In the digital copyright/broadcast flag/analog hole world, there's a lot of talk about "consumer expectations."  Hollywood suggests that no consumer expects to have a "digital open living room," with open-platform devices that can morph and upload and copy whatever content they get.  They fight hard to make sure that consumer expectations are frozen in time -- somewhere around the time of the Sony Betamax case.  Expectations are dampened, intentionally, and then the scope of "fair use" is tied to their limitations:

"You can't possibly expect that X or Y use is fair, because you've never been able to do X or Y amazing digital feat.  All our content works only on our licensed devices (with no analog outputs).  You're happy, aren't you?"

In the digital privacy/4th Amendment world, there's a lot of talk about "reasonable expectations of privacy."  Law enforcement would likely suggest that no consumer who's been paying attention would possibly expect that their online communications were private.  In a world of digital/magical surveillance of all kinds, the idea is that no one can claim that they thought they had a right to be left alone.  Expectations are dampened, and then the scope of "privacy" is tied to their limitations:

"You can't possibly expect that X or Y electronic thing you just did was private, because you've seen the news stories and the ads -- we can see everything!  You're safe, aren't you?"

This is overstatement, but it's alarming how useful "expectations" are in both of these contexts, and how easily squelched they can be.