Slashdot Log In
AIM's New Terms Of Service
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Mar 12, 2005 12:11 AM
from the public-knowledge dept.
from the public-knowledge dept.
acaben writes "AOL has posted new terms of service for AIM, that include the right for AOL to use anything and everything you send through AIM in any way they see fit, without informing you. A sample passage: '...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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
AIM's New Terms Of Service
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 689 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:4, Funny)
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://blog.jrock.us/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 10 2004, @04:11AM)
Technology is the solution to the erosion of our rights. If it's mathematically impossible to find out what you said, then... they won't know what you said. (Same for P2P. If you use Freenet you can legally share anything. Why? Because nobody knows (or can ever know) what you're sharing and what you're downloading. Laws don't solve problems!)
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.spotswood-computer.net/)
Which is why I've always used strong encryption to IM my friends. If AOL wants to break my 4096-bit RSA key to sell my "lol"s, then they're welcome to...
Hmmm...wonder how long before any encrypted messages are blocked? After all, it is THEIR servers the messages are going through, so they can filter.
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday October 15, @11:53PM)
I'll say *never*.
base64/uu encoding of messages produces all standard characters. Unless AOL is going to try doing fuzzy-logic dictionary look-ups, and/or statistical analysis on ALL messages, there's no way they would even know the difference between encrypted and unencrypted messages.
The above methods would be impractical, and even if not, they would have to be very, very careful not to accidentally drop an unencrypted (though unintelligable) conversation.
Personally, I think AOL is going to eliminate encryption the same way the NSA did for e-mail... Just wait silently behind the curtain, and when there hasn't been any sign of evesdroping for some time, apathy will kick-in, and encryption will just fade-out on it's own.
dictionary look-ups? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://us.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Mick-Michalski/)
Re:dictionary look-ups? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.mangaschool.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 03 2006, @07:51AM)
(ts a jk. laf)
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/)
So if you break a law and don't get caught, it's legal? Riiiiiiight.
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/)
So what you're saying is that Jack the Ripper, effectively, never broke the law?
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:5, Informative)
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:4, Funny)
-kaplanfx
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New Terms in A Nutshell (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday March 31 2003, @01:23AM)
"Remember, it's not rape if you click 'yes'".
: )
Fine, then (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fine, then (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fine, then (Score:5, Insightful)
Help a College Student [macminis4free.com]
Re:Fine, then (Score:5, Insightful)
At least their preferences are laid out in a sensible Netscape-style window with the categories on the left. The problem is that there's just too many damn useless features to configure, as well as the fact that the actual preferences menu item is buried deep within a pull-down menu titled "My AIM". What the fuck does that tell me as a category and what options are under it? With the narrow amount of space in the menu area, it would be much better off with an "Actions" menu for everyday functions and a "Tools" menu for all the extra wacky features that nobody uses.
Re:Fine, then (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://aggiegeeks.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 05 2004, @05:10PM)
Do you really trust AOL to have choosen and CORRECTLY implemented a good crypto system? Do you trust they haven't backdoored it? Do you think any home-rolled cryptosystem (or even implementation of a solid design) can be trusted without peer review?
Re:Fine, then (Score:5, Informative)
(http://opengameconsole.org/ | Last Journal: Friday July 08 2005, @02:58PM)
Re:Fine, then (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Go right ahead and plan on your average AOL user getting on board the clue train and encrypting their messages. Oh yeah. Really.
Re:Fine, then (Score:5, Funny)
HEY DUDE11!!!1 OMG WUT R U DONG L8R????!?? LOL I WAS THINKNG W3 SHUD GO 2 DA MAL!!1!1!11 WTF LOL
Damned if I can decrypt that
Re:Fine, then (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.dragonswest.com/ | Last Journal: Monday November 05, @07:35PM)
UUEncode Windows and send it to yourself over AIM.
Let Microsoft and AOL club each other to death :-)
No encryption necessary (Score:5, Funny)
(I know, I produce a lot of it)
Posts - not IM (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.chriscanfield.net/)
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.
Re:In response... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://aggiegeeks.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 05 2004, @05:10PM)
Folks, it is time to start putting your letters in an envelope. You can no longer trust the letter carrier to protect your privacy. Envelopes are cheap...so start using them.
