Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

It depends on the situation and method of interception.On land lines you may well have an expectation of privacy, but not from someone overhearing what you say. In addition if a party to a conversation records the conversation (totally legal in most countries) there is only limited privilege related to the recording.But if you send email over that very same land line there is no expectation of privacy.Never even heard of The Wire but since it was filmed in Baltimore I might have to take a look.But the only connection or relevance to this thread is that the searches that began the issue were made on a corporate computer system. There you have almost no expectation of privacy.

Yes, it could be said that it was "unwarranted hyperbole" but I would disagree.I would say there was and is no "Right" to privacy except in the limited and specific areas where a privilege is granted.I would say the default is No Right of Privacy.

But even in the case of snail mail the expectation of privacy is very limited. You may have an expectation that no one will read the mail without first getting a warrant other than the recipient, but there is no expectation that the content will remain private, only that the object will not be intercepted without a warrant.You can write private and confidential all over it, but if the recipient wants to publish the content they can except in a very few instances.

Correct.It is a limited privilege and not some general right to privacy.

As I have already said. There are a very few areas where privilege has been granted but there is no general right to privacy.

This may be longer than I like so please be patient.I think there are almost no rights and the only right would be where it is spelled out as a right.When we see privilege it is an exception to some general position. In the case of privacy I see the general position as no right to privacy. That general position is then modified by granting limited and specific privilege; Attorney Client Privilege, Spousal Privilege, Clergy Privilege.If we look at law in the US related to privacy it supports that position. We have a whole bunch of specific instances where it says "You can expect some limited amount of privacy under the following conditions" and goes on to specify those conditions.In the case of the mails it is not really a privacy issue, rather it is related to transferal. The only commitment there is that the government will not open a letter without first getting a warrant. But there is no "right of privacy" involved once the object is no longer in the governments hands. If someone other than the recipient opens the letter there is little recourse. If the recipient leaves it on the desk and the housekeeper reads it, there is no right of privacy.In the case of a phone call, again, the only limit is that the government is not supposed to tap the line without first getting a warrant. If a party to the conversation wants to put it on speaker phone or record the conversation and play the conversation back at the cocktail party for laughs, there is no right of privacy.If you are using a public phone, there is no right of privacy.If you are using the corporate phone system, there is no right of privacy.If you are using a VOIP system for phones, there may be no right of privacy at all.If you are in your home and someone outside the house hears what you are saying, there is no right of privacy.If you are sending email, there is no right of privacy.Again, the general position is that there is no general right of privacy and we have privileged certain limited and specific areas where privacy will be granted.But none of this is related or relevant to the thread or the example in the OP. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

I thought I had made my position pretty clear.We are off topic talking about the right of privacy.My position is that we have no general right of privacy except when privileged.You mention free speech and that is another example that seems to support my position. There I see a right of free speech as the general position and the laws in the US seem to support that understanding. Unlike the example of privacy where specific cases of when you might expect certain limited privacy we find exemptions in law that say when free speech is not protected.In the case of free speech the general position seems to be that it is a right while in the case of privacy the general position seems to be that it is not a right.With me so far?

Again, read what you actually post.The government cannot record what is said without a warrant. If the person in the next phone booth has his ear up against the wall and hears every word you say and then broadcasts them it's fine.AbE:Again though, your source supports my position. The default position is that there is no right of privacy and we pass laws that grant a limited privilege.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Very close. I would not choose the terms positive or negative though. I prefer general, prohibited and privileged.I do not think there is any general right to privacy except where privileged.I think we have a general right to free speech except where prohibited.And it seems that is the general view taken by the law in the US; in the case of privacy we have laws that grant, privilege, conversations while in the case of free speech we have laws that prohibit certain speech.But the whole issue is still irrelevant to the topic or the example in the OP.

Again, where is there any reasonable expectation of privacy from being overheard while in a phone booth?

How is that related to what I posted?The government is not just another individual.But it still supports my position. There is no general right to privacy and what we see are laws privileging certain instances.And again, what the hell does it have to do with the topic or the example in the OP?

Even there the right to privacy is restricted. For example the government may put an undercover informant in your house and what that person overhears is not privileged.

Actually no, I don't think you are correct.The government can put an undercover agent in your house, your business, your private club and use whatever that person overhears.There is no general right to privacy as I have shown. What we do have are a few limited privileged instances whre privacy can be expected.

Is a warrant needed to place an informant or policeman inside an organization? Is an undercover agent sneaking into your house?

Great, that is what I thought and maybe we can finally tie this discussion back to the topic and the example in the OP.So in the OP invited the police into his house, there was no illegal search and the homeowner had no expectation of privacy.Is that correct?