Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure in MagicJack

Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure in MagicJack http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22528488 en Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:33:54 EDT Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:33:54 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22703933 anon : Great.... somebody figured it out... I guess the "we route between the ata and the star (asterisk)" was too much of a giveaway.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22703933 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:43:32 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22699777 laserjobs : ATAs are back up using sipsorcery!

»www.magicjacksupport.com/atas-wo···026.html]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22699777 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:56:44 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22696325 RT31P2VDgui : "Those who know do not say... we are grey... we route between the ata and the star."

Whatever dude. MagicJack on ATA sucked anyway & so did it's webUI(Settings? What Settings!). I missed so many calls on it that its not even worth my time. I'm very glad I found a no hassle company like sipgate. I'm not a phone hog so all I pay now is 2¢ a minute plus the manditory E911 service(Less than $2); For me thats not more than $3 a month for rock solid phone service to your horridly unreliable $1.67 a month(Not including the price for the adapter). Best of all no more hacking needed(Yes! They hand you your SIP credentials!) No password resets like MagicCrap & It's NEVER down! Unless of course your internet provider goes down.

You're not special because you lie & pretend to know what we do not. All you want is attention & to start a potential flame war. You want it so bad that you even created an account for people to bug you for just that purpose!; "Oh please NotTellin! Tell me how to make it work!"

Give us all & yourself a break & give sipgate a try already. It's free for the first month even without a credit card. MagicJack & Danny Boy could never say that(Not after the MJ activation but bills you on the 31st day of the order). What a crock!

We're trying to help people here not piss them off buddy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22696325 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:43:51 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22695723 synchron : Good ATA Voip alternative:Sipgate for free incoming, toll-free outgoing/Localphone for outgoing using mysipswitch/sipsorcery account. Localphone "was" 7/10ths of a cent/min but it's going up tomorrow to 9/10ths of a cent per minute (still pretty cheap - 54 cents/hour for U.S calls Sip to landline/mobile phone).

Now as far as mj/ATA............read the Wiki.

Synchron :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22695723 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:58:15 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22684145 anon : Those who know do not say... we are grey... we route between the ata and the star.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22684145 Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:46:02 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22682969 anon : I guess it time to check out OOMA. I've heard good things about it. One good thing is the don't use the G.711 codec like MJ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22682969 Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:46:58 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22681352 anon : As of now ATA are dead on magicjack. DAN is too good to be hack :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22681352 Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:26:58 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22674887 linusarran : Did any one find a way to make MJ work again using ATA?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22674887 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:27:55 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22666249 viafax999 : why would you want a phone on a phone???

Because the app could run on the IPOD Touch which with os3 id BT enabled.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22666249 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:18:01 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22660502 RT31P2VDgui : Indeed!

Also like most other VOIP providers they don't charge you for outgoing(Or incoming) to other SipGate members. I need to get the rest of my neighbors, family & friends on this; Too bad that there is no referral program[Not that I need it at this price]. Only the $300 a year SIP providers offer this program(Go Figure).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22660502 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:02:14 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22657793 r81984 : That looks interesting.
Free number and free incoming.
Then 1.9 cents a minute for US and Canada for outgoing.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22657793 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:01:38 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22657586 RT31P2VDgui : I've found a solution that brings back the ATA into the picture for not much more than MJ!!!
(Thanks to the admin @ HayTek Gadgets.)

I've been using sipgate since they cut us off from ATA usage. SipGate which launched June 2nd. Hmmm...My ATA/MJ died on that day; Oh well.

They even give you your SIP credentials without trying to hack them! Amazing! Sorry Dan. I know it's your policy; But I need a STABLE SIP provider that doesn't keep me from MY own account SIP credentials.

Best of all it is free to "Test Drive" for a month or 200 free outgoing(Incoming Free!!!) minutes; Whichever comes first. No credit card is needed to try out. After that it is a flat fee of 0.019¢(2¢) a minute. They don't have a monthly phone bill either. They have a really nice online Web UI with prepay service much like Skype & Yahoo Voice. Except much better quality in my opinion(ATA behind sipgate's stable Asterisk servers).

The Downside: They do not have many area codes or prefixes available at the time I signed up. Keep in mind that this service just launched just over a month ago. Also they do not "Port" your old phone number yet either.

Lastly, The only monthly fee they charge is less than 2 dollars a month for mandatory E911 service. I've asked them in an email if it is possible to "OPT Out" of this service & they told me that it is required by the FCC. I guess several people died when 911 couldn't pinpoint their location due to improper forwarded E911 service or no E911 service at all.

