[implements]

(From Wikipedia) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

(Also) Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

It’s generally understood that without privacy people are effectively disenfranchised politically, because any expression of an contentious opinion or association with subversive or dissident thinkers becomes potentially so harmful that wise people would avoid both and keep almost entirely to themselves or family.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

> unreasonable

> arbitrary

There is no absolute right to privacy.

[implements]

Of-course, but then there are no absolute rights that I can think off - property can be taxed, movement restricted by imprisonment / laws against trespass, labour can be forced by military draft or prison work, speech restricted by laws against defamation / abusive conduct, life can be taken in self-defence or during military service, etc.

[zaroth]

There are no absolute rights. Even the right to life is not absolute.