Re:Third Party Clients (Score:5, Informative)
1) Registered for AIM after February 5, 2005
2) Downloaded AIM updates or software after February 5, 2005
Unless I'm drastically misreading that, that means none of the terms apply to people who've been registered for more than a month or so and use a third party client.
-ShadowRanger
Re:Third Party Clients (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Third Party Clients (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://irc.macintosh.efnet.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday July 04 2004, @07:33PM)
so it remains to be seen.
I use Trillian... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.codesweep.com/ | Last Journal: Monday January 30 2006, @12:03AM)
So to AOL: I say this much, exploit fjkd;arjaiwor398u233209u''rju98e32 any way you want guys!
Re:I use Trillian... (Score:5, Funny)
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."?
I'm just guessing, (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, what about users of GAIM, et al, that havent agreed to those terms? Can they enforce this there?
Re:I'm just guessing, (Score:5, Interesting)
All this means... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.uberm00.net/ | Last Journal: Monday January 19 2004, @09:27PM)
Of course, I say any smart business because I know some dumb ones will. Doesn't Microsoft have a similar policy with Hotmail?
I also really doubt if this were ever tested in court that it would stand. This is evil, but about what I'd expect from AOL.
New "reality tv"? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://otc.dyndns.org/game/)
Re:New "reality tv"? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.iblist.com/)
Re:Not really surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.lib.ru/)
AOL is not any different from a mail carrier service because they do the same thing - deliver messages from one person to another.
You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using it.
Why not? Many people abuse telephone network by tying up lines for hours at a time, so what? It does not allow the phone company to record and sell conversations.
New terms of service? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://haven.parodius.com/)
Re:New terms of service? (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't need an irrevocable, perpetual right to do that. A 10-minute right would be plenty.
Sheer volume (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday December 07 2002, @12:34AM)
Re:Sheer volume (Score:4, Insightful)
You can bet everything you own that AOL archive every message that's routed through their system. Their new TOS means that when Government Agency X comes a-knockin' demanding all the messages User Y posted in the last three years, they can simply turn over the records without having to go through all that annoying stuff of warrants, sub-poenas and so on.
In fact, it doesn't even have to be Govt Agency X. It can be anyone. If they want to let them search the archive, they can.
Re:Sheer volume (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday March 09 2005, @03:04AM)
ADVERTISING
They don't care about reading what 12 year olds gossip about, and they don't care about finding criminals, terrorists, or anyone else. They care about *making money* by selling targeted ads to you, and they will figure out what you like by parsing context out of your chat logs. Y'know, like Google does with Gmail and Google Groups. The TOS let them do whatever they want with the data so they can store it, mine it, and sell the results anytime they feel like with no consequences.
Your AIM encryption options (Score:5, Informative)
2. SILC. [silcnet.org] Open encryption standard, many *nix ports.
3. JohnyTech. [johnytech.com] Windows encryption for a bunch of different IM protocols.
That ought to get you started.
Re:Oooh, I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.omletteso...hp3?who=Lord+Omlette)
And it couldn't possibly be any larger than the amount of data Echelon has to deal w/ regularly, my guess is they're doing this as a way of appeasing the govt. "Sure, we'll change our privacy policy, but please allow us to use your beefy data centers..."
Re:Oooh, I'm shocked! (Score:5, Informative)
This is actually standard through virtually all Instant Messaging systems, partially due to the complexities of routing that NATs and firewalls introduce to the internet, and partially because client/server is just plain more reliable and easier than P2P.
(This is from a guy that's done a lot of IM protocol observation/hacking/developing)
In Plain English (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just guessing, but I'll bet no one thought to run that last part past their management team...
People still use AIM?! (Score:4, Informative)
(http://web.vee.net/)
It's Free Software, it's non-evil and there are clients for every platform out there.
You can even use it for cool stuff like IM'ing system alerts to you, as a cheap replacement for SMS on mobile phones (AUD$0.02 vs AUD$0.25) and to publish and subscribe to news feeds.