Here is an excerpt from a sipgate support email:

As for E911 we offer this service in compliance with federal regulations. As this service is mandated by the FCC we cannot allow you to opt out and it comes with any account which is used for both incoming and outgoing calls. However, as long as you use your sipgate account to solely receive calls on a VoIP phone our service is entirely free of charge and we do not even charge you for E911 as we do not provide E911 in this case. If you like to learn more about E911 as federally mandated, please, visit

»www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-se···ome.html

What do you guys & gals think? I know there is other options which may be free but this is a complete package that no one has to try to figure out & is still dirt cheap & reliable. Sorry about hijacking this thread, but as far as I can see; MJ/ATA is dead for now.

RT31P2VDgui
(NA-ized),RT31P2-NA (Unmodded Real 3.1.9 LId) as primary ATA.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22657586 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:11:17 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22593072 r81984 :

said by avd706

:

why would you want a phone on a phone???

Free calls to Canada. Cheap calls internationally.
Unlimited calls that do not go against your minutes.

...but, there is no way ATT would allow this. They want to steal your money instead.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22593072 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:46:52 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22589859 bubamarkus : An easy way to block ATAs use for MagicJack software would be to sync SIP calls with web access (ex. talk4free.com+your account info). They have been doing this already. That is how ads are played. Now they probably use it to block ATAs. If there is no inquiry to ther http server, they simply do not connect the call. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22589859 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:42:11 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22588456 anon : I second.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22588456 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:34:07 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22588126 bubamarkus : Can somebody figure out how to get MJ to work on ATAs again instead of debating the legal issues?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22588126 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:54:24 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22587236 anon :

said by JPMorgan :

What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS.
That's not true. See:

said by MagicJack ToS :

I'm sure any court would uphold that MJ has the right to secure it's network and require only its devices use it.

Mark

I disagree. Look at what the Department of Justice did to the Bell System back in 1984. They broke it up to allow anyone to attach any device to the network, in addition to spurring innovation and killing the monopoly. The Bell System argued that they were protecting their network by ensuring that their "quality" products could be attached and thereby avoiding outages.

I'm sure at some point someone will challenge the MJ ToS. Until then, they get to call the shots.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22587236 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:31:10 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22559271 laserjobs :

said by amigo_boy

said by RockyBB

:

... if we want to talk about Ian Fleming type stuff, let's talk about the purpose of the difficult to UNINSTALL advertising software.

I've never thought the uninstall issue was that important. But...

I just saw this posting on the MJsupport forum:

said by j1sjeep :

... perusing my dumpfile learning more about the upgrade. ... When I stumbled upon my usernames and passwords [from] a web-based utility I use at WORK[,] and MY ONLINE BANKING information.
-- »www.magicjacksupport.com/potenti···664.html

In case others want to check, he used pmdump to dump the magicjack.exe process from memory to a file.

Mark

If you are concerned about privacy, then you should monitor your connection with Wireshark. Nobody has seen any private information transferred to magicJack's servers yet. What you are seeing is the programs resident memory from the IE module. Sorry to disappoint but there is no security breach going on.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22559271 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:47:11 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22557637 RockyBB :

said by amigo_boy

:

I've never thought the uninstall issue was that important. But...

Sounds like it might be time to start printing up some RockyBB Fan Club T-shirts! :D

Imagine the complexity of trying to roll-back all the software installs ... it would be like an AIDS investigation ... you'll have to fill out a survey and disclose all the computers your dongle has been inserted into. :D

Seriously, I hope this is a false alarm, and that no one has been or will be hurt by this.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22557637 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:02:12 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22557352 amigo_boy :

said by RockyBB

:

... if we want to talk about Ian Fleming type stuff, let's talk about the purpose of the difficult to UNINSTALL advertising software.

I've never thought the uninstall issue was that important. But...

I just saw this posting on the MJsupport forum:

In case others want to check, he used pmdump to dump the magicjack.exe process from memory to a file.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22557352 Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:03:03 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22552085 RockyBB :

said by amigo_boy

:

I've had a funny feeling

I don't buy that MJ was waiting for a significant percentage to hack the dongle before closing the door ... remember that MJ needs eyeballs to sell advertising and any internet marketing firm researching MJ will run across the various hack threads ... so that's a door that MJ needs to keep closed. They sent a message that was unheard the first time ... they've now warned a 2nd time. To maintain any integrity in their attempt to sell real advertising, they must continue to police the cheaters. (The Mob can steal from you, but you're not allowed to steal from the Mob!)

I also don't buy the concept that MJ is purposely disabling devices to not have to fulfill the network service -- if we want to talk about Ian Fleming type stuff, let's talk about the purpose of the difficult to UNINSTALL advertising software.

But I am certain that MJ's policy of disrespectful customer service was originally developed with the intent in mind to encourage customers abandoning their prepayments. That's a big "duh" in my book. Customers that are easy to install are cheap to acquire; customers that are difficult to install are a lost cause and aren't worth MJ's time and effort at the selling price. And who cares if they quit the service ... the software remains on the machine! In my mind, there's no way that was not discussed in the development meetings prior to launch. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22552085 Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:17:01 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22551951 avd706 : why would you want a phone on a phone???
--
Team JON.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22551951 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:39:55 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22551476 anon : MJ should immediately make an Iphone APp. It would be worth to me and I am sure to alot of people. MJ people!!!!! This is FEEdBaCK!!! No rocket science.
You could charge for it. I would pay 3-5 bucks.

