Knowledge News comes through again with a simple explanation about our right to privacy, in light of President Bush-war's recent and ongoing approval of illegal wiretapping:

Late last week, the New York Times reported that in 2002 President Bush issued an order that let the National Security Agency eavesdrop on Americans without getting a warrant. Today, the president went on TV and defended the classified program as "crucial to our national security." According to President Bush, the program aims to "intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." Prior to tapping someone's international calls or bugging their international email, "the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks." But, says the president, it doesn't need a warrant. Civil libertarians vehemently disagree, as do some members of Congress. "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Republican Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's already planning a congressional hearing on the matter. At issue: the government's powers--and the people's rights--under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which says. . . . "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." Like much of the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment has deep roots in English common law--especially in the idea that "every man's home is his castle." It has roots in the founders' anger over abuses of power by their old English rulers, too. But interpreting the amendment today requires you to have more than righteous indignation about a government invasion of your castle. You have to have reasonable expectations. "Unwarranted" History: During colonial days, the British crown regularly issued general warrants--good for the life of the king plus six months--that basically allowed government agents to search anyplace at anytime and to seize anything they found. Among the most hated of these warrants were the "writs of assistance," which empowered customs officials to search colonial homes and businesses for smuggled goods. After King George II died in 1760, the existing writs expired, and a Boston lawyer named James Otis quit his job to fight the new ones. Otis lost his case, but his arguments inspired America's founders. So they got a new hearing when the framers drafted and debated the Fourth Amendment. "Unreasonable" Definitions: The Fourth Amendment clearly forbids general warrants. It's less clear about what makes a search "unreasonable." If you read the amendment's two clauses as linked, you might decide that searches are always unreasonable unless they're properly warranted. But if you read the two clauses independently, you might decide that questions about a search's reasonableness are separate from questions about warrants. (Incidentally, James Madison's first draft of the amendment explicitly linked the two clauses.) The Supreme Court has gone back and forth on this issue--sometimes emphasizing the importance of warrants, sometimes suggesting that the real test is reasonableness, nearly always striving to strike a balance between law enforcement and civil liberties. During the 1970s, the Court leaned toward an "always-get-a-warrant" rule, with few exceptions. More recently, the exceptions have multiplied--though the Court still prefers properly warranted searches. Exceptions include searching the area around a suspect who's just been arrested, searching a building during an emergency, searching a building while in hot pursuit, seizing evidence that's been left in plain view, searching passengers getting onto airplanes, and searching automobiles. Strangely enough, the automobile exception is key to understanding the Supreme Court's interpretation of the amendment. Reasonable Expectations: The Fourth Amendment promises to secure citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." It doesn't say anything about automobiles. That may seem a strange point to make, but it wasn't until the 20th century that the Supreme Court clearly stated that "the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property." The amendment grew out of an English common law tradition holding that, as William Pitt put it in 1763, "the poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown." Clearly, 18th-century Englishmen enjoyed protections on their own property that they didn't enjoy on the town square. In effect, the same is true for modern Americans--though the key question is no longer whether you own the property but whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The inside of your house is private. The inside of a car you drive on public roads and park in public lots is far less so. And, according to the Court, "what a person knowingly exposes to the public . . . is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." That's reserved for things you seek to "preserve as private." The trash you put out on the curb is not protected, but your conversation inside a public phone booth is--if you close the door and keep your voice down. Basically, when courts consider whether searches and seizures are constitutionally valid, they ask whether the person searched had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the answer is "no," the search was probably constitutional. If the answer is "yes," the court starts looking at other factors. A properly warranted search is probably reasonable. An unwarranted invasion of your home probably isn't. Outside your home, your right to be left alone is about what you'd expect it to be--and that's hardly black and white. Steve Sampson December 19, 2005

They also gave this link to Searches and Seizures FAQ.