AOL outages and service status in Brunswick, Maine

Problems in the last 24 hours in Brunswick, Maine

The chart below shows the number of AOL reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Brunswick, Maine and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

AOL Issues Reports Near Brunswick, Maine

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in Brunswick and nearby locations:

• 
  Ⓢⓞ Ⓕⓡⓔⓔ ⓂⒺ (@So_FreeME) reported 50 minutes ago from Freeport, Maine

  @reedgalen @soledadobrien AOL has been having reliability issues since the 20th century

AOL Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  TylerSchlittPhotography (@Stormchaser_TS) reported 5 minutes ago

  @spann They still suck. They distribute your content and you would think something like it being on MSN or yahoo AOL different platforms like that would be a sale. Nope that is a partners and they give it to them for free so you make zero dollars off of it. I happen to me. Literally one of the worst third-party brokers out.

• 
  Herman, NXT social media legend (@herman_segle) reported 10 minutes ago

  @joshbmessenger @Ace109610 WWE Network would always crash, buffer and many times the picture looked like it was video being played on a dialup server like AOL.

• 
  ☽ ☿ ☾ Leigh Evans 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🇺🇦🇲🇽🎬📷 (@Levans6081) reported 10 minutes ago

  Pay no mind That’s been a popular internet bandwagon since aol boards Im old enough to remember the recycled rage garbage apparently Seriously though, if you find a movie too offensive to watch, that’s ok, the entire world doesn’t have to agree with you though, so calm it down

• 
  PIL Watch Group (pilwatchgroup) (@pilwatchgroup) reported 12 minutes ago

  @LiveLawIndia SC made an Himalayan effort to ensure 'Art of living' (AOL) is bailed out brushing aside concerns of environmental groups. SC says river Bank was already damaged in part. If that be so would 'AOL' have any business to damage it further. If AOL knew the damage,why use the site?

• 
  Vishwamitra (Modi ka Parivar) (@RamachandraRavi) reported 12 minutes ago

  @SwarupChattrjee @ArtofLiving On the contrary, AOL has rejuvenated numerous rivers, thousands of lakes, billions of trees. The people who caused the 10 year trouble needs to be penalized.

• 
  Kathleen Lenkeit voted for Hillary, Joe, & Kamala (@KathleenLenkeit) reported 13 minutes ago

  @Sheldon_305 19 - never on AOL

• 
  Steve Harvey 🇬🇧🇨🇦 (@steveharvey2001) reported 14 minutes ago

  @AntiEVidiots When EVs were niche, driving one was like being part of a community with a shared secret. Similar to being on the internet in the early 1990s, before the AOL hordes turned up with their poor netiquette.

• 
  Æ AI 🏴‍☠️ 原子纪元 (@atomeons_ai) reported 16 minutes ago

  @Scobleizer The moment is set later in retrospect. That's the issue. We look back at the 1000s of moments and pick one. Like AOL CDs but there was much more to the moment. This ebbs in then a crash.

• 
  Strategic Ambiguity (@ToshCooey) reported 17 minutes ago

  @hecubian_devil We should have never allowed AOL onto it.

• 
  Paul Walsh (@Paul__Walsh) reported 20 minutes ago

  People keep asking why Apple allowed OpenAI to build a ChatGPT integration for Messages. Do get to the point, I don’t think Apple anticipated a company using the permissions required by ChatGPT specifically to read, analyse and store people’s Messages when the Messages app includes iMessage and not just SMS. The entire point of iMessage is that it’s rich media *and* end to end encrypted. The permissions OpenAI needs exist for legitimate software, and Apple warns people before granting them. Backup software needs Full Disk Access to back up protected files. Security software needs it to inspect files for malicious activity. Disk utilities need it to search, recover and manage protected files. It’s similar to WebView. It gave developers a way to display parts of an app that could change without requiring a new app release and App Store review, such as terms of service, privacy policies and other remotely hosted content. In 2014, I predicted developers would eventually use WebView across every major app, with some apps built almost entirely inside it. I also warned this would create a security problem because WebView had no protection against dangerous links or malicious code typically found on webpages. Developers could make a WebView look identical to the native app, so people wouldn’t know whether they were using the app itself or interacting with a website. Today, in-app security is a multibillion dollar industry because it’s obvious that opening links inside an app might not be as safe as it should be. Most predictions, especially in the context of digital risk, are not believed by a lot of people. But they become obvious eventually. Today, I’m saying OpenAI’s ChatGPT integration with Apple Messages is more dangerous for some people than almost anything else on the market. Of course someone can take screenshots and send them to the FBI, repeat something they were told, or deliberately share a private conversation. That completely misses the point. None of those things is equivalent to giving an AI service automated access to read, analyse and store entire message histories involving everyone someone communicates with. Comparing deliberate human disclosure with automated access at scale ignores the capability that makes this fundamentally different. And why it removes the main benefit of end to end encryption. I can’t comprehend how security professionals can defend anything that undermines the purpose of end to end encryption by saying "but encryption isn’t broken". Protecting messages while they’re being transmitted means very little if an agent can systematically read, analyse and store them before they’re sent or after they’re received. Apple permissions have legitimate purposes. This particular use of them is the problem. During the early 2000s, I advocated for browser extensions. During the mid to late 2000s, before the first iPhone when mobile web didn't exist, I advocated for mobile web instead of WAP. In 2015, I advocated for chatbot integrations across messaging platforms and business tools. I’m a developer advocate, an open standards advocate, child safety advocate, and privacy advocate. I co-founded 2 W3C initiatives, including the Mobile Web Initiative, where I was tasked with rewriting Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of "One Web". And was a significant contributor to 8 technical specifications, including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. I care about humanity. I don’t advocate for one thing in isolation from everything else. I’m a technical expert in specific areas with OSINT skills and 30 years across web, telecom, and mobile. 💡 I consider every stakeholder affected by open standards, technology, and legislation. Sometimes convenience justifies a privacy tradeoff. Sometimes privacy should take priority over security, and sometimes security should take priority over privacy. None of these should be treated as an absolute regardless of the consequences. In 2017, the PKI Consortium asked me to advise them privately and write about the impact DV SSL certificates and HTTPS Everywhere were having on anti phishing security. I faced fierce criticism from privacy advocates who argued that the connection should be encrypted even if the person on the other end was an impersonator. Those were their words. If you care, search for "Insecure Elephant in the Room". The fundamental reasons phishing works were the same when I was impersonated in 1996 when phishing was first discovered on the AOL network, the same when I wrote about it in 2017, and the same today. Now I have to argue with some security professionals defending something that undermines the purpose of end to end encryption. They need to look beyond the mechanics of software and encryption. Technology is an enabler. We need to consider human behaviour, how people will actually use a capability, and what happens when that behaviour occurs at scale. Also, the potential intent that goes beyond a website or privacy statement. I’ve faced this repeatedly over the years. Today, when I argue that government policies and age verification introduced in the name of online child safety and preventing child exploitation are actually surveillance measures, child safety advocates accuse me of not caring about children. This isn’t rocket science. Add AI to everything, even if you’re willing to accept the risks to yourself. But please don’t add AI in ways that undermine another person’s right to privacy or, depending on the context, their personal safety. Some people's lives depend on their ability to rely on end to end encryption. We're not talking about SMS. 💡Criticising the technology used to pursue an objective doesn’t mean opposing the objective.