Otherwise. Another carrier will and lots of people will switch.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22551476 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:31:53 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22551034 odment : Thank you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22551034 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:32:27 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22551000 dbmaven : »Re: MJ softphone upgrade]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22551000 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:23:31 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22550909 odment : This my sound dumb but was is ATA?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22550909 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:02:04 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22549544 amigo_boy :

said by just my 02 :

Dan scores a big "win" by legally terminating 20% of the "prepaid" client base without providing a refund.

I've had a funny feeling that the relatively large (compared to other VoIP services) number of users whose service inexplicably becomes unusable is part of Dan's business plan.

Let's say Dan has a program to examine usage patterns (more outgoing than incoming, for example) and randomly chooses users to muck up their service. Maybe it sends their dongle the instruction to display "Broken Storage." Or, deprioritizes their server connection so their calls are choppy and garbled.

The way Dan doesn't refund unused time (and makes it punitive to resolve technical problems), it could be part of his business plan that n% of users who exit early equates to $n of profit. Plug in the $ in profit you need, get the number of users that should depart, and give that number to the analysis program mentioned above.

It sounds crazy. But, the "no refund" policy combined with a lot of sleazy behaviors Dan has exhibited make it less crazy to me.

On the one hand, I can understand the "no refund" policy. At the level of $1.67 per month it's not worth the overhead of requesting or handling requests. But, that's the problem with having no concern for your own reputation (the way Dan has done). It can contribute to people thinking it's not that innocent or simple.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22549544 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:48:33 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22549466 luigi2008 : Ｉ　ａｍ　ｔｏｔａｌｌｙ　ｗｉｔｈ　ｙｏｕ．]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22549466 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:24:03 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22548021 anon : Consider this...

The business model is doomed to fail - selling a product/service that the incoming revenue stream less overhead expenses (including pending lawsuits) will never be profitable.

What better way to "fix" the situation than to allow peeps to up-buy the service (5 years) with a TOS agreement that states that service is subject to termination (without refund) if TOS are violated (by not using the advertising-based-soft-client).

Dan scores a big "win" by legally terminating 20% of the "prepaid" client base without providing a refund.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22548021 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:29:50 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22546301 andre2 :

said by amigo_boy

:

And, personally, as a non-ATA user, I have to wonder how much this game has taken away from providing other services. Would I have a Linux softphone now if Dan didn't have to spend so much time trying to enforce the Terms of Service people said they agreed to?

I suspect that Dan made a calculated decision to let the ATA use go on as long as it did in order to get more people to sign up, preferably for 5-year plans. The upgrade is dated April, 2 months before it was released.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22546301 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:03:39 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22545790 amigo_boy :

said by swanboy

:

This site has gone insane apparently. Instead of actually trying to solve some technical issues such as on the mJsupport forums... you guys are having nonsensical debates about the ToS.

Maybe. But, this is the second time Dan has tried to stop ATA use in six months. At what point does this change from innocently taking advantage of a "feature," to maliciously undermining a company's service?

If I were the guy running the MJ Support forum, I'd start to worry about that. He could easily become a target of a DMCA claim.

But, for all I know, he might like havnig people uncover holes for him.

However, there's nothing nonsensical about how Dan's tried to stop the ATA activity twice now, and the nature of trying to hack his system is increasingly more risky.

And, personally, as a non-ATA user, I have to wonder how much this game has taken away from providing other services. Would I have a Linux softphone now if Dan didn't have to spend so much time trying to enforce the Terms of Service people said they agreed to?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22545790 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:40:35 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22545511 swanboy : This site has gone insane apparently. Instead of actually trying to solve some technical issues such as on the mJsupport forums... you guys are having nonsensical debates about the ToS.

Ridiculous. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22545511 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:27:33 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538990 avd706 : wudda you mean "*sigh*"?

MJ should port out numbers per FCC regulations.

users using MJ on their ATA have no basis to complain if thatfunctionality is disabled.

In one case the TOS/AUP protects the company, in another case it has no legal basis.

Go figure.
--
Team JON.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538990 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:36:06 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538901 Noga : *sigh*]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538901 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:11:58 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538870 avd706 :

said by Noga

:

This reminds me of an earlier post I read on the magicjacksupport forum. It went along something along the lines of "MagicJack is evil...any company that would not let you port out your number is evil." Then there was an actual argument for a few pages...ugh.

