This chapter outlines “reasonable expectations’” most significant general characteristics, drawing upon academic insights that have been produced with regard to kindred “reasonable person”-standards. Besides the concept’s evident indeterminacy and susceptibility to judges’ personal biases, the chapter also explores the notion’s fundamentally hybrid nature: the “reasonable” in “reasonable expectations” can either be interpreted as referring to the “normal” or “ordinary” (as happens within the “cognitive model” of “reasonable expectations” discussed in the fifth chapter) or it can be interpreted as referring to the “good” or “right” (as happens within the “normative model” of “reasonable expectations” discussed in the sixth chapter). Finally, this chapter also explains why “reasonable person” standards’ have a potential, if not tendency to produce discriminatory outcomes and illuminates certain rhetoric and discursive effects of “reasonable expectations of privacy”.