AOL Terms of Service for AIM

[OneFinger]

America Online, Inc. has quietly updated the terms of service for its AIM instant messaging application, making several changes that is sure to raise the hackles of Internet privacy advocates.

 

The revamped terms of service, which apply only to users who downloaded the free AIM software on or after Feb. 5, 2004, gives AOL the right to "reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote" all content distributed across the chat network by users...

 

The entire story is at:

 

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775649,00.asp

 

I'm very grateful I'm not using AIM.

[seaboy4hire]

Ok someone please explain what AOL expects to gain from this? Other then a bunch of pissed off useres that will switch to Yahoo or MSN msgr.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[+ deej]

It probably won't do much good to switch. The other services won't be far behind, if this doesn't blow up in AOL's face. (Wouldn't be the first time they've screwed the pooch over privacy issues and been handed their head on a platter.)

 

The messenger services are FREE services and are provided under whatever terms the company providing them feels like enforcing.

 

I suspect we're near the end of "free" services like these. In the beginning, vendors gave away the service for free so they could sell advertising. People hate advertising and steer clear of it. Then vendors wanted to sell mailing lists. People hated that and steer clear of it.

 

These will all be pay services soon (including free email), I'll bet. The pool of things they can do to make money off of you while you're using the free services is rapidly draining.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

Deej...sadly I must agree. Its the old get'em hooked, then marketing venues change and you're left with messenger addicts that will pay the cost for what they have become conditioned to. Free email? LOL, I know have to pay MSN an upgrade fee to my hotmail account just to link it to my outlook express.....this was never a fee based subscription...x(

[HotdadENYC]

I'm not surprised by this at all. Right now its AOL, but it won't be much longer (as others have pointed out) before the other ISPs jump on the bandwagon.

 

Although this is NOT a discussion about escorts, ISPs suck. Some suck more than others. Thankfully there is little correlation, in my opinion, between the price we pay and the amount of sucking that gets done. Or maybe there is......I only use three.....

 

Did I say that this is NOT a discussion about escorts?

 

There are at least two things going on here that merit discussion. One, as more and more people become dependent on e-mail and instant messaging, the bandwith and infrastructure needed to support that has to increase; clearly we don't expect the ISPs to provide those upgrades for free.

 

Two, neither AOL nor any of its competitors are in the business to lose money. They need to show a profit. And make money in as many ways as they can.

 

On the other hand, I won't deny the convenience of Instant Messaging or of E-mail, although quite frankly businesses have run pretty successfully without them and life has gone on, even without the electronic advantages we all take for granted.

 

I would love to tell AOL to "piss the fuck off" but I'm afraid, without an ISP, I won't have a vehicle for conveying that message. So I pay and pay and pay...........

 

hd NYC

[Guest ChgoBoy]

I would love to tell AOL to "piss the fuck off" but I'm afraid, without an ISP, I won't have a vehicle for conveying that message. So I pay and pay and pay...........

 

 

HotdadENYC you BIG PUSSY!!!! lol, tell AOHELL to fuck off and switch to any one of many ISP's that provide access at less cost, less intrusion and less content control over your life. Tell AOHELL you arent going to take it anymore and make the switch. I did 5 years ago and have become more internet savy not to mention the fact that Im able to experience the internet in its raw and undefined content as it was meant to. Of course, as always, if you're going to experience the "raw" internet, always use protection such as Norton Anti-Virus....lol

[OneFinger]

I'm certainly not a AOL fan and find their tactics to be very unprofessional. But, one thing that came to mind when I read their new ToS was the impact to escorts.

 

Isn't there an automatic wavier of privacy and increased chance for hiring-related discussions to be turned over to the police? Seems to me the last thing that should happen on AIM are discussions of meeting plans.

[Skyyguy]

This is a non issue now. They fixed their "error" the new terms were to apply to chat rooms.

 

AOL clarifies IM privacy guarantee

Published: March 14, 2005, 4:54 PM PST

By Declan McCullagh

Staff Writer, CNET News.com

 

TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack

America Online said late Monday that it plans to revise its user agreement in response to concerns that instant messages sent through the company's service could be monitored.

 

The new policy for AOL Instant Messenger, or AIM, will stress that the company does not eavesdrop on customer's conversations except in unusual circumstances such as a court order, an AOL spokesman said.

 

AIM's terms of service have been in place since at least February 2004, but nobody appears to have raised an alarm until a few days ago. Over the weekend, a brushfire of sorts flared among bloggers alarmed about six words embedded deep in the policy: "You waive any right to privacy."