That's a different argument.
--
Team JON.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538870 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:03:06 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538216 Noga : This reminds me of an earlier post I read on the magicjacksupport forum. It went along something along the lines of "MagicJack is evil...any company that would not let you port out your number is evil." Then there was an actual argument for a few pages...ugh.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538216 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:49:13 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22537244 swanboy : Theres always been so many paranoid mJ users...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22537244 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:17:13 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535452 pandora : We shall see what happens. At least its an interesting thread. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535452 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:00:01 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535435 amigo_boy :

said by pandora

:

Just an articulation that TOS, contracts and law should be respected. For those who happily use MagicJack via its dongle per TOS per DMCA, I have great respect. They are getting a wonderful deal.

For the sake of others, ToS and DMCA are two different things. Terms within a ToS may cover things that are covered by DMCA. But, that doesn't give them the weight of DMCA. Just because a ToS doesn't include terms related to DMCA doesn't mean a company has waived their protections under DMCA.

DMCA doesn't give ToS additional (or any) enforceability. The licensor wouldn't use ToS to enforce DMCA claims. He would just terminate service.

To me, DMCA doesn't have much to do with a discussion of ToS. It's just a way to make EULAs sound like they're in the same legal category of DMCA. They're not.

EULAs are contracts giving the licensor greater power than they would have under copyright. And, because they are self-written and not consummated like a real contract, they may not carry the weight (if any) of a real contract.

DMCA is statutory law enhancing copyright for owners of digital intellectual property. It doesn't make all EULA's valid (in every respect). Therefore, it's incorrect to say "use magicJack ... per ToS per DMCA" as if ToS gains credibility or power from DMCA.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535435 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:57:49 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535363 amigo_boy :

said by r81984

:

So do I violate the TOS when I have ads blocked from my host file?

I think you do. The ToS says you agree to receive ads.

said by MagicJack ToS :

11. You also understand and agree that use of the magicJack device and Software will include advertisements. ... You also understand and agree that use of the magicJack device and Software may include certain communications, such as service announcements, administrative messages and newsletters, and you will not be able to opt out of receiving them.

Right now the advertisements are simply announcements and administrative messages. By blocking them you are opting out of them. If these are required, how much more so would be revenue-generating advertisements?

But, I agree that this is a sticky issue. Does this mean you're required to look at them? Is an always-on thin client or laptop a violation? What is the definition of "receive?" Physically receive them on the computer? Or, personally?

I tend to think it means you will receive them at the computer as they are intended to be received. But, it's not reasonable to require you to actually look at them. That would involve questions of how long you should look at them? How carefully? But, physically receiving them at the computer is pretty clear. It's sufficient to give you a reasonable chance of looking at them. That's all MJ can hope for.

But, this gets back to MJ's responsibility to enforce it. Does MJ have a responsibility to detect that the ad server is unreachable? Stop service if the condition persists? If MJ doesn't take steps to enforce this term of service *where it reasonably has the ability to do so*, does that mean you shouldn't care about that term of service any more than MJ does?

I don't know. I can see both sides.

said by r81984

:

Why do you applaud this? MagicJack made money of people who bought it just to use it with an ATA.

MJ's interest is broader than the money transferred at the time of sale. MJ has an interest in the advertisements (even just it advertises its own ads, or service announcements such as notices of service suspension). It also has an interest in everyone using the service as expected to keep support costs lower. If someone with an ATA contacts chat support, this can increase the cost of support.

MJ has an interest in its public image (yes, I vomited a little in my mouth as I wrote that). If MJ doesn't provide ATA service, then it doesn't need the negative publicity of everyone complaining when their illicit ATA service is disrupted.

But, as I said earlier, I agree that MJ's interest in this is commensurate with the steps it takes to enforce the no-ATA policy.

said by r81984

:

If there is no way to hack it to use an ATA then MagicJack should refund them for the USB device and prorate their yearly fee.

Wow. That's the ultimate victim mentality. You guys knew it was contrary to the ToS. I can understand taking a gamble that Dan would allow it until he offered a real ATA service. (I wish he'd handled it that way.).

But, saying it's Dan's fault and he owes all the violators something is surreal.

said by r81984

:

Agreements??? I use magic jack and I can tell you I read no agreements or agreed to anything. ... TOS's are not always legal and have no power. ...

The ToS doesn't give you the luxury of neither agreeing or not agreeing. When you purchase you agree to the ToS. When you register you indicate you agree to the ToS. The ToS says if you don't agree, you cannot use the service.

There's nothing that says you can simply not be bothered by the ToS, defining your own.

If you don't respect ToSs, that's fine. But, picking and choosing ("they're not always legal") is unattractive. Because they aren't always legal mean often they are. The fact that they often are legal is a reason to be concerned with what the ToS says, and adhere to the choice to agree or disagree. (Or, at least know the parts you disagree with, and consider unenforceable.).

