We do it without a moment’s thought. We click the box and accept the “terms” without pause. What are the actual terms? No one really knows—and, more often than not, no one really cares. But perhaps we should pay more attention to the content of these curious provisos—these End-User License Agreements (EULAs) that accompany most any piece of software. If the new changes to the terms of service of one of America Online (AOL) Inc.’s most popular applications are any indication, it’s easy to pull a fast one on unassuming customers without any real accountability. In their current, indecipherable form, however, it’s safe to assume that people will continue to “agree” to these terms without thinking. It is essential that EULAs be more up-front and comprehensible; they should be written in “plain English” to avoid any underhanded policies that might require signing away one’s soul—inadvertently.

The changes in question affect something very dear to almost any Harvard student, and increasingly almost any person who owns a personal computer, cell phone, or other trendy technological device that allows for epistolary e-interaction. And it stirs paranoia in anyone who generally enjoys the world of impersonal, anti-social online banter. That is, it affects the users of the ubiquitous AOL Instant Messenger (AIM).

AOL’s new terms, affecting anyone who downloaded AIM after Feb. 4, 2004 as well as anyone planning to update the program in the future, explain that, “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. You waive any right to privacy.” Frightening words, indeed.

It has long been known that e-mail is not the best forum to divulge one’s most dubious thoughts. Any prying person can read them, and they remain within the wilds of the Internet long after they’re deleted from any inbox. But what if, somewhere in AOL’s bottomless online file cabinet, sits every instant message interaction, exposing any deviance or debauchery? The mind runs wild with unsettling prospects.

The words of JoeSchmoe123 may come back to haunt him someday, when it’s least expected, if AOL is subpoenaed for his AIM transcripts or for a listing of his posts on public forums. Perhaps, entangled in messy separations, angry divorcées will begin calling for their philandering husbands’ online conversations to inflate their settlements. Lives will be ruined and public humiliation imminent, all for seemingly innocuous words typed many years ago.

These are (we hope) exaggerations. AOL’s new policies are particularly alarming in terms of privacy concerns; but the overarching concern has more to do with the undefined legal nature of EULAs than it does with AIM-specific worries of confidentiality.

The legalese of EULAs requires great skill to navigate. As they relate to both software companies and consumers, the legality of the agreements is hazily established, making software companies overcompensate with their wordings in an attempt to cover all possible bases that might leave them legally, or otherwise, vulnerable. And the excessive language leaves users scared that the terms’ fatal-sounding assertions might actually affect them. Sure, the chance is slim that anyone of importance will ever lay eyes on JoeSchmoe123’s seedy online statements, but the fear is there—and it’s uncomfortable.

These (unwarranted) worries would be assuaged if EULAs were rendered more straightforward and if the specific parameters of their legality were squared away in court. There is no reason that EULAs should continue to be indecipherable; Congress should pass legislation mandating their translation, as well as demarcating which rights belong to the Internet-based companies and which are assigned to the consumer. This would both encourage otherwise blissfully ignorant customers to read the agreements onto which they are signing, as well as allay the temptation on the part of the software companies to use overly harsh rhetoric that, in this case, essentially robs individuals of any standard of privacy.