I would put the emphasis on &quot;private&quot; rather than on &quot;property&quot; - 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.<p>A good intro to the US 4th amendment for anyone 
needing background details is at:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;wex&#x2F;fourth_amendment" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;wex&#x2F;fourth_amendment</a><p>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.<p>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.<p>At what points on the ranges of private to public spaces, and numbers of others present &amp; in eavesdropping range does an expectation of privacy fade away?<p>For a startup perspective, in which spaces&#x2F;places could one speak candidly about financials or the latest funding round
and believe that one&#x27;s speech is truly private?