As far as it being a court's responsibility to decide. I agree. But, it's going to end up being your responsibility to go to court to get that decision. Not Dan's. He'll just block your unauthorized use, and cancel your service -- per the ToS. It will be very funny to listen to you in arguing to a court how the ToS that you neither agreed to, nor disagreed to, is now binding on MJ. :)

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535363 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:49:05 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535344 pandora :

said by pagemen

:

why are you so excited? Feel like a winner of the OOMA vs. MJ debate?

No, no excitement here. Just an articulation that TOS, contracts and law should be respected. For those who happily use MagicJack via its dongle per TOS per DMCA, I have great respect. They are getting a wonderful deal.

For those who violated TOS, contract, or DMCA, I have no sympathy. Why should I? Do you?

As to MagicJack vs. Ooma, there is no debate for me. I decided to go with an ATA long ago as the dongle, adware and PC on 24/7 didn't appeal to me. My decision not to go with MagicJack pre-dates my decision to go with Ooma.

I think it may be worth mentioning to users on this forum that continued attempts to get third party ATA's working with MagicJack could be offering information to Dan about inappropriate use of credentials. Is that wrong of me to mention?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535344 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:47:16 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535312 pagemen : why are you so excited? Feel like a winner of the OOMA vs. MJ debate?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535312 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:42:08 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535193 amigo_boy :

said by pandora

:

My guess is if some people do get notices or threats about litigation, we will see a cry fest on this board. Suddenly everyone who boasted about cracking or hacking MagicJack will become pure as new snow.

I doubt that will happen. Not until Dan has really closed unauthorized access, and then goes after people clearly hacking into his system.

I agree with you that I don't need the drama of illegitimate ATA use. I also respect Dan's business interests (the requirement to receive ads, even if they only advertise Dan's products and aren't generating revenue as his business model anticipated).

I'm kind of in the middle on this. I think people who used ATAs knew they were violating the ToS. Some didn't care because Dan didn't take steps to enforce the ToS (either stopping ATA use, or terminating abusers). Others didn't care because they simply don't respect EULAs (which I can understand, and sympathize to some degree).

But, talk of lawsuits (either people suing Dan over his ToS prohibition against ATAs, or Dan suing users for using them all this time) is absurd. IMO.

But, if I were an ATA user, I'd be more concerned today about trying different things to make it work. Dan tried to stop it in December. He's been more effective this week. It's a matter of time until he's going to stop kidding around. That could be service termination. Or, if he really gets tired of playing games, a DCMA lawsuit.

Anyone who continues trying to figure out how to make it work is playing an increasingly dangerous game.

I wish Dan would have waited to do this until he had a real ATA solution to sell.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535193 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:23:18 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535152 r81984 : So do I violate the TOS when I have ads blocked from my host file?
Also, I fail to see how anything you said is a violation of the DCMA. Do you even know what the DCMA is?

quote:
My guess is MagicJack can't be bothered to seek prosecution against every stupid kid who hacks credentials as they probably have no real assets. However, MagicJack is well within its rights to stop third party ATA access to their network. I applaud MagicJack for doing this.

Why do you applaud this? Magic Jack made money of people who bought it just to use it with an ATA. If there is no way to hack it to use an ATA then MagicJack should refund them for the USB device and prorate their yearly fee. This way no one is out of anything and Magic Jack can sell the USB device to another person.

quote:
The people who think violating agreements and law are OK if you don't get caught, may wish to wonder what the world would be like if everyone thought this way. We'd have anarchy and tremendous harm would be done to all.

Agreements??? I use magic jack and I can tell you I read no agreements or agreed to anything. You can call them rules, but not agreements. TOS's are not always legal and have no power. They would have to be challenged and hold up in court to really make them legal.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535152 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:15:56 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535140 pandora : At the moment, it appears MagicJack is identifying customers who are using ATA's. These today appear on this forum as people claiming they can register but not make calls.

Where MagicJack will go with that information is something only Dan knows. Will he cancel accounts? Will he sue? Will he ask the government to prosecute? I don't know. I do know this isn't drama I need or want in my life.

My guess is if some people do get notices or threats about litigation, we will see a cry fest on this board. Suddenly everyone who boasted about cracking or hacking MagicJack will become pure as new snow.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535140 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:14:11 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535075 amigo_boy :

said by pandora

said by amigo_boy

:

The problem is, if a ToS said "By using this product you agree to give us your firstborn son" it wouldn't be enforceable.

The MagicJack TOS refer to use of the MagicJack device and reserve to MagicJack rights it has under the DMCA.

Can we talk about that?

Ok. But, wouldn't any DCMA claim be predicated on the intellectual property owner taking steps to enforce that?

I agree MJ is taking steps. At some point, ATA hackers won't be able to say they thought it was ok because MJ allowed it. And, they could be subject to a DCMA claim.

But, right now, MJ allowed a huge amount of ATA usage simply by not 1) disallowing such connections, or 2) terminating service of those attempting it.

