[monitorlizard]

Your rhetoric is clever, but I see a hole in it. Indefinite detainment is a logical consequence of lacking a right to a speedy trial, but is not identical to it.

I think it is in fact quite apt to say that the right to a speedy trial is to indefinite detainment as the right to privacy is to your information being used against you. Both are material consequences of lacking those rights.

[marshray]

The point is that 'rights' do not have to be justified on an economic basis.

[MisterBastahrd]

We aren't talking about other rights. We're talking about this one. And THIS particular right is rooted in the fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments but isn't actually found in the constitution as a singular entity and wouldn't be codified until the 1960s. Guess which court case created that right in the first place? Griswold v Connecticut. Guess which one was overturned along with Roe v Wade because there's no explicit mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution? Same one.

The basis for the right which was, in part, ABSOLUTELY rooted in the idea that the because people and governments have a tendency to discriminate against you based on what you believe, then as long as you do not disclose your interests publicly, there should be no basis for discrimination. And why is this discrimination so important when NOT dealing with the government (which are nothing but glorified property protection rackets)?

Economics. Specifically, trade. That thing that mankind has been doing since before we've actually had recorded history? Whether it's bartering or seashells or labor or whatever, it's an essential part of being human, because it's how you get things you need to survive.

Again, we do not assign rights for which we cannot find a real purpose. You cannot be a functioning human being in a society without economic activity, whether you perform it or someone performs it on behalf of you.

You're flat out wrong.

[marshray]

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not against statements of the form "this right is valuable because...". But I don't like this idea that fundamental human rights must have practical justifications.

For example, I like how the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There's no attempt to justify them, just a plain statement that "GFY, obviously we have these rights".

As to privacy in particular, I don't think it's a stretch to interpret (4th am) the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" as articulating support for our modern concept of privacy.

Sure, today's corrupt politicized SCOTUS could decide to interpret it otherwise. But it seems naive to think that justification based on fear of discrimination is going to prevent that disreputable politicized SCOTUS from interpreting it to some ends (i.e. outcomes favored by the parties lavishing upon them tangible gifts), no matter how well you argue it.

So, sure, go ahead, argue for our rights on any basis you can find. I hope you succeed.

[LocalH]

The ability to violate people's privacy in the time of the Founders was much, much smaller than it is now. The Founders never could have envisioned such an all-encompassing surveillance machine as the one driving the world now. Of course they didn't codify a right to privacy. They didn't have to worry about every single group of people they interacted with to want to vacuum up every single piece of data they can.