How does the example of bill cheek disprove the point of the article? Cheek is the previous generations mod chip mfg'er.
The difference is that while the feds went after people like cheek (and mod chippers under the DMCA, i.e. the distributors), the FCC wants to go after you, the end user. You are not permitted to receive unencrypted hdtv signal (according to them) into your computer, regardless of how you did it. If this is the rule, then to regulate this they have to monitor you.
And the article doesn't disagree that the FCC will try to enforce its rules, but communicates that the enforcement will involve an unacceptable intrusion into our privacy.
“FCC wants to…” without ever understanding that the FCC (other entities are brought on board from time to time too) have *been* doing just that for a very long time.
The article seems to imply that the writer doesn’t understand that the FCC has a long and established record of monitoring such things. They do, routinely, go after the end user.
Now granted, there may be regional differences in how they prioritize what/who they go after. Oakland/Berkeley is a prime example of a zoo. They constantly have people interfering with repeaters, transmitting without identifying the callsign, running off band – bunch of stuff. Big free-for-all there.
They evidently concentrate their resources more on people interfering with police, fire, and other emergency services and air. BUT – anytime they take a notion they can take a break from that and go after anyone else they want. They could decide to take a week off and just concentrate on people with scanners that illegally receive cell frequencies, for instance. I find it interesting that people are surprised by that.