At the moment (or, the past year), I don't see how DCMA would apply.

And, EULAs can contain more than DCMA-related items and still be valid. Likewise, they can contain items unrelated to DCMA and be invalid.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535075 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:03:35 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534988 pandora :

said by amigo_boy

:

The problem is, if a ToS said "By using this product you agree to give us your firstborn son" it wouldn't be enforceable.

The MagicJack TOS refer to use of the MagicJack device and reserve to MagicJack rights it has under the DMCA.

Can we talk about that?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534988 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:49:21 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534940 amigo_boy :

said by pandora

:

I think if you don't like TOS, you don't accept it. Then return the device to get a refund.

The problem is, if a ToS said "By using this product you agree to give us your firstborn son" it wouldn't be enforceable. Or, if it said "you agree to be infected by malware."

You're right that a reasonable person would simply refuse to do business with such a company. But, those things still aren't valid contractual obligations.

Where it gets worse are the gray areas. Like my earlier example concerning reverse engineering. That's like obscenity. We all know it when we see it, but nobody can define exactly what is obscene.

I might agree to a EULA thinking it means I won't do anything to harm MJ's interest in their service. But, now the definition of "harm" is nebulous. If I view MJ in memory (pmdump) and over the wire (Wireshark), am I reverse engineering? Can MJ contractually require me not to examine its use of my computer?

What if my purpose is to discover how MJ fails over to other regional proxies so I can force that process to occur? Did I reverse engineer?

Dan might say I did because, to some degree I've harmed MJ by using the system in a way that wasn't intended (or configured my machine in a way to cause the system to behave unnaturally). This could lead to greater support costs when I invoke chat support, and forget that I blocked proxies and the failover isn't working as intended.

I don't think it's crystal clear.

1. Someone can agree to ToS that contain terms which are clearly unenforceable by simply recognizing they're unenforceable, and rejecting them as such (since that's what would happen in a court of law).

2. Someone can agree to ToS and believe they're abiding by the terms (such as my example of reverse engineering).

3. Someone can simply reject the ToS as an illegitimate contract. As illegitimate as someone entering into a "contract" with you by writing something on the back of a check. (That's not the current position of the legal system. But, it could be a valid act of civil disobedience in the interest of consumer activisim.).

said by pandora

:

Many here seem to believe it is OK to hack, steal credentials and use them elsewhere. Then complain when their accounts are canceled or they can no longer use a third party ATA.

I agree. The term of service against using other devices is clearly reasonable (unlike giving up your firstborn child).

I'm just saying that Morgan's argument about the extremes (obviously unreasonable terms, or ambiguous terms that may be agreed to in good faith but understood in varied ways) is valid. Just not applicable in this case -- unless his real position is that EULAs shouldn't be enforceable, and should be opposed as a matter of civil disobedience.

In the latter case, it's just a cat and mouse game. Users will get away with what they can. And, it's MJ's responsibility to configure its system to enforce the terms of use. Regardless of whether we believe every element of EULAs are valid (or every EULA shouldn't be), it's obvious that the only way the term of service prohibiting non-MJ devices can be enforced is if MJ identifies and blocks such usage. Anything else is just an "honor" system.

In that sense MJ brought this problem on itself. The more people who used ATA devices with impunity (for a *year*), the more it appeared that MJ didn't care about that particular term of service.

This might be why MJ has been closing the loophole without terminating service. They recognize their own fault in allowing this to spin out of control. A EULA doesn't mean anything if your own actions indicate you don't care about it's terms.

In that sense, I don't really see this as a matter of the ToS. Using a non-MJ device (or softphone) is contrary to the clear words of the ToS. Maybe ToSs generally should be invalid contracts (contrary to current law). But, if MJ didn't want non-MJ devices using its service, it should have been more aggressive closing this loophole, or terminating service.

After letting it spin out of control as long as they did, I wish MJ would have waited until an ATA/BYOD product is available before closing rogue usage. I think that would have been a better gesture.

My guess is, the retards at SJLabs don't know how to close this usage. They're just trying different things with each release, then waiting to see if users find a way around it. They tried to close it with the Dec. 17 upgrade too.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534940 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:42:03 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534772 pandora : I think if you don't like TOS, you don't accept it. Then return the device to get a refund.

Many here seem to believe it is OK to hack, steal credentials and use them elsewhere. Then complain when their accounts are cancelled or they can no longer use a third party ATA.

MagicJack has a business plan. It involves cheap phone service, advertising and an active PC connection to their dongle. Subverting that by hacking, decoding, reverse engineering is probably no only a violation of TOS but a violation of the DMCA.

My guess is MagicJack can't be bothered to seek prosecution against every stupid kid who hacks credentials as they probably have no real assets. However, MagicJack is well within its rights to stop third party ATA access to their network. I applaud MagicJack for doing this.

