When I write a note on a piece of paper, fold it and stick it in an envelope then place it in a box on the street, I am transferring information (regardless of its content - legal or not). Many people, possibly hundreds, handle this 'packet' on its way to its destination.

Someone then puts it in an unlocked box on the sidewalk outside someone elses house. Where, apart from trusting the operators of this service ie: the post office, is the security in this? A piece of paper in a box on the sidewalk has no security at all. But an expectation of privacy? You bet, in fact it is vigorously protected and enforced by law. We all know the consequences of 'peeking' at someone elses mail.

And yet the internet, with its packets of information are also open for abuse and you say that we should accept that the law does not protect us from those who would have a peek?

I will never agree that purley because of the system used to convey the information, that we should never have the right to expect privacy. A bit of enforcement of those who choose to sneek a peek will soon (i hope) make the wider community accept that morally (and it should also be legally) it is wrong to do so, as with post office mail service. Does the Post Office have the right to ban you from ever purchasing a stamp again just because they are told that you included illegal content (ie: slander, language, criminal plans etc) in a letter to your girlfriend? Then why should an ISP be allowed to 'sniff' TCP packets? Even the Post Office isn't allowed to inspect every package.

Analogue mobile phones were completely insecure, yet it was still upheld that the users did have protected by law their right to the expectation of privacy. Just being told that devices such as 'scanners' (RF) existed did not waive your right to privacy.

As for the RIAA employing people to use gnutella and download mp3's to use as evidence against an individual, just who is breaking the law? OK, i made the file available, but they initiated the download, re-compiled the file and were then able to play the copyrighted music.

I think the reason they haven't done anything to gnutella yet (the napster drama has been going on for ages...) is that, at this point, they don't know how to, legally. Thats why things like worms embedded in files and distributed by the industry seems like a more likely, clandestine scenario to me. Pretty scary, but would they dare? I doubt it. I guess we'll see.