AOL: We're Not Spying on AIM TOS change has been in place for a year After rumblings emerged late last week that AOL had changed their AIM terms of service to remove any end-user expectation of privacy, the company appears to be in damage control mode. America Online spokesman Andrew Weinstein has been telling various blogs and the Houston Chronicle "AOL does not read person-to-person communications," and that the TOS change has been in place for more than a year.
|
  tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| The question is.. WHY do companies put terms like this in a contract (it's not uncommon) if they don't ever intend to use them?
Then again, why even put in a clause such as this?? Are they expecting some great idea to come across AIM for them to steal? I highly doubt that'd hold up in court, or they'd have the cajones to do that. | |
|  | | | Re: The question is.. "AOL does not read person-to-person communications"................but they could, and with this TOS in place, there is nothing to stop them from doing it. Very sneaky. | |
| | | | | Re: The question is.. Wow! You caught that too. This clown's statement leaves it open for other 3rd parties to read. | |
| | | | | | Re: The question is.. If you don't think instant messages (or email) "can" be tracked if necessary, no matter who you use for a service, you are only kidding yourself. | |
|
| | Installing the fine print If this has been in their TOS (Terms of Service) for almost 1yr. Then it would only prove more on a past story, that people really do not read the fine print, as long as they can install the program they so wish to use. You could get people to agree too just about anything and they would never know, until it was to late. 
Personally speaking, I do not like AOL / AIM. I'm more of a growing Hello (Hello.com) fan myself. Google has one good IM program, that lets you send photos and files between users at such a fast speed, its crazy (I was able to send 1GB in less then 10 once). There is a rumor that they are already working on video and sound. I personally can't wait. 
I guess MSN would come up to a close second and I only use it cause a lot of everyone else does. But once people pick up on "Hello", I think I'll be ok with leaving it.
--
Want to know how to get a free mini mac? Send me a pm. | |
| | | | Re: Installing the fine print Do any users here or friends or family of BBR have a year old eula of aol's im.? So we readers can verify that it infact was placed in there.Just so these corporate worms can squirm under
BBR scrutiny.Ah how the woim toins | |
| | | | | Re: Installing the fine print I just did a check of several aim Eulas and found that the clause in question has been in the past 4 versions of aim. the following version have the clause:
5.5.3598
5.5.3595
5.5.3583
5.5.3572
It seems like the clause was added with the 5.5x AIM version of aim, because the eulas dont mention the use of user content in previous versions.
--
I subscribe to the theory of intellectual osmosis. Unfortunately, I must now cease our conversation and move away from you before my intelligence begins to drop. Good day. | |
|
| | time to Time to rehash the "AOL SUCKS" posts and "this violates my freedom of speech", which has no bearing on a _private_ system and is invalid, posts. | |
| | | | Re: time to said by MalakoPlus:Time to rehash the "AOL SUCKS" posts and "this violates my freedom of speech", which has no bearing on a _private_ system and is invalid, posts. The scary thing is that you are correct.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | "We're Not Spying on AIM...
...but we CAN..."
-- B | |
| |  BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: "We're Not Spying on AIM... they track me their breaking wiretapping laws (not to mention local laws, remember kiddies american laws and rights do not apply to/in other countries), since i didn't agree to their eula but still access their server.
ah trillian, how fun it is. | |
| | |  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: "We're Not Spying on AIM... said by BonezX:they track me their breaking wiretapping laws (not to mention local laws, remember kiddies american laws and rights do not apply to/in other countries), since i didn't agree to their eula but still access their server. Look at the current trend of things and ask yourself, "Do we care about foreign opinion?" Hell no. If something juicy is found on AIM, you bet your ass you'll have some American Fed at your door. | |
| | | | | Well actually, the last time I created an AIM account (2, 3 years ago if memory serves) you agree to the TOS of AIM when you create the account, not when you install the software.
--
Don't Let Them Take Your Rights! | |
| | | | BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Re: "We're Not Spying on AIM...
I'm not going to bother checking, but I can't believe the TOS you saw did NOT have a clause saying that the terms can be changed at AOL's whim with minimal or no notification. In other words, you kept using the service, and you therefore agreed to the new terms, whether you were notified or not.
At least, that's usually the kind of nonsense these companies get away with.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
 chia
join:2003-12-20
Fort Lauderdale, FL | at least... they seem to be right that their TOS has been that way for awhile. Forgot I even had AIM on my computer, but checked the license (last modified April 27,2004) and it is the same as what they have now.
