AOL: We're Not Spying on AIM Users

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.

MSN Messenger had similar claim

[LiquidCoooled]

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.

Re:MSN Messenger had similar claim

[LiquidCoooled]

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

The TOS is a CYA

[91degrees]

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.)

Re:Answer

[krymsin01]

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

Re:bah

[TheoMurpse]

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

Too late

[QuietLagoon]

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

Re:Answer

[jgoguen]

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.

Re:Right...

[ticklejw]

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.

Re:Is it possible to delete AIM accounts?

[Gamma_UCF]

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.

Re:Surprise?

[GreyyGuy]

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.

Meme killin' time

[Catbeller]

"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.

Yes, for OS X

[bach37]

Fink. The gaim version in Fink [sourceforge.net]works fine.

Re:bah

[carcajou]

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...

Re:Answer

[SirTalon42]

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

Re:Right...

[ModernGeek]

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.

Re:Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that I have addressed your attack in another post, I'll answer the meat of your post. Clearly, you are not familiar with business structures.

Being a corporation does not make you immune to the law. There are strict guidelines for being a corporation, and violation of any of them can make you personally liable. This is called "piercing the corporate veil". The liability protection does not allow one to break any old laws he feels like and expect the court to not hold him liable because of the liability protection. As in all cases, various factors need to be considered, such as intent. Furthermore, most companies have liability insurance as their real defense, since the liability protection afforded by being a corporation is actually rather flimsy.

Now, back to company structure. You're picking on corporations. I'm claiming that most corporations exist as a matter of circumstance. They would operate in the same fundamental manner if they were sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, etc. Your argument isn't against corporations, it's against businesses in general. If that's the way you feel, then fine, but learn what you're talking about before opening your mouth.

And your blanket statement about corporations is just wrong, in a lot of ways. Many corporations donate money to various charities. Growing up, I probably wouldn't have been able to play any of the sports I did without any sort of corporate sponsorship. Most of the community cleanups around here have been funded by companies. A lot of businesses aren't just out there to screw everyone they can. A lot are out there trying to give people employment, trying to make the world a bit of a better place. But feel free to leave your head up your ass.

Oh, and before you come back at me, please read everything. I never claimed all corporations are good, but certainly not all of them are bad. And size hasn't much to do with this.

Just for the hell of it, pick a few of the companies you think are fundamentally evil, and take a closer look and see what they've done for the community. Surely you wouldn't judge them based upon some of their more "public" actions.

Re:Huh? I don't get it.... /. was Wrong. Apologize

[sampson7]

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.

Re:AOL can use copyrighted material w/o compensati

[secondshadow]

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

Re:Highly coincidental

[Anonymous Coward]

When my AIM was blocked for no apparent reason, I looked around the signin website for an email. I found exactly one (don't remember what it was for, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't for unblocking accounts or anything like that), and sent an email explaining that I had been blocked for no reason and requesting that my sn be unblocked. Within a few days I was unblocked again.

Re:Right...

[sulli]

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

Re:I read the TOS, it's just legal ass-covering.

[Baricom]

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].