Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

Kinda. The law is a few decades behind on email.The spirit of the same law that guarantees privacy in regular snail-mail through the postal service would seem to apply to email - at least to a reasonable person.Electronic privacy rules have often relied on older wiretapping laws - to tap someone's internet communication has been equated in the past to tapping someone's phone. This was particularly easy when the internet connection was the phone line. (It's somewhat ironic that we've come full-circle, and where the phone line used to be the internet connection, now we're seeing more and more the internet connection being used as the phone line).Encryption makes it blatantly obvious that there is an expectation of privacy. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 has been used to prosecute hackers who gain "unauthorized access" to computers and networks. You absolutely have an expectation of privacy against me reading your encrypted emails.Whether you have that same expectation against the government...well, that's why we're hopefully about to have a national debate of some sort surrounding the recent NSA leaks, because the NSA seems to think that their access is always authorized (which seems to me to violate laws against unreasonable search and seizure; certainly email passing through electronic networks is not particularly different from either a phone call or sending a letter in the mail, both of which are protected without a specific warrant).

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.

I got a notice in the mail that there's another piece of mail waiting for me at the local substation. All I have to do to pick it up is present photo ID.I don't have photo ID.My mail is so private that even I can't see it.On the other hand, I can send somebody else to pick it up as long as he has photo ID.The Post Office, which represents "the state", is fiddling with my privacy in ways that would have been hard to predict. I'd be further ahead if they just thumbtacked the thing to my front door where the whole world can see it. (That's assuming that I even want to see it. I don't know if I want to see it because it's so private that I don't know what it is.)Edited by ringo, : Spelang. Thrice.

Of course Attorney Client Privilege has it limits. But it absolutely protects certain communications between an attorney and the client from even attempts to eavesdrop by police. And as is backed up by numerous Supreme Court rulings, the privilege is required in order for clients exercise their right to counsel under the Sixth AmendmentIn short, in situations involving criminal prosecution, the Sixth Amendment requires that conversations about past crimes between the criminal defendant and his lawyer be privileged. The government is not allowed to eavesdrop.

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

Limited yes. That is sufficient example to show that your claim that there is NO right to a private conversation is wrong on its face.

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

What is your definition of a "right," and how is it differentiated from a "privilege?"

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

Most of your response detailed what is or is not a right, but very little specified how I can tell the difference between a right and a privilege, according to jar. I'm not sure what you mean here. How is a right "spelled out" as such? For example, looking over the Bill of Rights in the Constitution:

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

The only "right" literally spelled out as such seems to be the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Common knowledge classifies the freedoms of speech, the press, and religion to be "rights," but the word "right" is reserved specifically only for the last bit, excluding the first. Does this mean that the freedoms of speech, the press, and religion are actually just privileges? That would seem to contradict both common knowledge and the interpretation used by the Supreme Court. I'm still not certain what you mean when you say "an exception to some general position." Do you mean that privacy is a "privilege" because I usually have no privacy, except under specific circumstances?So is the difference then that I always have a "right," with possible specific exceptions, and that I in general do not have a "privilege," except in specific circumstances?Is that how you see it?

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?

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.

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:

The determining factor in whether an explanation is sufficiently clear is whether the reader understands that explanation, not how the explainer feels about it. No.I'm not asking for an argument or a debate at this specific moment. I'm only and exclusively trying to achieve an accurate understanding of the terms "privilege" and "right" as you use them, because without a common understanding of those terms, I cannot accurately understand your actual arguments.I don;t need you to give examples of what you think is a "right" and what you think is a "privilege."What I need is the deterministic criteria that distinguishes A from B in any circumstance. I need a sufficiently accurate understanding of your definition that I should be able to look at any relevant subject and ascertain whether jar would apply either the "right" or "privilege" label, and why.So far my best guess is that you consider a "right" to be a guarantee that is always present, barring specific limitations, while a "privilege" is itself limited grant of a specific guarantee, while that guarantee is not generally available. A right is a rule with possible negative exceptions, and a privilege is a positive exception to a negative general rule, to put it more simply.Have I understood you accurately, or can you correct me? This may not be directly relevant to the topic, but no debate can really continue if we're using different definitions for words.

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