>I contend this is no different to yelling out of your window and criminalizing people hearing you.
You are deeply wrong. Humans can not listen to radio transmissions without special equipment.
Listening to your neighbours baby monitor generally requires specific efforts on your part. Same is obviously not true of your completely ridiculous example.
A direct comparison would be listening to your neighbour using some special long range directional mic or a thru-wall mic.
>just as there is no answer to someone contending that listening to something people yell out of windows is a violation of privacy.
You are being deliberately dishonest at this point.
You have simply disregarded everything that has been said so far and returned to merely repeating the "god-given right"-opinion.
> Just because it requires a trivial bit of technology to 'listen' to a radio broadcast doesn't make it any different than blasting sound or light waves
In many cases it would be illegal to use a fancy (or not fancy) microphone to listen to your neighbours through a wall, and why should it not be?
It's one thing to accidentally overhear something, and another to deliberately go out of your way to spy on others. Even most(?) US states have wiretapping laws which prohibit such activities.
>Why are you using such extreme language? Is it possible to converse in a way without over-the-top adjectives like 'god-given right'?
Because of how you seem to be approaching this, you've made no effort to explain why things should be the way you want them to be. You appear to simply treat it as axiomatic, i.e. a god-given right.
> should it be a criminal act to listen to radio waves that are in public? What would define 'private' and 'public' radio waves if that were the case?
An earlier comment in this thread addressed this in it's entirety by citing an example of real legislation which gracefully handles this.
> What would define 'private' and 'public' radio waves if that were the case?
There are radio waves which the transmitter intends you to receive, and radio waves which the transmitter does not intend you to receive. Generally you'd be fully aware if a transmission is meant for you or not, but the legislation referred to earlier would not impose any penalties on you for accidentally listening to transmissions not intended for you.
> if someone were pointing a video projector of their video baby monitor out of a window and it shown on your wall, do you think it should be criminal to look at it?
That would likely be an deliberate act by the transmitter, whereas the RF-based baby monitor example would not.
On the other hand, setting up cameras to look through someone's windows would certainly be a criminal act in many places (as IMO it should).
-
-
What exactly do you think is wrong with this law?
> (2) Whoever receives or otherwise has information on a confidential radio transmission not intended for him/her must not wrongfully disclose it or make use of the knowledge of the contents or existence of the transmission.
The law essentially just mandates you to stop listening as soon as you realise the transmission is not meant for you. Only deliberate violations are penalized.
Do you believe that it is a net-positive for society to see things this way?
If so, can you put in the least bit of effort to explain as to why?
You seem to be expressing an ideological belief that you have some god-given right to listen to any and all radio waves that you might be able to receive, but that doesn't in any way explain why you think the society at large should see things your way.
>(This isn't a particularly idle concern. Amazingly Microsoft once got a court to let it take operational control of the domain no-ip.org — that is, to actually hijack the domain — a dynamic DNS service used by countless people — simply because one user was apparently using it for malware-related purposes.)
What a dishonest take. Microsoft didn't wasn't granted this court order because there was one bad no-ip user, Microsoft was granted the court order because there was a bad no-ip user that no-ip wouldn't take action against.
Oh, and it wasn't one bad user. It was 22000 different hostnames.
It's the general data privacy regulation, it applies generally, to everything. It treats planes, cars and phones in exactly the same way (in that it never specifically mentions any of them).
The GDPR even covers you just writing notes into your diary about what your neighbours have been up to.
GDPR has nothing to do with citizenship, why would you even bring that up?
Really, it even has nothing to do with residency. It's all to do with jurisdiction, when Elon happens to be within EU jurisdiction he is protected by the GDPR.
When Elon takes his jet to visit Greece, he is indeed protected by the GDPR (even if just interacting with US based companies while he's on holiday, GDPR still applies)
>edit: Specifically mentioning planes and their locations, I mean, not "extrapolating from cars to planes".
You have to be trolling. What leads you to believe that the GDPR which never mentions either aircraft or cars would treat these two kinds of vehicles differently?
Can you find anything in the GDPR texts to suggest that cars and planes would be treated differently?
Planes are very often registered to individuals, and that doesn't even matter! The plane being company owned doesn't magically change anything, what matters is who's being transported and whether or not they will be easily linked to the aircraft.
From a GDPR perspective it also makes no difference whether it's 5% or 90% of planes that are owned by individuals as opposed to by companies.
What am I wrong about? It obviously makes an exemption for CB radio which is intended for random people to socialize on.
"public calling channels" refers to a variety of specific channels such as 8.1 for PMR446 or 71,100 MHz VHF/RHA68.