[PeterisP]

Okay, this is a very valid point that laws can and make a distinction based on quantity.

However, in this point no such distinction has been made, and thus they should be treated equally. There is clear law on the "low quantity" case, and no distinct law on the "high quantity" case - so the same principles should be applied even for thousandfold or millionfold increases unless/until the lawmakers (not the courts) draw a line somewhere.

[deeths]

I totally agree. I think the point most people are trying to make here is not that this _is_ illegal, but that it should be made illegal.

[me_again]

This article is specifically about a lawmaker trying to draw a line, and the lobbying around that process. At least as far as this article goes, no court case is underway, nor is there a claim that this is currently illegal.

[PeterisP]

On the other hand, I'm very very worried about the risk of making it illegal - because those justifications can be used to make the low-scale personal activities into 'victimless crimes', leaving the government with a monopoly on surveillance while criminalizing citizens who do the same thing.

I'd rather prefer if everyone was permitted to do this at all scales, rather than risk restrictions on what people can do with their minds and devices with stuff that they can plainly see - it's similar to various restrictions on recording police officers in action, so as "to protect their privacy".

The government will do their thing anyways (as Snowden showed us), so if any restrictions are implemented then they will only restrict us, but not protect us.