No, you must be joking. The burden of proof in an argument has to be borne by the one making the claim. If you claim you saw a UFO, the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof does not fall on everyone else to prove that what you saw could NOT, in any way, shape, or form, possibly be a UFO.

It is established by now that various government agencies all over the world routinely monitor web traffic, tap phones and install trojans on computers. There is no doubt in my mind that an internet connected listening device would be exploited.

So smartphone, tablets, laptops are also exploited? They all have a microphone and they're never off.

I fail to see how this is any more a possible privacy breach than my iPhone that's laying right next to me right now.

The only difference I see is that the battery of a smartphone would drain rapidly if it was constantly recording and uploading the recordings to the cloud. But you are right, a smartphone is a device used to monitor you and people whose freedom depends on that knowledge, like radical political activists are aware of that. And yes laptops are exploited. To give an example: The German government has developed a number of trojans for Windows over the years and the BKA routinely uses them for targeted surveillance.

That's not proof of my privacy being violated though.

The probability that my privacy was compromised by a mandatory court subpoena is very low, hence the person used "rarely touched privacy".

Premising your argument about government agencies all over the world is argumentum ad absurdum.

So what you're saying is that you don't have proof of your claims. Ok, got it.

You are shifting the burden of proof.

You made the positive claim, you are the one who needs to provide evidence. Until you do, a rational mind is well justified in disbelieving your claim.