AOL's Terms of Service Update for AIM Raises Eyebrows

eWeek ^ | March 12, 2005 | By Ryan Naraine

[holymoly]

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.

[holymoly]

You waive any right to privacy.

They're encouraging businesses to use AIM to discuss details of their business correspondence...

All your secrets are belong to us.

[Jenya]

AO-Hell can drop dead. Talk about Big Brother.

[Bogey78O]

Still using version 4.8 here.

[John Valentine]

AO-Hell can drop dead.

That's the rating I gave them about 10 years ago. This is just another outrage in a long list of outrages.

[Hank Rearden]

How AOHell remains in business is one of the Great Mysteries that will remain forever beyond my feeble capacity to fathom.

There are just so many good ways to get on the net - who needs 'em?

[1FASTGLOCK45]

AOL is a joke. It's good for Shiits and giggles but other than that i would never consider aol for any kind of business needs.

[Pylon]

Can you supply a link to the story please?

[John Valentine]

I'd be pretty damn leery of using AIM@Work for any kind of business," said Ben Stanfield, executive editor and founder of MacSlash, Inc.

I'd be pretty damn leery about using AIM for ANYTHING AT ALL.

As a proposition for AIM customers, this is enough justification to log off and never log back on. As a proposition for AOL, this makes it harder for them to claim arms length from content. After all if you have rights to something, a certain degree of control and responsibility is implied.

Next time I see one of my kids engaged in any kind of questionable conversation with a friend, I'm suing AOL. Hey, if they own it, it's theirs.

[holymoly]

Don't know how I missed that. Sorry.

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

[Pylon]

Thanks

[holymoly]

Someone needs to develop secure chatting so only the interested parties receive the message.

Someone's working on it as we speak:

[goldstategop]

There's third party add on software that lets you hold encrypted IM conversations online. The catch is both parties must install and run it for the encryption to be effective.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[quantim]

AOL - sooner or later economic Darwinism will send this buffoonery to the dustbin of bytes.

[Ticonderoga34]

AOL - sooner or later economic Darwinism will send this buffoonery to the dustbin of bytes.

I've done my part. I canceled AOL last year and went to broadband. I'll never go back to AOL.

[jocon307]

AOL is evil, just pure evil.

[SkyPilot]

They don't call it GAYOL for nothing.

[bvw]

I suspect that since you are using the service, the instant message transport, the new naked before the world terms apply to you as well.

[OhioAttorney]

If you follow the links to the original story and its updates, you'll see that AOL claims the clause applies to postings on weblogs and discussion lists but not to user-to-user communications. I'm no friend of AOL, mind you, but their need for (nonexclusive) rights to the material posted on their sites and servers is basically legitimate as far as it goes. The terms in this clause are pretty much the same thing you agree to when you post a review on Amazon.com.

[SkyPilot]

Spoken like a lawyer.