 

That unfortunate wording was intended to apply to an AIM feature called "Rate-a-Buddy," spokesman Andrew Weinstein said. Like the classic HotOrNot.com site, Rate-a-Buddy permits AIM users to post photographs publicly so others can rate them on how "cute" and "interesting" they seem to be.

 

The Rate-a-Buddy language was "wrapped into" the AIM terms of service, and that "inartfully" worded phrase has been deleted from a new version that will be made public Tuesday, Weinstein said. "It's going to make it very clear that this section applies to public areas."

 

AIM's public areas include a few dozen public chat rooms, which cover topics from celebrity gossip to NASCAR chat. "We're making the language clearer so users understand it," Weinstein said. "At a minimum, there was significant confusion."

 

AOL's AIM Privacy Policy--referenced in AIM's terms of service--has long said that "AOL does not read your private online communications when you use any of the communication tools offered as AIM Products." The updated terms of service will include that statement, rather than referencing it.

 

Anne Mitchell, president of the Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy, said it was a good sign that AOL was revising its agreement but that she would withhold judgment until she could read it. Mitchell, who writes a blog under the pen name "Aunty Spam," had called AIM's policy a "complete waiver of privacy."

 

 

"The way it stands right now is potentially a nightmare for users," Mitchell said. "It's great that they said they'll alter the terms of service so it's not that nightmarish. But until I see it, I won't be satisfied."

[HotdadENYC]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what AOL says in response to the outcry. THEY DO keep copies of ALL IM's, ALL e-mails and any other correspondence. AOL subscribers acknowledge their right to do that and we all know (I think) that courts have used ISP retained messages to help their cases.

 

If you want true and unadulterated privacy, whisper in your partner's ear. Just don't phish, spam or spit !

 

 

hd NYC

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>Ultimately, it doesn't matter what AOL says in response to

>the outcry. THEY DO keep copies of ALL IM's, ALL e-mails and

>any other correspondence. AOL subscribers acknowledge their

>right to do that and we all know (I think) that courts have

>used ISP retained messages to help their cases.

>

>If you want true and unadulterated privacy, whisper in your

>partner's ear. Just don't phish, spam or spit !

>

>

>hd NYC

>

>

 

Pssst...HotdadeNYC... I am attaching "the list" I hope you might find any one of these ISP's a safe move away from AOL. I'd reccomend net-zero, although I use dsl and create my own content and internet experience...Com'on Hot dad, you CAN do this.

 

http://www.thelist.com/

 

ChgoBoy

[Boston Guy]

I've been an AOL subscriber since 1991, when they introduced their first DOS product. With occasional exceptions, I've been quite content with the service they have offered.

 

I'm always amused when people -- often friends of mine in the computer business -- talk about ditching AOL so they can experience the "raw" or "real" Internet, as if AOL was somehow putting up barriers that prevent AOL subscribers from going where they will. I guess I should mention that I've been involved in software technology, in one form or another, for more than 30 years.

 

AOL is just an ISP. For years, it was the world's largest ISP but it may been surpassed by some of the large telecomm companies as they have enrolled customers in DSL. But AOL still has tens of millions of customers paying a fair monthly fee. These people are not fools and they wouldn't be paying the fee if they weren't satisfied with the product and service they provide.

 

What I want from an ISP is pretty much equivalent to what I want from my electricity, gas and telephone utilities: I want the service to be always there, totally reliable, easy to use and priced at a price that I think is fair. To this day, the service offered by AOL continues to fit that description for me.

 

AOL is always there. I cannot think of the last time it was unavailable when I tried to log in. AOL's email simply works and delays are pretty much non-existent. This is not true of other ISP's I use for various companies that I am involved with, where email delays can be frequent at times.

 

AOL mail used to be derided by people because it wasn't "real" Internet email. That's changed now but I have to admit that, during all those years when my friends were putting down AOL's email, I was smiling as they dealt with one email virus after another, exploiting one Outlook vulnerability after another. To the best of my recollection, there has never been a virus transmitted in that way through AOL mail (i.e., by simply opening the mail; opening an attachment is a different story).

 

AOL wasn't the first company to introduce instant messaging (ICQ was, in 1996), but instant messaging really took off and became the kind of phenomenon that we know it as today when AOL introduced its IM product a year or so later.

 

AOL's history of being friendly to the gay community is legion. Like any corporation, it has had its ups and downs with regard to this issue, but AOL has been pretty darn gay-friendly since the beginning. The various gay-related (and escort-related) chat rooms continue to this day and continue to be a reasonable place to meet or chat with gay people (or escorts).

