[WayneS]

I understand.

I was merely providing an example of the supreme court actively allowing the government to violate our explicitly stated right to not have our private property seized on a whim. A court that would do that might do ANYTHING regarding an implied, but not explicitly stated, right such as privacy.

And I still don't agree that there should be any expectation of privacy regarding things that one publicly posts on web-site(s) for millions of other people to read. If you want to keep something private, keep it on your person, in your house, or amongst your papers and effects, don't shout it from a twenty-first century roof-top like "Facebook".

[Sparko]

I agree

See end of post I made later:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2340814/posts?page=115#115

and see reminder/caution from that site linked:
“Meanwhile, the standard caveats apply not just to the White House but to myriad other online entities: If you don’t want everybody to know it, don’t post it.””