Except that flies in court, or is enough to threaten someone with in the first place, regardless what the law actually says. Judges do all sorts of weird things. But i hardly think this is Bahnof's point to begin with.
I think part of it is people get outrageously upset about it like they get upset over using a portrait of someone other then well-know asshole Andrew Jackson on a $20 bill. Consequently the only thing they have to argue with is by Making Shit Up.
I was, and always am, instantly suspicious of the use of the word "hero(es)". So it was off to a bad start for me right there.
As for moderation... maybe they are playing fast and loose conceptually with anything you can file under reporting, since they are probably trying to appease the gatekeeping crowd with the video reporting aspects, and felt like fleshing out the whole program with these other "activities".
It does seem rather thin and suspicious. It's a good point, and another person was also wise enough to mention it earlier as well. However, it is a perfectly good concept to discuss whether or not the story is real, particularly since the comments mostly address the abstracts of it.
They also make "news" by picking some idiotic thing and pretending that there are two valid sides to it and gather opinions. That's when they play the hands-off approach and won't bother mentioning any facts involved.
The thing about this is... if one wanted and remotely needed to hack at IMSI catchers, they would make exploits and tools for all of them. Then they could go warstrolling to their little supercriminal terrorist hearts' content.
Next up: Gov demands nerding harder from vendors so phones respond to an "IMSI bit" when in airplane mode, off, and the battery out. Sort of a super-RFID.
This makes no sense considering the technology used is decades old and the methodology has been common knowledge for nearly the same length of time.
What they don't want exposed is that whole alarming frequency thing, along with the alarmingly flimsy orders.
But this only seems to pertain to cases involving such orders in the first place, which hardly seems to cover uses exposed after the fact, or unexposed uses, uses of things they claim they need no paper for, and anything not falling under one of those types of orders.
Oh yay, the call of the FUD. Except innovating stupid isn't innovation. When some researchers who just happen to have an interest and funding, doing the vendor a favor, and the vendor actually responds with a fix, it's mostly cool. But the real patch is: Don't make critical systems with such a wide attack surface in the first place. It's stupid and unnecessary. It is merely trendy. The sad thing is, if IoT morons would simply make things functional without being sloppy and adding their thousands of holes so they can harvest data off you, a lot of this wouldn't happen, but most "innovations" are not really useful in the first place. The really sad this is, people doing things like auto manufacturers have a huge pool of people and information to draw on who have already successfully executed things like, oh, fly by wire and other critical systems for 20-30 years, depending on what you consider relatable to contemporary automobiles.