Slashdot Log In
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.
from the but-your-tos-says-you-can dept.
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:
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: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.
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.
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
AOL can use copyrighted material w/o compensation (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
I read the TOS, it's just legal ass-covering. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.]
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
MSN Messenger had similar claim (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure there was some storm in a teacup around it a while ago.
Re:MSN Messenger had similar claim (Score:5, Informative)
here [com.com]
Parent
too late.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
That is what people are surprised about -- that AOL would have the gall to allow themselves something like that.
Parent
Re:Surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
No fire extinquishing here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No fire extinquishing here... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Meme killin' time (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Storage (Score:4, Funny)
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)
"Free" not as in Beer (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it possible to delete AIM accounts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Kidding me... (Score:5, Interesting)
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*
Re:bah (Score:4, Informative)
http://gaim.sf.net/ [sf.net] is the GAIM site, so you don't have to go looking for it later.
Parent
Re:bah (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Maybe there should be an edit... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that they now say they're not monitoring, does not covince me that the TOS weren't intentionally vague.
Parent