Media

MagicJack Gets Smacked! Dials Wrong Number in BoingBoing Suit

|

VOIP maker MagicJack (yes, you've seen the ads) loses a defamation case against the blogocopia BoingBoing, based on the latter's revelations of the gadget company's user agreement.

Interesting stuff.

NEXT: Listen to Matt Welch on Boston's WTKK 96.9 FM at 12:10 EDT, Talking About Today's Health Care Summit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There seems to be some sync between Reason and the Boingers, though Global Warming and Net Neutrality stand in the way….

    BoingBoing pwned MajicJack, super cool.

    1. They also tend to blame the evul libertarians for the global economic climate. There’s a few liberts there who disagree but the liberal groupthink is strong.

  2. Good for BoingBoing!

    But it does leave the obvious question unanswered–when will the Obama Administration step in to protect consumers from the likes of MagicJack?

    …since we obviously can’t get the information we need to make these decisions for ourselves? ; )

  3. Only 30-or-so more legal defeats and they’ll be up there with Video Professor and Kevin Trudeau…

  4. Kevin Trudeau – man o’ man is the guy the tool of all tools.

    1. If you can’t trust a man who sells health aids, coral dietary supplements, real estate investment strategies, memory-improvement courses, baldness remedies, addiction breaking strategies, reading improvement programs, and natural cures that they don’t want you to know about, then who can you trust?

      1. The question mark suit guy?

  5. “” Instead, the statements clearly constitute the opinion of the author that analyzing phone numbers for purposes of targeted advertising amounts to “spy[ing],” “snoop[ing],” and “systematic privacy invasion.”””

    Even when it’s surveillance, it doesn’t amount to spying. It’s data that belongs to the servicing entity.

    With VOIP, since when was routing information, including the destination of the packets ever private?

  6. Oh yeah, I’m gonna sue all you bastards! And win! Just wait and see!

    1. You know, I kinda miss that LoneWacko fucker.

  7. “Even when it’s surveillance, it doesn’t amount to spying.”

    Surveillance is spying.

    Spy:
    [akin to Latin specere to look, look at, Greek skeptesthai & skopein to watch, look at, consider;
    Date: 13th century]

    transitive verb 1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes
    2 : to catch sight of : see
    3 : to search or look for intensively

    intransitive verb 1 : to observe or search for something : look
    2 : to watch secretly as a spy

    1. Not according to the City of Seattle.

    2. So you think everyone who catches sight of: (or) see(s) you, is spying on you?

      That’s common for people on the mental ward.

      Most people wouldn’t consider it spying when a company reviews their own records.

    3. But what I meant from that statement is that even when you are under surveillance, isn’t not considered spy but those where it counts. Just ask Bush jr, Obama, and whoever takes the Whitehouse next. It was mostly a tongue and cheek thing.

      1. “considered spy but those” =
        considered spying by those

      2. Ahh, I get it. spying is in the eye of the looker.

  8. My only problem with this is that Boing won a SLAPP dismissal.

    The SLAPP law is designed to allow gadfly groups access to the courts, while denying the same access to businesses.

    I will cheer Boing’s SLAPP win when EVERY plaintiff who files a nuisance lawsuit designed merely to increase the costs of or delay some business activity ALSO has to pay the defendant’s costs.

  9. The SLAPP law is designed to allow gadfly groups access to the courts, while denying the same access to businesses.

    I’m confused. The SLAPP law authorizes a summary dismissal. It is essentially a fast acting defense. How does a defense expand access to the courts? You have to be sued in order to avail yourself of the defense.

    1. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.