"Is there a point to privacy protection if free speech eliminates implied confidentiality?"
But it doesn't do this.
Let's say I tell a secret to you under the terms of a contract that binds you to keep the secret. If you then reveal the secret, I have recourse against you for that.
The concept of "free speech" in no way affects that.
If you told my secret to, say, the press and they then published is -- that's fair game. The press never agreed to keep the secret, and their right to report it is totally a free speech issue.
I should have no recourse against the press. My recourse is against you. And the amount of damage your breach of contract caused (including the damage from the press reports) affects the amount of recourse I get.
It does turn the wifi on briefly to listen, but transmits nothing when it does so. It uses the radio chip as a receiver only. The rest of the operating system does not think the radio is on when it does this.
No, it's not. The issue with what Comcast is doing isn't the advertising, it's the spying. Comcast is essentially engaging in an extortion racket here, requiring "protection money" to keep them from attacking you.
And even then, we have no assurance that if you pay them the money they'll actually stop with the spying.
This has been trivially possible for a very long time now. The only thing that's happening here that's new is that it's being done by institutions on a wide-scale basis. But the technique they're using is as old as Wifi itself.
By the way, this can't even be considered "hacking". All of the information being obtained is being done through known and accepted protocols being used in the intended way.
The issue, really, is that data, legitimately obtained for one purpose, is being used for an entirely different purpose without people's knowledge -- let alone consent.
So, as with many of these things, the real question is "who owns the data"? Is it "your" data, because it is about you, that you've "licensed" for a particular purpose? Or is it the AP owner's data, because they collected what was freely given, and they can use for any purpose they wish?
A mark that is primarily a surname does not qualify for placement on the Principal Register under the Lanham Act unless the name has become well known as a mark through advertising or long use—that is, until it acquires a secondary meaning. Until then, surname marks can only be listed on the Supplemental Register. To register a mark that consists primarily of the surname of a living person (assuming the mark has acquired secondary meaning), the mark owner must have the namesake’s written permission to register the mark.
Personally, I use Android and Tasker to accomplish a compromise. My phone occasionally "sniffs" the wifi signals in the area (it does not send any wifi signals out when it does this), and if it sees an AP that is on my list of approved access points, it turns the wifi on and connects to that point automatically. When I leave the AP's range, it turns the wifi back off.
This way my wifi is effectively off when I'm out and about, but I don't have to remember to turn it on or off myself.