 

Some people have been pissed off by AOL's Terms of Service regarding text in profiles but I think they've missed the point. AOL is a worldwide service that is open and available to people of all ages, including kids. If I were allowed to be the one who judges what could and could not be put in public profiles that were easily viewed by children, I'm not so sure that I'd come down very far from where AOL has ended up. Far from viewing AOL as a group of "Nazis" -- a term frequently used by AOL opponents -- I think they've done a pretty fair job of walking a fine line between a lot of tolerance for differences among their subscribers and staying within both the law and the kinds of cultural mores that any corporation has to respect if it wants to stay in business.

 

Finally, in the end, AOL is just an ISP. It's not the evil empire or anything akin to it. If someone connects to AOL to access the Internet, they can use any Internet tool once connected. AOL does not prohibit the use of any particular tools or otherwise restrict its users. It simply tries to provide an online experience that is rich enough to entice its users to continue paying its monthly fees. Since tens of millions of people continue to make that choice, AOL must be doing something right.

 

BG

[Guest ChgoBoy]

AOL's "public areas" are no different then a stroll thru the isles of a public library. There will always be content that may perhaps be unsuitable for younger visitors. You dont see public libraries barring younger visitors from strolling these isles and controlling their visit by pre-eatablished censorship. AOL subscribers find the internet experience more clumsy than other ISP providers. In some cases, An AOL subscriber cannot participate in a websites offerings due to the manner in which AOL operates. AOL does control content and however you choose to view that is fine; however its censorship and limits expression and participation. Obviously, there are many happy AOL subscribers and that's a good thing. I believe however, many people are afraid of leaving AOL due to the fact they will be required to become more savy and educated in the workings of the internet. I have always viewed AOL as the training wheels for the first time internet user. After you get the basic feel, it's time to take the wheels off and ride on your own. AOL creates an experience for it's users, I agree. That experience however, is one that is based on the subscriber remaining ignorant to what is really out there and the possibilities that exist for a better and more complete experience. It's clear that BG is under the evil spell that AOL encodes in their programing. The good news is, it is reversable if one gets off their ass and takes control back from those that want you to only express one's self based on their beliefs and TOS.

[+ deej]

You and I will have to agree to disagree here.

 

I agree that AOL is nothing but an ISP and that millions would not be connected to the internet without AOL's ease of use, but their history isn't quite as rosy as you paint nor are their current practices.

[Boston Guy]

>AOL's "public areas" are no different then a stroll thru the

>isles of a public library.

 

Not true. People like to make this analogy but I don't believe it holds in practice. Children visiting a library do so under the supervision and careful watch of the adults who accompany them and the adults who work at the library. No such supervision or observation is guaranteed when a child accesses the Internet.

 

>There will always be content that

>may perhaps be unsuitable for younger visitors. You dont see

>public libraries barring younger visitors from strolling these

>isles and controlling their visit by pre-eatablished

>censorship.

 

I'm not sure what libraries you've been visiting but the ones I'm familiar with most certainly limit free access to materials by children, for a variety of reasons. Additionally, libraries do not make it possible for anyone to post anything they want in plain view for children to see. Public profiles are AOL are just that: public and easily accessed, including by children.

 

 

>AOL subscribers find the internet experience more

>clumsy than other ISP providers.

 

If anything, I'd argue the reverse is true. AOL makes it easy for naive users to reach the Internet and access its resources. Many ISPs make it more difficult. As a result of the kinds of path pioneered by AOL, many people who would never be able to access the Internet do so happily and with great success -- including many elderly people who are often confused by technology.

 

>In some cases, An AOL

>subscriber cannot participate in a websites offerings due to

>the manner in which AOL operates.

 

To the best of my knowledge, that is simply not true. If one connects to the Internet through AOL, a tcp/ip connection is established. One can then user IE, Firefox or any of the other browsers to access Web resources and any other tcp/ip-based tool to access other Internet resources.

 

If one connects to the Internet through another ISP (as, for example, with a DSL connection) and then connects to AOL, the above is clearly not true, since AOL becomes just one tool people are using to access a particular set of Internet resources. In fact, many people pay for a DSL-connection and then pay more per month for an AOL subscription because they value the products and services provided to them by AOL that are not provided by their DSL provider.

 

>AOL does control content and

>however you choose to view that is fine; however its

>censorship and limits expression and participation.

 

AOL does have terms for what it will permit. However, that's a restriction on what AOL subscribers can post in AOL-owned areas (like profiles). AOL subscribers still have access to all of the Internet resources that all non-AOL subscribers have and can post anything in any of those areas that anyone else can. The AOL subscribers simply have access to an additional set of resources not available to non-AOL subscribers and, clearly, many people find these additional resources to be of value. Finally, most websites that allow members to post impose a set of terms and conditions for posting -- including M4M.