The people who think violating agreements and law are OK if you don't get caught, may wish to wonder what the world would be like if everyone thought this way. We'd have anarchy and tremendous harm would be done to all.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534772 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:11:44 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534718 amigo_boy :

said by pandora

:

I couldn't disagree with your post more. You accept an agreement than proceed to justify violation of it. Sorry, that is a no sale.

I thought Morgan had a good point that you can't agree to *anything*.

It's like those disclaimers at parking garages or county fairs ("By accepting this ticket, you agree we are not responsible for any injury or damage..."). Those aren't binding. The operator is still bound to take "reasonable" steps to ensure safety and security.

IMO, a ToS is similar. Extreme requirements (or disclaimers) may not be enforceable. But, that doesn't mean everything is.

Unless a person believes EULAs (entirely) are not a valid contract. Like someone writing on the back of their car payment, "cashing this check is acceptance of payment in full." That's not a valid contract (or modification of contract) either.

That's what makes discussions about EULAs difficult:

1. People who argue against a particular element of a EULA actually oppose all EULAs as an unconstitutional usurpation of copyright (which has its origins in the constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.).

2. For those who accept EULAs, there's no clear guidelines about what is enforceable. If I agree to not reverse engineer, does that extend to me using pmdump and Wireshark to examine MJ's use of my memory and network? Or, only cracking their encryption?

Both of those positions are legitimate. But, they tend to talk past each other.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534718 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:00:07 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534303 swanboy : I'm with Pandora on this.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534303 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:03:57 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534238 pandora :

said by JPMorgan :

Pandora,

What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS. They can state what ever they want in their TOS but that does not mean it can stand up in a court of law. What if the TOS dictated you could only use their service while sitting at the toilet? Would this mean sitting on your own toilet, a toilet at a friends house or just public toilets? A TOS is a wish list, subject to interpretation. So lets drop the TOS references because until it is supported in a court of law it means squat. The use of a ATA device to use their service that you paid for is a gift to them. Lets face it their little mj device is bordering on garbage. But when the service is used via a ATA device it is as good as any voip out there. MJ is threading on thin ice targeting the small percentage of people who actually use the service that way it supposed to be. People using the service via ATA are not using any more minutes or bandwidth.. This only opens up the way for another provider to swoop in again. MJ should of had an ATA device from the get go as a option. If they did, they would have dominated the voip market.

I couldn't disagree with your post more. You accept an agreement than proceed to justify violation of it. Sorry, that is a no sale.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534238 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:54:57 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534053 macman4hire : A $60.00-100 dollar a year premium plan that would allow BYOD users to use MagicJack might be very successful addition to MagicJack's service offerings. I don't think MagicJack can sustain itself on just the hardware margins. It is a novelty item that some people will use and others will dispose of because of the bothersome usage limitations that USB dongle poses. Once the potential pool of buyers dries up and has been exploited where will the revenue come from? Will the revenue possibly come from advertisements that will be displayed on the softphone. I seriously doubt it! The problem with this type of advertising model is that it can be misleading if a company like MagicJack states for example that 1 million ads are served a day by users of their softphone. This may in fact be true but what about the percentage people who legitimately use MagicJack on a dedicated thin client or computer that does not even have a display hooked up to. I personally would not spend my companies advertisement budget on such inaccurate claims. If the market for such advertisement truly exists why have I only seen ads pertaining to MagicJack on the softphone. Where are the advertisements? One may reasonable assume that MagicJack is waiting until all the techical difficulties have been worked and they can respresent the highest user figures inflating ads served on the softphone to potential advertisers. I don't believe this to be the case. Also one must factor the overall health of our economy into the advertising revenue outlook as companies are not foolishly tossing large sums of money into untested advertising vehicles at this time.

The second factor is overall VoIP market is becoming more competitive with every tick of the clock. Sipgate has just announce a service called Sipgate One which offers free USA phone numbers with many free forwarding options. Google Voice when publicly launched will crush the majority of the VoIP service providers for two simple reasons they give you a free USA phone number with several free forwarding options and several ways to place free local and long distance calls. Who will need to pay if Google rolls out it's Google Voice service in the seem accessible way they have offered their free G-Mail service to the masses. If Google Voice is not limited and truly accessible to everyone this changes everything the voice communications market period. I hope big Dan the man understands this and is not taking on the persona of carnival side show salesman selling a bottle of magical elixir for the easy buck!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534053 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:27:24 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533985 amigo_boy :

said by JPMorgan :

What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS.

