I try to summarize, your last posts and answer.
The laws for telecommunication regulate devices that use the radio spectrum.
The laws regarding "spying" on someone are a subset or associated law as we have something like "secrecy of letters", no eavesdropping on privacy without warrant, no eavesdropping at all by non law enforcement.
No, but when there are conflicting explanations and nobody seems to be able to clearly explain why this thing is not allowed but similar things are allowed, it suggests that the criteria are unclear.
The device is used for eavesdropping, no other explanation needed. The owner can not disable it, and likely does not know about that option.
I was trying to distinguish civil law regimes from common law regimes. Under common law, higher courts make precedent: They explain general rules that lower courts are bound to follow, and how those general rules apply to particular cases. A lower court must follow precedent unless it can distinguish the relevant fact pattern in a new case from the rules laid out by precedent. This tends to make decisions of law a little more predictable.
That is only your perception. In real life you still need an expert to ask and to search for cases if you want a good opinion about a certain "thing". You never know if the next court will decide completely different.
We prefer law. As then it is simply written in the law what is "right or wrong", nearly 100% predictable.
However in both cases, your laws and mine: the courts and the law is close to irrelevant as the "ruling" is done by "guidelines and rules" or "regulations" that are not law and can be changed more or less arbitrarily. You can only after you had a hit on the head go to court and claim clarification. Exactly the same in your common law and our civil law system.
Well, you said that the radio license is invalidated based on the behavior of the software on the device, and in particular whether bugs can allow an attacker to record audio and transmit it over the radio.
If the device was unable to transfer voice via radio, it would not need a radio license.
VOIP apps are another example of third-party software running on a device that records audio and transmits it over the radio; I
No they are not. Sorry to ask again: why are you nitpicking? Why can't you grasp the simplest concepts?
VOIP is software!!! Using an established system, what ever it is (computer, Phone) to transport data that happens to be voice. It uses a device that already has "radio authority clearance", a device where everyone KNOWS it can record and transmit and replay: voice. Why does the device have a clearance? Because you can not change frequencies outside of the parameters that device gives you. In other words: a VOIP software can not use your laptops WiFi CARD to interfere with air traffic control, or radio over the local FM station. And: both sides of the end of communication AGREE on the communication.
In the Doll problem above: no one AGREED in using the Doll to be listend on. No one asked for a license to have the Doll as a communication device and "officially" put the option into the "VOIP" bluetooth software. The bluetooth software is not "VOIP" it is a HACK!
I am trying to understand how the line is supposed to be drawn, and why the law is consistently described as a "hidden surveillance device" law rather than a voice radio licensing law or software correctness law, even though you say (plausibly) that the radio license and software correctness are critical parts of the decision -- which also suggests to me that the device looking like a doll, rather than a computer, is largely irrelevant to the BNetzA's decision.
The fact that it looks like a doll is indeed irrelevant. It could be a IoT controlled light ...
Wich part(s) of the regulations where the BNetzA's is responsible to look over, the Doll violated I don't know exactly. For that you need to read the law and the regulations and get an english translation.
I only tried to give a layman's overview, because besides myself working in a radio license for SRC (short range radio certificate) for naval radio and a certificate for radar for inland water transport/navigation I have not much clue either.
Interesting, e.g. is: for coastal navigation I do not need a certificate to use radar. However if I have an accident, the first question is: did you use radar? The second is: do you have the qualification for it (aka a certificate)? In inland waters, I'm not even allowed to activate the radar if I have no certification.
To have a radio on board, you need a certification. For inland waters: you have to have radio in certain situations, or you are not allowed to leave the harbor (e.g. high water "mark 1"). For coastal navigation, radios are not required at all. But however considering how cheap they are in our times: everyone has one.
With the certificate, you are responsible how and who uses the radio. In other words: the operator of the radio does not need a license. If I as a captain tell you word for word or in a rough outline what you should sent via the radio: you can just do that.
On the other hand again: unlike the RADAR example above, I as a captain with out an SRC license, can not even use a boat that has a radio. Regardless if I keep the radio switched off!!
"Possession" not only ownership, of a radio without license is a crime.
To make another example: in a radio conversation of another boat with a coastal radio station, they might have a "phone call" running. E.g. a phone call "home" because of an family emergency. Obviously everyone with a radio can eavesdrop in. To acquire a certificate it is important to understand, there are laws involved that require you to keep silence about the content of the talk. And: you are supposed to go out of the channel as soon as you realize it is occupied.
Without having a certificate, possession and ownership of a radio that can eavesdrop into such talks is illegal.
Of course: via the certificate you get a "call sign" and an MMSI.
Hope that helped, eve if it confused more :D