Data mining for patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Only affects those signing up after 5 Feb 2004 (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://csilo.com/)
Hmm.. Contradiction? (Score:4, Informative)
The snippet from the privacy policy (here [aim.com]) with emphasis from me:
Interpretive Dance (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, how about getting that guy, whathisname, the one did that thing in Central Park, to interpret your chat session in plastic sheeting or whatever, like a big condom over the Empire State.
Free association really sometimes scares me...
It's time for Jabber (Score:4, Informative)
(http://runt.mybox.org/)
New? (Score:4, Interesting)
Put another way... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 12 2006, @03:31PM)
illegal in my country (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:illegal in my country (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.xepherys.net/)
Companies that provide services over the internet must obey the laws of each country which their services may be used in. If a country has laws disallowing this, AOL may find itself (if pushed) in a situation of having to make many localized copies of AIM.
conflicts with common carrier status (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.obsolyte.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 02 2005, @06:59AM)
Now here comes along AOL saying that they WILL monitor and so, I have to ask, if we send child porn through IM, doesn't this mean that if AOL lets it go through, AOL can be taken down for allowing trafficing of child porn because they have given up their common carrier status?
Great! (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.andybrandt.net/)
Amazingly calm response (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday July 09 2004, @03:58AM)
In my opinion the real issue is that the statement "You waive any right to privacy" may be the most evil statement in any EULA ever. Shouldn't these six words alone cause an outrage beyond belief here?
Privacy Policy: AOL does NOT read IMs (Score:5, Informative)
Your AIM information, including the contents of your online communications, may be accessed and disclosed in response to legal process (for example, a court order, search warrant or subpoena), or in other circumstances in which AOL has a good faith belief that AIM or AOL are being used for unlawful purposes. AOL may also access or disclose your AIM information when necessary to protect the rights or property of AIM or AOL, or in special cases such as a threat to your safety or that of others."
The content referred to in the Privacy Policy is for posts in AIM forums and message boards and such, and the point of all that crap in the TOS is so that AOL has the legal right to copy and display anything you put in the forum worldwide, for as long as the forum/website exists, and you can't in any way sue them over something you post in the forum. It's NOT saying "we will read your IMs and reproduce and use them however we want". Please mod this up so at least some people read it and stop freaking out and spreading FUD unneccessarily.
-Jay
Obligatory "1984" AOL-as-BB reference... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday March 26 2006, @01:47PM)
6079SmithW: Do you remember the thrush that sang to us, that first day, at the edge of the wood?
AntiSexJulia: He wasn't singing to us. He was singing to please himself. Not even that. He was just singing.
6079SmithW: We are the dead.
AntiSexJulia: LOL! We are the dead.
AOL System Msg: You are the dead.
~Philly
An opportunity to play devil's advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does it say they assert _sole_ownership_ of your content? Aren't they, in effect, pressing you to GPL of your content?
How progressive of AOL.
get a grip... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.drewandkim.com/)
a) only 2 people have mentioned that these terms of service are over a year old.
b) only 2 people have pointed out that these terms of service apply to posts on message boards and forums, which they reserve the right to replicate, duplicate, etc, and not to instant messages.
c) no one has pointed out that the vast majority of the messages sent through aim are sent client to client, and never travel through aol's central server, so even if they did reserve the right to use your im's any way they saw fit, and they had the desire to, there's no way that they ever could.
man, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. one person yells "0 my g0d. teh AOL r stealing our pr1v4cy!1!!" and the whole army of slashdotters goes running for their tinfoil hats. get a grip people.
What TOS? (Score:3, Insightful)
he following terms and conditions apply to all users who either registered for AIM services or downloaded AIM updates or software on or after February 5, 2004.
Many posts here are talking about using third party encryption tools to circumvent this.
This new TOS DOES NOT APPLY TO ME (nor to many of you). Why not?
I didn't agree to their terms of service.
I didn't sign up after 2/5/2004.
I don't download AOL's AIM client. I use GAIM exclusively.
AOL, use the messages I haven't give you rights to, I dare you.
1. Send interesting messages
2. Wait until AOL uses one somehow.
3. Profit.
Privacy policy? (Score:3, Insightful)
assigning copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://code.google.com/p/crylib/wiki/CryLib | Last Journal: Tuesday June 15 2004, @12:55PM)
So if someone wants to sue, they sue AOL?