Now I can go back to forgetting that I have it on my pc. | |
| | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: at least... It creates really interesting legal issues. heres an example-
a brilliant 14 year old uses AIM to discuss some new software hes worked on and works with another minor. AOL sees it, says its theirs and makes a zillion dollars.
In this hypothetical case, they;ve stolen an idea from a minor who lacks legal authority to agree with their TOS. What would a court do?
Or a parent, unaware of TOS issues uses AIM, which a minor d/led, and gives out some sort of corporate secret which an AOL employee uses to trade stocks on, like a merger. The non-aol adult had a legal right to discuss the issue, say with a lawyer, which is protected anyways from snooping, ..How big is AOL's liability then?
I think this simply wont hold up under any sort of legal scrutiny. | |
| | | | | Re: at least... said by AIM EULA:
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 Aim states that all content is YOURS. They only have the right to promote and distribute the content
--
I subscribe to the theory of intellectual osmosis. Unfortunately, I must now cease our conversation and move away from you before my intelligence begins to drop. Good day. | |
| | | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: at least... This really sounds more like some over-eager lawyer trying to make all of the content available for derivative, compilation and other secondary works--like your "love text" to your GF might end up in some stupid Time Warner "Best of AIM" volume, or they might use some excerpt in advertising, the way GM uses "OnStar" blurbs in theirs.
Trouble is, the actual language goes way beyond that level and, as indicated, authorizes darn near anything. (Or maybe that WAS the real intent....)
In any event, some of those lawyers should be doing some serious "'splainin'" right now internally. Any AOL exec who accepts the legal department saying "we were just trying to protect the company" without seeking the real reason for this PR disaster is so bullied by the legal eagles that he doesn't deserve his office....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | ...AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content.. | |
| | | | | | | Re: at least... said by jayperkins:created by AOL using or incorporating this Content.. So if they make a commercial that has a snippet of my convo, i do not own the commercial, and that they reserve all the rights
--
I subscribe to the theory of intellectual osmosis. Unfortunately, I must now cease our conversation and move away from you before my intelligence begins to drop. Good day. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·CableOne
| Re: at least... yes... and ...
You write a song, post it, aol or Time-Warner uses it in a tv ad. You get nothing.
or
You write a software package, you post it to a friend, aol adds any little thing to it and sells it, you get nothing.
or
You create a video game , post it to a friend...
or
You take a great photo, post it for all to see, Time uses it in a series of articles..
Is this getting through? AOL/Time Warner understand the value of these kind of rights better than we do. There is a reason for this clause. | |
| | | | | | | | Ok yes technically that would be true, but realistically is AOL going to sift through thousands of "LOLOMGOMG thatz coOl" conversations per day? Are they going to sift through what is likely mostly viruses that are traded between people? Or better yet, are they going to look at all the porn pictures that people send to each other? you have to be realistic about these things, and the fact is, that this is more just legal track covering more than a big brother situation.
--
I subscribe to the theory of intellectual osmosis. Unfortunately, I must now cease our conversation and move away from you before my intelligence begins to drop. Good day. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·CableOne
| Re: at least... No, they will probably not go through all of that personal communcation... but I can't help but wonder why they have those terms in the TOS? It certainly doesn't sound like it is for their protection.
Maybe I am missing something; do you think that is -- what it is-- to protect them against some lawsuit? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: at least... It is easier to think of it that way, than it is to think of it as a IP grab on AOL's part. | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·CableOne
| Re: at least... I agree. I would prefer to think it is all well intentioned.
My reaction probably comes from the fact I hadn't read the AOL TOS in the last 4 years. It has "evolved" quite a bit.
At least this is a wake up call for me to read all the dang TOS things and make an intelligent decision. I decided it may be best to not use the aol product for now, better safe than sorry. I am a programmer and an amateur photographer, and prefer to keep even those pesky derivative rights. Sometimes it is all too easy to post something you didn't intend to give away some rights to. | |
|
| | | | Codydog,
Any IP attorney worth his weitht in salt will tell you that if you discuss any patentiable idea in a public setting jepordizes the intelectual property from the start. | |
| | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: at least... Yes, but would you have a case pleading that an electronic conversation between two individuals is a "public setting"? If you went to the local park, and talked your mind-blowingly good product ideas over infront of the local baseball team...yeah, your patent is just about shot. However, this is a conversation between two people and, internet security or not, such a privacy should (and would) be expected. | |
| | | | | | wtf- Any attorney who finds his way past the bar will tell you , you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on IMs and that a priviliged converstaion or an agreement by a minor is not enforceable.
