I would put the emphasis on "private" rather than on "property" - if a house I rent contains a person and their papers or effects, they enjoy 4A protection eve

I would put the emphasis on "private" rather than on "property" - if a house I rent contains a person and their papers or effects, they enjoy 4A protection even though I do not own the house, the person, or their papers or effects. A good intro to the US 4th amendment for anyone needing background details is at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment The key element in the Oakland FBI story seems to be the idea that a conversation whose participants might reasonable believe is private in nature that happens in a public place can be recorded without a warrant. Consider conversations in: a hotel room, an office room, an office conference room, an empty office or hotel elevator, a hotel lobby, an otherwise empty bus stop, an elevator occupied by others, a city bus or subway car with others nearby. At what points on the ranges of private to public spaces, and numbers of others present & in eavesdropping range does an expectation of privacy fade away? For a startup perspective, in which spaces/places could one speak candidly about financials or the latest funding round and believe that one's speech is truly private?