Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

You have never had a right in the US to have a private conversation.

No, that is not right either. You could not export encryption software beyond certain capabilities, but no law stopped you from importing such software from abroad or from using the software to communicate with foreigners.There were no use restrictions at all. Just export restrictions. Attempts to legislate the use of encryption with backdoors have never been successful in this country.

Not even with your lawyer?I understand that you have a pretty narrow view of what constitutes rights, but I have no clue how you interpret the sixth amenmdment as not protecting the privacy of attorney client communications.

I would see that as unrelated to the Constitution and not a Constitutional Right.The VI Amendment says nothing about privacy.

quote:

---

Amendment VI

​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

---

You're looking at the wrong amendment. The right to privacy is covered under Amendment IV, not VI:

quote:

---

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

"Privacy" is defined as the security of your person, your papers, houses, and effects, and the freedom from any kind of unreasonable search or seizure. Warrants to invade this privacy can only be granted with probable cause, must be supported by an individual swearing that this probable cause actually exists (making them guilty of perjury if they lie to falsely obtain the warrant), and must be specific in what will be searched and what will be seized.Also, for lawyer-specific privacy, I'd bet that relies on the Fifth: Specifically the phrase prohibiting compulsion for self-incrimination. Talking to your lawyer about strategy could very, very easily fall under that umbrella.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

But that is irrelevant to what I was discussing and also irrelevant to the example in the OP. The post you are replying to was in relation to Attorney Client Privilege. Note it is a privilege and a very restricted and limited on at that.You have no right to privacy when it comes to what you say in public, what you say in a house that could be overheard by anyone outside, what you post on the internet, post using corporate communications system (except again in very limited instances usually involving patent, financial or trade secrets).

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

See Message 216.

But Is not the same thing as Is it?

Correct. There are only a few places where you can have an expectation of privacy.

The whole concept of society is based on giving up individual rights in favour of collective security and collective convenience in general. The reason we have police in the first place is to protect society from individuals. The ultimate individual right is the right to be a criminal. What's dated is the ability to extend the protection. It used to be possible to protect yourself from danger by just running away but bows and arrows made that form of protection obsolete.Sometimes you lose something and you can't turn back the clock to get it back. We weren't taking about objections. I object to you wearing that orange sweater but even you probably wouldn't enshrine that objection in law. I do object to your rudeness but I don't wish to prevent you from being rude.If I want something to be private then I keep it damn well private. If I'm concerned with electronic eavesdropping, I keep it inside my own skull. If you can get it out of there, more power to you. How far do you want the state to go?Around here, we have people who go through garbage bins looking for cans and bottles to recycle. Should the state be throwing them in prison for violating our privacy?

On the phone?

quote:

---

Lawful interception is officially strictly controlled in many countries to safeguard privacy; this is the case in all developed democracies. In theory, telephone tapping often needs to be authorized by a court, and is, again in theory, normally only approved when evidence shows it is not possible to detect criminal or subversive activity in less intrusive ways; often the law and regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a certain severity.[3] Illegal or unauthorized telephone tapping is often a criminal offense.

---

LinkHave you never watched The Wire?

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.

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

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.