AOL has clearly over-reached. | |
| | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: at least... ...and a "reasonable expectation of privacy" may mean that the government may not be able to use it against you in a criminal case, but you may find that others can use it for commercial purposes....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 Ant718
join:2002-01-30
Bronx, NY | AOL is a VIRUS! Use Trillion! | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
 Da22inBuck Fush
join:2002-06-10
Charlotte, NC | What's new? "AOL does not read person-to-person communications"
No, but thanks to the Patriot Act the US government does. 
Another turd from the fascist regime that took over in the coup-d'etat of 2000.
This story is not news, it's happening all over this country daily.
--
How much time are you in front of a computer?
Protect your health with a Himalayan rock salt crystal lamp. | |
| | |
 Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6 | AOL is your friend.... Another nail in the AOL coffin.
Please just seal and bury the thing already. | |
|  quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | Just remember, it's a private service... Unlike government regulated services, such as the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network), or the air-waves, if your conversation goes over a private network, or private servers, the owner of said network or server has the legal right to "snoop", or not to. Said another way, they are not a common-carrier. If I run an online service, for example, I have the legal right to scan the files on my computer, and the communication that is occuring on my computer.
I imagine that the main reason that they choose to add this verbage to their TOS is because it is very apparent that they can no longer ensure that they can maintain a reliablely secure connection between the remote party and their machines. For example, if you open up a packet-sniffer on your cable modem, chances are you will pick up every conversation on your node. It just happens that way, folks.
If they did not disclose that, they may be legally responsible to secure the connection in this day and age.
I doubt they are going to be scanning for people's conversations to look for ideas. I doubt they will be scanning logs to make up a book of the "best AIM conversations." I can see them scanning to see whom is trying to hack their servers. I can see our government going into AIM logs and looking for terrorists.
And just to keep everybody on the same page -- This TOS is active to everybody whom has an AIM account. You signed the TOS when you signed up for either the AIM account, or an AOL account. And yes, it is your responsibility to re-read the TOS peridically, as long as you are using the service. When you log into the AIM network, even if you don't use the specific AIM client, you agree to the latest version of the TOS.
Just remember, you have the right NOT to use their FREE service. | |
| | | | Re: Just remember, it's a private service... said by quetwo:Unlike government regulated services, such as the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network), or the air-waves, if your conversation goes over a private network, or private servers, the owner of said network or server has the legal right to "snoop", or not to. Said another way, they are not a common-carrier... I believe you are completely wrong on this. Show me a non-employer/employee workplace adjudicated case that supports your assertion that the users of AOL, and other ISPs, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their communications. | |
| | | | | Re: Just remember, it's a private service... Um, actually, there are tons of companies that moved to Sametime (and other clients) because AOL IM communications are insecure and can not be secure.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
| | | quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | said by ross7  I believe you are completely wrong on this. Show me a non-employer/employee workplace adjudicated case that supports your assertion that the users of AOL, and other ISPs, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their communications.
[/BQUOTE:» www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/···dex.htmlIf you take a look at the US Constitutional Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, you can see that ISP's, VoIP, Instant Messaging are NOT considered to be common-carriers. Meaning they have the right to deny communication / interconnection, spy/read/snoop on communications on their networks, etc. Privacy is only garenteed (well, kinda, thanks to the Patriot Act) on wireline communications via common carriers, if you are going over lines not completely owned by you. | |
|
 DrewCapuGiant Diehard
join:2001-12-19
California | [shrug]... use Jabber Use Jabber.
So you can use a server you can trust.
Or you can run your own server.
Or you could encourage your isp to run a server.
Or we could all just use a phone.
Or talk face-to face. | |
| |  whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC | Re: [shrug]... use Jabber The nice think about Jabber isn't the fact that it is an open source messaging system. That's nice but what makes it really great is it is a decentralized system where anyone can run their own server with their own TOS. | |
|
| | AIM I wouldn't install anything of AOHELL'S on an enemies system even! | |
|
| |
|
|
Re: What's new?