That's not true. See:

said by MagicJack ToS :

8. License

magicJack grants you a personal, non-transferable and non-exclusive right and license to use the magicJack device and Software on your computer; provided that you do not (and do not allow anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, reverse assemble or otherwise attempt to discover any source code, sell, assign, sublicense, grant a security interest in, or otherwise transfer any right of the magicJack device. The initial term of this license is for one year and may be renewed (for an additional fee) for additional terms of one year each. You agree not to modify the Software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the Software, including for the purpose of obtaining unauthorized access to the magicJack device. You agree not to access the magicJack services by any means other than through the Software and the magicJack device -- »www.magicjack.com/tos/

said by JPMorgan :

They can state what ever they want in their TOS but that does not mean it can stand up in a court of law.

That's true, but irrelevant. I'm sure any court would uphold that MJ has the right to secure it's network and require only its devices use it.

We're not talking about MJ suing customers for violating the ToS, and therefore being in a legal position of "proving" their ToS is reasonable.

We're talking about MJ denying access to users in accordance with the ToS. That puts the users in the position of going to court and arguing that the specific term enforced against them is unreasonable.

Never going to happen.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533985 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:13:58 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533499 anon : Pandora,

What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS. They can state what ever they want in their TOS but that does not mean it can stand up in a court of law. What if the TOS dictated you could only use their service while sitting at the toilet? Would this mean sitting on your own toilet, a toilet at a friends house or just public toilets? A TOS is a wish list, subject to interpretation. So lets drop the TOS references because until it is supported in a court of law it means squat. The use of a ATA device to use their service that you paid for is a gift to them. Lets face it their little mj device is bordering on garbage. But when the service is used via a ATA device it is as good as any voip out there. MJ is threading on thin ice targeting the small percentage of people who actually use the service that way it supposed to be. People using the service via ATA are not using any more minutes or bandwidth.. This only opens up the way for another provider to swoop in again. MJ should of had an ATA device from the get go as a option. If they did, they would have dominated the voip market. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533499 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:53:52 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22531750 Noga : Well, they do use asterisk...so...I guess we are going to have to buy magicJack's ATA when it comes out. They now have complete control of blocking non-mJ ATAs. My mJ expires at the end of this month so I won't mind to much if the mJ ata unit is at a reasonable price (which is expected.) ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22531750 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:51:14 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530697 swanboy : If you have the PMDump utility, it would be helpful to see what your session expire value is for yours specifically ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530697 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:33:00 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530493 pagemen : Thanks for the info. I tried 600 but no luck(seems the new value is 1800 here vs. old 900). 0 does get the ATA registered but no incoming or outgoing calls. Incoming did work yesterday after I put the new password in PAP2, but I messed it up later by switching proxies around and now everything stops working. Waiting for some genius to figure it out and save us...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530493 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:57:03 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530487 pandora :

said by thedaddy :

I will stop recommending magic jack.

I'm a bit confused. If you were recommending MagicJack because it worked well, why would you stop?

If you were recommending MagicJack because it was easy to hack credentials, violate TOS and use an ATA ... then I understand.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530487 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:56:17 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530334 swanboy : Interesting Development:

Change your register expires / session expiry setting on your ATA to 600. If this doesn't work try 0. They may be setting this differently for your setting. This seems to be how they are sorting ATA and non-ATA for now. Changing this on my ATA got incoming to work, BUT not outgoing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530334 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:23:10 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530307 anon : I was able to register and my ATA says online but I can't make or receive calls.

If I can't get it back to work using ATA, I will stop recommending magic jack. I'm the only one that I know that uses an ATA for it but I have convinced many people to buy one magicjack. I have two. One I carry with me, the other one I was just using its credential with an ATA.

This is that kind of thing that many software company do and ends up hurting them. They protect their software so much that nobody will experiment with it and nobody will ever hear about it. I understand that Magicjack is so cheap because it's sponsored by ads. However, if you turn the geeks off, they will stop recommending or helping other people with their magicjack. The consequence is that their business will eventually die or be replaced by a smarter competitor.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22530307 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:17:50 EDT Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22529681 pagemen : Looks like MJ find someway to block ATA because

1) Wireshark shows that proxies are unchanged

2) Some people are able to register but can't make outgoing calls(incoming works), so the credentials are correct, at least for some.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22529681 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:14:56 EDT Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22528488 Noga : So, I just want to summarize today's events.

Magicjack released an update yesterday that apparently did nothing but remove "Do not disturb." The next day, all ATA devices (even ones with the magicjack user agents) went dead. This was because magicjack changed the SIP credentials on all magicJacks. Pretty much everyone is using stroths utility to get their new SIP info, but the new SIP info fails to register on the ATA even though their magicJack dongle works fine.

The reports are mixed, but it seems that generally almost no one can use their ATAs. Many have noticed a proxy change from 1 to 01, but changing this doesn't even work.

Thus, either

1) magicJack has somehow hidden the actual proxy

or

2)the update yesterday somehow re-encrypted the SIP credentials which they decided to change this morning. Although stroths pulls up the SIP info, maybe it is completely inaccurate. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22528488 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:28:02 EDT