 

>Obviously,

>there are many happy AOL subscribers and that's a good thing.

>I believe however, many people are afraid of leaving AOL due

>to the fact they will be required to become more savy and

>educated in the workings of the internet.

 

Turned about, the above could be read as "When AOL subscribers leave, they will be be required to become more savvy and educated in the workings of the Internet." In other words, they will have to become more technical and learn more technical skills to do the kinds of things they want to do when accessing the Internet. To some people, I suppose, that's a good thing. To most people accessing the Internet, however, being told that they have to learn more about technology to do what they want to do is very clearly not a good thing.

 

>I have always viewed

>AOL as the training wheels for the first time internet user.

>After you get the basic feel, it's time to take the wheels off

>and ride on your own.

 

That's fine for you. But do you also believe that everyone should do all of the repairs on their own cars, grow their own food and basically become involved in the technology underlying everything they do on a day-to-day basis?

 

Most people involved in the software business try to make things as easy as possible for end users, understanding well that tools are used by most people to accomplish some other task. Most of the people accessing the Internet really don't care at all about -- and don't want to have anything to do with -- the underlying technology. The old myth about "real" Internet users is akin to people who do their own car repairs looking down their noses at people who simply drive their cars and take them to a service center for maintenance.

 

>AOL creates an experience for it's

>users, I agree. That experience however, is one that is based

>on the subscriber remaining ignorant to what is really out

>there and the possibilities that exist for a better and more

>complete experience.

 

I don't agree. AOL subscribers are free to learn as much as they want about the Internet -- or to remain ignorant of many of the details of its working. AOL simply provides them with a choice. In what possible way can a non-AOL subscriber have a "better and more complete experience" of the Internet that is not equally open to AOL subscribers?

 

>It's clear that BG is under the evil

>spell that AOL encodes in their programing.

 

On the contrary, I've been in the software business for a very long time. I approach AOL with eyes wide open and am a daily user of other ISPs as well, both personally and professionally. I have high standards for software and software services and expect companies to deliver what they promise to deliver. As I said above, AOL provides its services in a completely reliable, dependable manner.

 

>The good news is,

>it is reversable if one gets off their ass and takes control

>back from those that want you to only express one's self based

>on their beliefs and TOS.

 

You mean like on this website? I can see now that AOL is preventing me from expressing myself here and only wish I were free to express myself as I wished.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

Deej,

 

I will always respect your opinion on any subject. We've disagreed in the past and I don't guarantee I'll agree on this subject, either. But I will respect what you have to say.

 

What I've posted is consistent with my memory and knowledge of AOL as a constant subscriber for the past 15 years, give or take. But memory is not always perfect. If I've posted something that's not correct, by all means, correct me. You won't hurt my feelings. :-)

 

BG

[Guest skrubber]

I signed up with AOL YEARS ago and dropped them soon after due to excessive advertising. I am now with Comcast which I get for free since I work for them but have added AOL as a secondary because my favorite escort in all the world is on there. If not for him I would drop them like a hot potato.

[OneFinger]

I've got to weigh in with Deej on this one. I'd go without internet service before I climbed in bed with AOL.

 

I've never been a client of AOL and have never used their service. However, a very close relative used to work for them. What he disclosed about their practices, policies, and general business protocol has convinced me that I want NOTHING to do with them.

 

The sooner they're gone the happier I'll be. (But I seriously doubt they care about my happiness or that of their customers.) I personally wouldn't give them the time of day and wouldn't trust them to keep any information about me confidential.

 

I'd feel more comfortable getting fucked by Jerry Falwell in the middle of Times Square than using AOL.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>I'd feel more comfortable getting fucked by Jerry Falwell in the middle of Times Square than using AOL.

 

One finger...In as much as I have shared my negative experiences and beliefs about AOL here, it is a subjective experience. I find it short of credible that you would make such comments without having been an AOL subscriber and experienced their offerings and short comings personally. I can only imagine how you would feel if you were reviewed by clients that had never seen you or experienced your services personally.

 

ChgoBoy

[OneFinger]

You make a valid criticism and I have no problem with you taking me to task with my very verbal opinions. And, I certainly agree that people have no business criticizing or reviewing an escort they've never seen or contacted.

 

But, I've never had cancer and certainly have an opinion on that subject based experiences with parents and other close relatives. I don't agree that you can only criticize something you've actually experienced.

 

God gave me a brain and I plan to use it. ;-)

[+ deej]

>God gave me a brain and I plan to use it. ;-)

 

Some day real soon, eh? ;-)

 

(Sorry .... you can't leave a straight line like that dangling... LOL)