Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The problem is there is no *explicit* federal right to privacy as such in the constitution, just a series of specific protections (search and seizure, self incrimination, etc). The court has on occasion found an *implicit* right to privacy (the most prominent case started a culture war that is 40 years running with no end in sight) but it is case to case. Congress has legislated a variety of protections as have the states but again, nothing absolute.
There is no absolute right to privacy to parallel the right of free speech, which is why federal surveillance laws like the Patriot Act can exist. And that is probably why: law and order and security concerns.
|
Tying into this, when the court talks about the "right to privacy," it isn't really talking about eavesdropping. It's talking about the the right to make certain decisions that *relate to private aspects of your life* without government interference. The right to privacy under the US constitution generally means that you have the freedom (i.e. "a liberty interest") to make certain private, personal decisions without governmental interference. These cases are all relate to sexual privacy - right to contraception, right to abortion, right to sex with a member of the same sex.
The 4th amendment also uses a "reasonable expectation of privacy" test to help determine when a police search requires a warrant, but that establishes a rule of thumb for searches; it's not about a specifically identified right to privacy.
So with respect to the right against what we think of as privacy today, the only real protections come from federal and state statutes.