> They should be protected by the Fifth A recording of something that you said is admissible. Why wouldn't a digital recording of something you said be? Becaus

> They should be protected by the Fifth A recording of something that you said is admissible. Why wouldn't a digital recording of something you said be? Because you own it and the court doesn't and shouldn't be allowed to search it without probably cause in the first place. > The communications that they send and receive should be subject to well-overseen surveillance Surveillance, all-seeing all-knowing citizen-watching and suspicion-free spying is not okay. Targeted, with-warrant wiretaps are (maybe) a different story. Maybe I define this different than most (please chime in with your own) but the word surveillance means to me that you're being watched from above with many other also-innocent people.