Use iChat? You’ve waived any right to privacy.

Hmmm does Trillian count as an AOL product??

Don't make me turn this blog around. I think Ben and CK both need a time out.

Jeremy, my apologies. The digs at spelling and grammar were my attempts to mimic the overly instructive tone of Ben's posts here. Notice the way he insultingly begins his first comment: "Here's an idea: Before you post a story, get your facts straight." It's overly pedantic, rude, and unnecessary. So I childishly retorted in kind with notes about his inability to write well in English. Sorry to all. Ben, I'm done back-and-forthing with you. Let's just agree to disagree.

Well, if this is any indication of the reach of information in this new age, eWeek's story on this - with the obligatory correction - was also picked up by Matt Drudge. If there is any story here, I think it would be how few people actually read the TOS of ANY service they sign up for. The consumer is way too easy-going, and rarely realizes what they agree to. Or, truthfully, can fully understand what they are agreeing to. As for the argument back and forth between Ben and CK - if the first thing to point out is bad grammar OR mispellings, then the rest of the argument must be built on a shaky foundation. Address the issues brought up by Ben FIRST, and then harass him to download IE Spell.

Ben, you say: "If people don't understand how something like this can have wider implications - such as when CBS News broadcasts a false story about the President just weeks before the election and it gets picked-up by other media outlets - than they should think twice before publishing." Again, you really should proofread. This should read "then" not "than." Also, I think you are making another ludicrous and hyperbolic comparison here. There is a stark difference between the news coverage regarding a Presidential Election on a major PUBLIC broadcasting station and a blog post referencing a company saying, and I quote, "You waive any right to privacy," (Let's not forget that the TOS actually says that) on a privately owned blog that is commenting on something that other places on the web have already been talking about. You go on to say: "Just because you blog, doesn't mean you absolve yourself of responsibility. We ask the mainstream media, the government and corporations to show some - any - level of accountability, but bloggers apparently believe they're immune when asked to do the same." First, just because you comment on blog posts doesn't mean that you are the arbiter of the way blogging should work. I'm not sure how any of what this post contains flies in the face of any sort of accountability. I really think this TOS is badly worded and has the possibility to be misused, regardless of AOL saying, "But we don't really mean it that way." If they don't really mean it that way, then say it the way it is meant.

you all need to read greg's post on this... look deeper into the privacy policy, and it's not that bad. http://www.yardley.ca/blog/

C.K. The purpose of including the Weblogs, Inc. Privacy Statement and a misinterpretation of it in my post was to illustrate how things like legal documents, privacy policies, terms of service agreements, etc. can be misinterpreted by people who don't have a fundamental understanding of how these documents are worded and how they work. There's no irony here, you just missed (or I failed to adequately make clear) the implied sarcasm. My point was simple: If I pulled the terms of service agreements or privacy policies from 100 websites, I could probably find "problems" with 80% of them. I could then write about those "problems," and spread the word to other blogs. Of course, you're going to have to trust that I interpreted the original document correctly, and that the charges I'm making are accurate. The fact that you and Jason (on my comments section) took the time to defend your company's Privacy Statement is evidence of the problems companies and individuals face when people disseminate false or factually inaccurate information. Now, imagine having to go and do this on over 100 blogs, or having to waste time dealing with the media because someone didn't get their fact straights and posted something without asking you first for clarification. It doesn't matter, the damage is done, you've wasted time and resources, and if you've lost one customer because someone presented a point of view instead of facts - but presented it as facts - you've lost in this equation. I used this story to illustrate a broader problem, which I outlined at the end of my post, hence the "heated over-reaction" (as for lightening up, do I need to wait until something catastrophic happens before I make my views known?) If people don't understand how something like this can have wider implications - such as when CBS News broadcasts a false story about the President just weeks before the election and it gets picked-up by other media outlets - than they should think twice before publishing. Just because you blog, doesn't mean you absolve yourself of responsibility. We ask the mainstream media, the government and corporations to show some - any - level of accountability, but bloggers apparently believe they're immune when asked to do the same.

One "zinger" from AOL that you're missing here. Since about two years ago, there was no option available to TURN OFF autoupdating of AIM. So you can pretty much say goodbye to your rights if you're using AIM, period.

I haven't read the entire AOL "Terms of Service" nor am I a lawyer, but I find this wording over-broad and contradictory and, ultimately, illegal and unenforceable. The contradiction lies here in which AOL says, (1) "...you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product" and (2) "AOL owns all right, title and interest in any...work created by AOL using...this Content." These two things are contradictory and incompatible. I cannot own ALL right to something if AOL can use it without my prior consent in any way it sees fit with no compensation to me. "Ownership" and "Title" mean something. Suppose with the consent of the copyright holder I post on an AOL server some song lyrics owned by a music publishing company. Can you imagine if AOL then promptly "used or incorporated" these lyrics without notice to or authorization by the original holder of it? If AOL engaged in this practice, it would be painting a huge target on itself and this verbiage would not hold up in court. It's human nature to create these "we are untouchable" disclaimers; it's the idea of throwing up any and all protections and leaving it to the courts to decide what will stick and what will not. And the uninitiated layperson can easily be intimidated by this. As a layperson myself, however, I'm not impressed. Merely because a company SAYS it can do something does not make it so -- even if you click on an "ACCEPT" button. Contracts must meet certain criteria in order to be legal, and the acceptance of both parties is only one of these criteria. Finally, think again about posting some copyrighted song lyrics via an AOL medium and imagine if the music publishing company or the RIAA would put up with this: "...by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL...the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. ....You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses. Yeah, right.

Hey, Ben, lighten up, I just read your entry on this whole thing over at your site: "Using some back of the envelope legal interpretation, Weblogs, Inc. now owns by email address because they 'collected' it on one of their websites. Jason, let me know where to send my password." I think you meant, "my" instead of "by". Here's an idea: Before you post a story, get your spelling / word choice straight. ;-b Also, you're entirely misinterpreting and exaggerating the type of ownership our TOS talks about in order to spin our post here as some sort of hyperbolic over-reaction; which is ironic considering that what you have written is an assumptive hyperbolized counter-argument with a nice sort of anti-blogger ad hominem attack thrown in just to make sure that it doesn't have any chance of flying as an effective argument. We cannot take over your email address and own it in that way. However, by writing something here you have agreed to let us add your email address to our database and use it in any way we see fit that doesn't contradict our Privacy Policy. My entry here is a sort of "hey, did you guys see this and how it could potentially be abused?" and it is part of a discussion that, whether you like it or not, has re-emerged online. This is what blogs do. They discuss things. Your comment, on the other hand, is a heated over-reaction in response to the over-reaction you think everyone is making out of this entire discussion. There are better ways to communicate how you think this topic should be covered.