>There is an enormous difference between you reaching out and contacting the outside world, and the police coming into your private space. That's an important

>There is an enormous difference between you reaching out and contacting the outside world, and the police coming into your private space. That's an important point of debate at the moment. I'm happy to report that one state disagrees with you at least WRT e-mail. http://txepc.org/sine-die/ http://txepc.org/sine-die/ >Then the prevailing wireless telephony technology is inherently incompatible with privacy under the 4th amendment. Actually it's not all that different from a POTS from the perspective that there are plenty of exploitable weaknesses in those systems as well; yet, despite despite weaknesses that would allow similar technological solutions to provide police with unencrypted telephone traffic, we've managed to keep a statutory barrier between police and our private conversations when they are held on a POTS. If I understand you correctly, your argument basically boils down to "When it becomes physically possible for police to eavesdrop on communications, they ought to be allowed to do so at will."