[phtrivier]

Well, the trick is, a surefire way to make voters angry in large part of the continents (or, well, large part of France anyway) it so put "Constitution" and "Europe" in the same sentence - so there is not much of a place to enshrine that at the EU level.

Besides, every member state's constitution probably already has a variant of "privacy is a fundamental right except in cases defined by law".

I will argue that we _definitely do_ want cases where privacy is not 100% respected (sadly, "investigating crime" is not always a red herring, newspeak, lobbying propaganda, etc...

People really do that for a living, and in the common interest.)

In the end, it will always be a policymaker's job to draw the lines.

What I would love to enshrine in a constitution is that "People shall choose policymakers wisely.". But I'm not sure of how to enforce that :/

[dannyw]

I think the 4th amendment did a good job and is quite specific. The courts rewrote it judicially.

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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

[waterheater]

The Fourth Amendment protects the physical, yet other amendments also address privacy in different ways. The First Amendment protects the mind and arguably one's spirit, the Third Amendment is a specific type of physical protection, the Fifth Amendment also protects the mind, the Ninth Amendment protects the existence of privacy, and the Tenth Amendment lets states implement greater privacy protections as they see fit.

Given privacy is fundamentally related to the expression of free will, it's not surprising so much touches it.

[smolder]

> The Fourth Amendment protects the physical,

That's a narrow reading of it. "Papers and effects" ought to extend to our data as well, something the authors could not have called out more explicitly at the time of its writing. Call it inconvenient or impractical, whatever, but it's ridiculous to conclude their intent was that government can spy on presumed innocents as long as they don't make a physical mess.

I think third party doctrine is also a pile of crap... and that data brokers shouldn't have a square inch of legal ground to stand on. GDPR sets a good example in that regard.

[waterheater]

I completely agree, and computing has flipped the table on our understanding of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, our technological development and privacy concerns are proportional, which says something quite profound. Are you familiar with Kyllo v. United States and Carpenter v. United States? If not, you'll probably find them intriguing.

Third-party doctrine is indeed a pile of crap. Still, the fact remains that zero-cost (okay, effectively zero-cost) digital information breaks virtually all historical ownership models which legal systems protect. GDPR is okay, but compliance with it is so burdensome to small businesses that corporate-driven cloud infrastructure is the only way to survive.

[smolder]

I'll look into those cases, thanks!

[wuiheerfoj]

While I agree it does a good job, ‘unreasonable’ is a term that’s up to the implementer