[brianjoseff]

California Constitution. Article 1, Section 1: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

(not a country of course, but somewhere privacy is a constitutional right. question then is how a state can protect this right)

[boon]

To be fair, the "pursuit" of those things are considered natural rights. Not the things themselves.

Not saying that a right to privacy doesn't exist. I think it exists because a combination of other rights DO exist. But rights can't obligate others, and if your information ends up in the public sphere, I don't believe you have a natural right to have it taken down.

If you contracted with a third party, and as part of that exchange, your info was supposed to be secured, you have a right to secure damages within the scope of that contract.

[anoother]

"...pursuing and obtaining..."

[thaumasiotes]

Yep, that's what the legal language says.

It's obviously not workable, though; you can see that the goal listed before "privacy" which all Californians have the legal right to obtain is "happiness". This would appear to imply that you have the same legal rights against someone who violates your privacy as against someone who makes you unhappy.

http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-bill-would-bring-40...

> The bill, H.R. 702, stipulates that immediately upon its passage into law, the 4,000 brave soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq come marching triumphantly over the horizon, directly into the arms of their loved ones, looking the same as they did on the day they left home.

[wernercd]

So if you pursue but don't obtain happiness, due you get to sue the State of California for infringing on your inalienable and guaranteed state rights?

[r00fus]

Does this mean Telcos/payfone can be sued in CA for being in violation of the constitution?

[Animats]

No. Federal preemption.

[lightedman]

That does not preclude anyone from filing regarding violations of the state constitution. There's that whole right to address ones grievances that gets in the way.

[Animats]

Unfortunately, it does.[1] See the Supreme Court decision in Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Hatch. [2] FCC-regulated entities are not subject to state consumer protection laws.

[1] https://www.wileyrein.com/practices-federal-preemption.html [2] http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/11-...

[lightedman]

I didn't say anything about consumer protection laws - I explicitly stated violations of the state constitution.

[whathaschanged]

California isn't a country, no matter how much their government wishes they were.