If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rules is this defined? Not to point out the obvious, but law

If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rules is this defined? Not to point out the obvious, but laws are written using legal definintions. And those are made by the legislature and the Judiciary. The NSA (and I'm not here to defend them) at least has a prima-facie need to see certain types of protected speech under limited (court ordered, direct national threat) circumstances. Google is a merely a business, with no public policy need to creep around the neighborhood. That being said, this decisino is merely putting the issue to a trial/jury. Nobody has said google is guilty. But they are not so innocent, or so in the right, with repsect to how the law is apparently written/interpreted, than they can dismiss the claims of impropriety as "baseless, without merit" &tc. ...The unanimous, 35-page decision by a three-judge panel found little merit in Google’s legal maneuverings, stating at one critical point that the company was basically inventing meanings in an effort to declare its actions legal