[PatentlyDC123]

Is this about the draft opinion leak? Or a 4th Amendment related opinion that was issued recently? I don't quite understand how the Supreme Court is involved right now. The Court doesn't really have a good track record of understanding the threats to privacy that technology brings, but that's been the situation for some time.

[FooBarBizBazz]

The problem is that Roe v. Wade frames the right to have an abortion as stemming from the right to privacy, and in fact is the decision that created the concept of a Right to Privacy. So, in Theoretical Jurisprudence Land, the Right to Privacy is at risk, because it's tied to something much more controversial.

[starwind]

This is demonstrably untrue. Louis Brandeis (late Supreme Court justice) and his business partner Samuel Warren published an article called the "Right to Privacy" in 1890.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Privacy_(article)

See also Katz vs United States

"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."

[FooBarBizBazz]

I stand usefully corrected. Thank you.

Now how did I get this impression, and what grain of truth, if any, does it stem from? Hm.

[olliej]

In this particular case the opinion explicitly stated that the constitution does not provide a right to privacy.