I'd bet that almost any student who uses AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) has used it at least once to engage in private, sensitive conversations. You know the type I'm talking about: relationships, grades, kleptomania and the like.

Often the Internet gives us a false sense of security, and we're led to believe that a blanket of anonymity shrouds our online activities. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth.

Consider a controversial section from the AIM Terms of Service, which apply to anyone who has registered for or downloaded AIM:

"... 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."

When this policy was posted on
slashdot.org, a self-proclaimed "News for nerds" Web site, it created a perfect storm. Many people believed that AIM was actively storing and monitoring every conversation taking place on the network, which apparently is on the order of hundreds of gigabytes per day (an amount equal to at least 150 million MP3 files, or nearly my entire music collection).

AIM spokesmen rushed to respond and clarify the company's stance. Apparently, the only "content" that AIM will be monitoring and capable of reproducing is that posted in public forums, not in private conversations.

This is a far less controversial policy, and it appears that most people will be satisfied with AIM simply rewording its Terms of Service to remove any lingering doubts about privacy. (You can view the current version at http://www.aim. com/tos/tos.adp.)

People with fears of Big Brother can breathe a little easier.

But AIM is far from the only popular online application that has been causing privacy concerns. For instance, I use Gmail, a new Web-based e-mail service provided by Google that has some pretty cool features.

The service is free, but it is supported by advertisements beside every message that are related to the text of the message. For example, if I receive an e-mail from a friend about her recent vacation, I might see an ad for an online travel site.

Obviously, if Gmail has relevant ads for each message, it must be able to read each message. This has created yet another brouhaha, but Google has quelled it by stressing that messages are read only by computer programs and never by humans.

I wouldn't be surprised to see more stories like these bubbling their way up through the Internet community and even the mainstream press as more and more of our private information moves online.

Of course, privacy concerns are nothing new. As early as 1974, federal privacy legislation regarding individual information (and its analysis by computers) has been on the books.

What's new is the sheer volume of private information online. A simple Google search could yield almost every conceivable detail about my life. (Of course, having my own Web site makes this information easier to find.)

I sometimes find myself worrying about the ability of, say, eLion to truly keep my private information secure. I'd sure hate for somebody to find out how many printing charges I've racked up.

As I see it, there are really two threats you need to be aware of.

The first, and the one that is probably far more publicized, is that of some ne'er-do-well getting access to information that he shouldn't, like the eLion example -- or perhaps the more chilling reports of private information about millions of consumers being stolen from the data collection company
ChoicePoint.

The second threat is in some ways more insidious, because it's publicly available but largely ignored: some clause in an obscure privacy policy on a Web site that allows its owners to use your data as they see fit.

I know that it would be impossible to really agree to and understand every word in those mandatory agreements. Most people just impatiently click "I Agree" and move on, and it's almost farcical to believe that most of these agreements are legally binding.

There are no easy answers, but I think that if we're all just a little bit more aware of privacy threats and our rights, people who are storing our data will be less inclined to risk incurring Internet community wrath.