust any communications I want private with a giant multi-billion company.

    • Re:Right... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 14 2005, @07:46AM (#11931268)
      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?)

      • Re:Right... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by maotx (765127) <maotx AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday March 14 2005, @08:10AM (#11931385)
        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 [slashdot.org] 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 [slashdot.org] I don't want and allow [slashdot.org] me to use someone elses for free?

          • Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by the_mad_poster (640772) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Monday March 14 2005, @08:44AM (#11931559) Homepage Journal
            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.
              • 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.
          • 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 carnivor
      • 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 wh
      • 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 read the TOS, it's just legal ass-covering. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Reziac (43301) * on Monday March 14 2005, @03:56PM (#11936441) Homepage Journal
            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.]

            • 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 [slashdot.org].
              • 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.

      • 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

    • Re:Right... (Score:4, Informative)

      by ticklejw (453382) on Monday March 14 2005, @08:46AM (#11931572) Homepage
      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.

      • 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 [cypherpunks.ca] 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 add

      • Re:Right... (Score:3, Informative)

        by sulli (195030) *
        No Mac OS X version. Is there something equivalent for OS X?

  • MSN Messenger had similar claim (Score:3, Informative)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Monday March 14 2005, @07:39AM (#11931252) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • too late.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheHawke (237817) <rchapin.pelicancoast@net> on Monday March 14 2005, @07:41AM (#11931254) Homepage
    I already uninstalled my AIM and done gone somewhere else with my IMing.

    Their PR parrots and Legals should have collaborated BEFORE they opened their big mouths on this matter. Now they are having to play catchup, in a BIG way.

    Bad timing aoHell. In this day and age, that kind of legal play can lose you a couple of million users as fast as your CSRs (customer service reps) can field them.

  • Surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mattmentecky (799199) on Monday March 14 2005, @07:42AM (#11931255)
    Why are people walking around surprised that AOL would, at the very least, not guarantee absolute privacy in conversation?

    The best way to deal with this is to always treat any conversation, ESPECIALLY over the internet, and ESPECIALLY on a service like AIM as insecure. Period.

    • Re:Surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheoMurpse (729043) <kylegoetz@@@gmail...com> on Monday March 14 2005, @07:49AM (#11931288) Homepage
      There is a difference between what you are saying -- what a person says via AIM is insecure -- and what the terms of service actually allow -- that AOL has the right to go as far as publish your writings in a book if they wanted to.

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

        • Re:Surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Twanfox (185252) on Monday March 14 2005, @09:15AM (#11931727)
          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?
    • 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?
      • 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.

  • No fire extinquishing here... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Imidazole (775082) on Monday March 14 2005, @07:43AM (#11931260) Homepage
    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.

      • Re:No fire extinquishing here... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AllUsernamesAreGone (688381) on Monday March 14 2005, @08:04AM (#11931349)
        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.

        • Meme killin' time (Score:5, Informative)

          by Catbeller (118204) on Monday March 14 2005, @09:22AM (#11931784) Homepage
          "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.
  • 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. :-)

    • Re:Maybe there should be an edit... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jussi K. Kojootti (646145) on Monday March 14 2005, @08:04AM (#11931355)
      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.

  • Lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MagPulse (316) on Monday March 14 2005, @07:46AM (#11931265)
    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.
  • 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."
    • 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.

  • i like being spyed on (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    i like to live dangerously

    (parody of their stupid commercials)

  • Storage (Score:4, Funny)

    by CleverNickedName (644160) on Monday March 14 2005, @07:46AM (#11931269) Journal
    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.

  • The TOS is a CYA (Score:4, Informative)

    by 91degrees (207121) on Monday March 14 2005, @07:48AM (#11931283) Journal
    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.)

  • "Free" not as in Beer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fox_1 (128616) on Monday March 14 2005, @07:48AM (#11931285) Homepage
    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.
  • 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

  • Highly coincidental (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HiMyNameIsSam (867358) on Monday March 14 2005, @07:52AM (#11931304)
    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?
  • Always have, i suppose this aim stuff applies there too now... I understand this if people have AGREED to the use, but I don't remember getting a new TOS sent to me when AOL took over icq

  • Is it possible to delete AIM accounts? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fialar (1545) on Monday March 14 2005, @07:57AM (#11931318)
    I've never been able to find the option to actually -delete- an AIM account. Has anyone else?

  • Kidding me... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The-Bus (138060) on Monday March 14 2005, @08:00AM (#11931328) Homepage
    This was already deduced in the original story by this post [slashdot.org]. 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*
  • When will my anti-spyware apps start seeing AIM as spyware, and offering to remove it for me?

  • Remember, this is Slashdot! (Score:3, Funny)

    by agraupe (769778) on Monday March 14 2005, @08:40AM (#11931535) Journal
    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.

  • Gaim-Encryption (Score:3, Insightful)

    by accessdeniednsp (536678) <detoler @ g m ail.com> on Monday March 14 2005, @09:21AM (#11931770)
    Gaim Encryption plugin [sourceforge.net] 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.
    • Don't forget to not use their servers as well. Oh wait, then you aren't using AIM.
      • 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.)
      • 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 specificall

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.