[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.