I believe their point was that if it is small enough to place a display it would be small enough to put a malicious chip inside.
Then again, this person discovered these cables this year and they've been out for awhile. And the OMG cable has been out for a few years now, which does exactly what they are afraid of. Which of course could be done by state actors for much longer.
This reminds me of the time when I held a cookout in my backyard and one of the guests came in through the supposedly locked back door. I realized that my lock was broken as the bolt didn't engage, and hadn't for years.
I haven't heard of cell modems in particular, but I've used O.MG cables (described and sold here: https://shop.hak5.org/products/omg-cable; I am unaffiliated with either Hak5 or the team behind O.MG cables) which can create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network for management/C2 reasons.
It's actually really easy to use (and almost scary, coming from never having used one of these).
They are quite pricey, but way less so than older cables used by security and jailbreak researchers in years past, which would run into the five figures.
Someone selling $200 cables for $2 just to spy on people reminds me of those stories of people supposedly giving out $10 pot lollipops to random children on Halloween
You're not going to sell them for $2 to random people on the street. You're going to sneakily replace the charging cord of some targeted $BIGCORP employee working in a Starbucks.
I'm all for some privacy protections, but doesn't 2-party consent cover that particular use case already? In CA, it swings a bit far the other way, and if you have a hidden mic recording a business lying through their teeth with the intent to defraud you, you might have a little wiggle room, but the recording is likely to be thrown out of any civil actions (and some criminal actions).
Don't you have to be party to the conversation to be 1-party? Should still be illegal to record one you're not a part of. (if such laws even apply in person rather than just over phones)
Good thing the FCC doesn't regulate the visible spectrum. (We are assuming these malicious people also face the wrath of the FCC but somehow not the CFAA... right? :P)
Why hide a malicious chip in a cable with display -- why not in one without a display? Wouldn't that be more, uh, malicious?