[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?