Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

Wow!!
This is simply an advocation of a police state. Knowledge is grounds for being investigated? It boggles the mind someone can write this.Since I have knowledge to build a bomb, the police should come knocking on my door?

quote mined? That is all you have. You have become a bad caricature of yourself. You have become a troll, but then again maybe you always were. There is your whole post. How does the rest of it change what the two lines I guoted say?How about answering now?Knowledge is grounds for being investigated?
Since I have knowledge to build a bomb, the police should come knocking on my door?

The courts would not seem to agree with you.Edited by Theodoric, : ABE
oops double negative

But Is not the same thing as Is it?

So Was unwarranted hyperbole or just plain outright false statement? Well we may be quibbling over definition of the word "few". but the courts have traditionally had strong support for privacy rights and expectations of privacy.
You only listed three situations. The first is more situational then I think you are willing to allow. I live on 100+ acres. Therefore whther the conversation was private would be highly deoendent on how they heard it. If they were guests or someone working on the property it would not be private. If it were someone trespassing on the property they would have violated my reasonable expectation of privacy. If my neighbors house was 15 feet away or I lived in an apartment, my reasonable expectation of privacy would be different.The other two are common sense. That being said there are other places to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like Montana.Here is a good review of privacy and reasonable expectations.Surveillance Self-Defense | Tips, Tools and How-tos for Safer Online Communications

You paint with too broad a brush. The courts do not agree with your absolutes.

quote:

---

This rule comes from a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1967, Katz v. United States, holding that when a person enters a telephone booth, shuts the door, and makes a call, the government can not record what that person says on the phone without a warrant. Even though the recording device was stuck to the outside of the phone booth glass and did not physically invade Katz’s private space, the Supreme Court decided that when Katz shut the phone booth’s door, he justifiably expected that no one would hear his conversation, and that it was this expectation rather than the inside of the phone booth itself that was protected from government intrusion by the Fourth Amendment. This idea is generally phrased as "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

---

This is from the link I posted earlier. Maybe you should read it.

Wrong because that would be contrary to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Supreme Court thought there was.Katz v. United States - Wikipedia

Does not matter there is still an expectation of privacy. The government could not use any information obtained by an individual this way. An individual disseminating info gained this way would be open to various lawsuits The courts have deemed there are rights to privacy. You are the one making outlandish statements. That you have been shown are false. If it is off topic you led the way.