This is factually wrong. This doll doesn't work like that,
The argument in the article is: the doll works like that. It gets activated by someone else and then sends the audio that it captures to that one else.
phone can capture audio and transmit it to another phone even more easily than this doll can.
No it can't. No idea what is so difficult to grasp. My phone can not use BT to activate the microphone on your phone and convince it to sent all audio it picks up to my phone via BT. For that to happen you would need to have an malicious App on your phone and BT activate, and I need to be the one knowing about it and how to exploit it. And you can't do the same trick with my phone neither, I have no such App, and BT is deactivated ...
Why did it approve this doll for sale in the first place?
It is most likely not approved because the "voice transition" feature to unknown malicious partners was not "known" and hence the vendor/manufactor did not even ask for a license. Or, it is approved, but then again the same argument holds: it was unknown at time of approval that it easy can be convinced to transfer voice to devices that are not paired upfront ... or whatever.
and in particular that it is "NOT A COMMUNICATION DEVICE" is silly. Talking is one form of communication.
Well, with nitpicking you don't win arguments, you only make you either look silly (very silly) or make you enemies.
My elaboration was about "communication via radio waves between two devices" That is actually pretty clear.
That the Doll talks to children and "understands" simple phrases and hence is "communicating" with the child has obviously nothing to do with radio waves, telecommunication etc.
You still have not explained why the doll is considered a hidden surveillance device, but a phone in your pocket or a smart TV is not.
And why should I explain that? I explained very clearly the laws divide devices in group A) and group B). I don't care which device is in which group.
A phone is a phone is a phone. Plain and simple. It is not looked at and some one asks: uh, can that be used as a hidden spy device? The law simply defines: the phone is ok.
Facepalm. Why are you nitpicking over something stupid like this?
Car with a driver with a proper license and insurance: ok.
Self driving car: not ok
Driver with a commercial person transport permit: ok
Driver without such a permit: not ok
Rifle with only limited automatic fire: ok
Rifle with unlimited automatic fire: not ok
Your question is simply silly.
As far as I have seen, this doll only transmits audio to an attacker if the attacker exploits a bug in the Bluetooth interface to run malicious software on the doll.
No, he is running the standard software on the Doll ...
The doll is attackable, hence its license, if it ever had any, is void as the BNetzA argued in their press notice.
The same would happen with your phone or smartTV ... a no brainer. So why do you raise them as example?
Any device with a microphone and a radio can have the same kind of behavior due to software bugs.
Of course it can. Facepalm.
And when it happens AND GETS DISCOVERED the BNetzA will place such a device from category A) into category B)
As soon as the bugs are fixed the device can be put back into the other category.
What are you arguing about? Having laws and arbitrarily ignoring them just: because ...????????? I mean you are asking the people working at the BNetzA to neglect their duty. They can be sued for that. Why not let them do their duty?