3 ms·
I think the airwaves are the public's airwaves. If you broadcast unencrypted information through them, Joe Average Public should not get in trouble for listenin
by jerrya 13y ago
I think the airwaves are the public's airwaves. If you broadcast unencrypted information through them, Joe Average Public should not get in trouble for listening to them. But I'll go further to. I think my living room is mine. If you send your encrypted information through it, I should be able to listen to it.
I was born. I didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement. Things that I can witness and observe in the privacy of my own home should be none of yours or anyone else's business.
If that makes it hard for certain business models, I'm okay with that because the country is intended for the use of its citizens, not its corporations.
- rmc 13y agoI didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement. That is not how laws work. You consent is not required. (Fun fact: There is some people who think that consent is required (and can be withdrawn) for laws to apply to them. It's called "freemen-on-the-land". It's like homeopathy but for laws. It's quite funny)
- jerrya 13y agoI think you're missing the point. Broadcasting your radio signals unencrypted means there is no privacy. Making a law saying that it is private is like making a law the sun should come up at 5am. The sun will do what it wants and the communication will be overheard. If you broadcast signals that are encrypted, but that I can intercept without any kind of physical tampering or alteration or destruction of the signal, again laws are of no help to anyone. The communication will be decrypted and overheard. It's better to make laws that conform to reality than to make laws that tilt at windmills and are used arbitrarily against citizens.