Comparing it to a tape recorder is interesting. If we consider this device to be the same as a tape recorder for the purpose of admission of evidence: (1) In some states, by having this device and turning it on you have now indeed consented for the conversation to be recorded - which would alarm most users (2) In other states, it is illegal for the device to be functioning without consent of all who are conversing, and the recording is thus inadmissable as evidence. Quite the opposite of what I think you're implying by that comparison. We keep seeing that treating new technology under previous legal definitions is very unsteady ground. You can see how comparison to previous technology would protect privacy and hinder investigation in this case, but on the other hand it makes me think of compelling you to give up encryption keys because well, they're not "papers" like the 4th amendment refers to (an argument which HAS been used before). So given that, how am I supposed to know what my actual rights are in a case like this, when it's so freely interpreted either way depending on the specific case?