https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603587970832793600
Starting to think there might be some national security issues with one guy being the nominal linchpin of the US space program, satellite internet, and global public messaging infrastructure.
The data published was not just ADS-B data, but ADS-B data + content intended to violate the specific privacy ICAO.
I'm not defending Musks actions, simply providing additional context.
Some people still use unencrypted wifi networks, is their traffic "public"?
What about baby monitors? Do you think that unencrypted baby monitor traffic is "public" in any reasonable sense of the term?
With wifi, an unencrypted network is an open invitation to connect to it, as this is the way to connect through portals which transfer to encrypted tunnels. Intercepting other traffic on the network is not OK since you would be violating hacking laws since it isn't your network.
Same thing with cell networks. Your phone broadcasts its data, which is perfectly legal to pick up, but if you have to use any network resources which aren't yours then it's a no-go.
Overall, if it is being broadcast into my house I can capture it, but I can't send things back to the source and try and get it to do things.
Your argument falls flat, sorry.
Do you genuinely believe that you being allowed to spy on to your neighbours unencrypted baby monitor is a good thing that's helpful for society at large?
For example, in Finland this is legislated as follows:
Section 37 – Confidentiality of radiocommunications
(1) Radiocommunication is confidential and may be received only by those for whom it is intended. (46/2005)
(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.
(3) The following are not considered to be confidential radiocommunications:
...1) initial transmissions of television and radio programmes;
...2) emergency calls;
...3) radiocommunications conducted using a public calling channel;
...4) the amateur service;
...5) shortwave radiocommunications in the 27 MHz frequency band; or any other radiocommunication intended for general reception. (46/2005)
The penalty for violating this law is a court-determined fine.
Do you think that this law is overall a net-positive or a net-negative for society? What good things come from you being able to listen to arbitrary transmissions intended for someone else?
What does that have to do with anything?
It makes perfect sense to examine the positives and negatives, in this case I'd suggest that the negatives of allowing anyone to observe unencrypted radio transmissions far exceed the positives. Do you not think so? If yes, why?
This isn't really a hypothetical question, there are actually places which do allow this and places which do not.
Pushing unencrypted radio waves into a public space makes them public. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. If I plug an FM modulator onto my phone output and you tune to an FM station and hear my audio diary, that is my fault, not yours. Same as if I dropped a page of writing on the sidewalk. At that point, it is public.
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.
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.
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.