[jdong]

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.

[Eisenstein]

Radio and light are both electromagnetic waves. A radio is just a way of deciphering those waves into something else like a digital signal or an audio signal. To put it another way, 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?

[jdong]

>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.

[Eisenstein]

> 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.

You are approaching this as if you broadcast something into the common airwaves it is yours and your secret, while I maintain it is no different than yelling that thing out your open windows and then claiming no one can listen to you. 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. This is your issue -- you think that radio waves are somehow distinct from sound or light, when it is just another version of such things.

[jdong]

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.

[Eisenstein]

This is not at all like setting up a special microphone to eavesdrop on someone. A person with a baby monitor would be broadcasting a signal onto public airspace with an amplified radio transmitter. If it comes into my airspace why can I not receive it using the same technology? Why does one person get to use publicly allocated radio frequencies and other does not? Is this fair? If the baby monitor broadcast on non-public frequencies it would be doing something much more illegal than me receiving them.

You are criminalizing receiving but not transmitting. I contend this is no different to yelling out of your window and criminalizing people hearing you. if you cannot come up with something other than 'it is wiretapping and private' to argue against broadcasting unencrypted radio into public airspace with a radio transmitter being by definition a public broadcast then I ask you not to respond because there is no answer to something like that, just as there is no answer to someone contending that listening to something people yell out of windows is a violation of privacy.

[jdong]

>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.