[wvenable]

You're conflating the existence of specific privacy protections in narrow legal domains with a generalized, enforceable right to privacy which doesn't exist in US law. The Constitution recognizes a substantive right to privacy, but only in carefully defined areas like reproductive choice, family autonomy, and intimate conduct, and critically only against state actors. Citing Griswold, Lawrence, and related cases does not establish a sweeping privacy right enforceable against private companies.

Common law requires a high threshold of offensiveness and are adjudicated on a case-by-case in individual jurisdictions. They offer only remedies and not a proactive right to control your data.

The original point, that there is no general right in the US to have your interactions with a company remain private, still stands. That's not a denial of all privacy rights but a recognition that US law fails to provide comprehensive privacy protection.

[tiahura]

The statement I was referring to is:

“As others have said, in the United States this is, legally, completely correct: there is no right to privacy in American law.”

That is an incorrect statement. The common law torts I cited can apply in the context of a business transaction, so your statement is also incorrect.

If you’re strawman is that in the US there’s no right to privacy because there’s no blanket prohibition on talking about other people, and what they’ve been up to, then run with it.

[wvenable]

> The common law torts I cited can apply in the context of a business transaction, so your statement is also incorrect.

I completely disagree. Yes, the Prosser privacy torts exist: intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure, false light, and appropriation. But they are highly fact-specific, hard to win, rarely litigated, not recognized in all jurisdictions, and completely reactive -- you get harmed first, maybe sue later!

They are utterly inadequate to protect people in the modern data economy. A website selling your purchase history? Not actionable. A company logging your AI chats? Not intrusion. These torts are not a privacy regime - they are scraps. Also when we're talking about basic privacy rights, we just as concerned with mundane material not just "highly offensive" material that the torts would apply to.

[tiahura]

Because in the US we value freedom and particularly freedom of speech.

If don’t want the grocery store telling people you buy Coke, don’t shop there.

[wvenable]

So you've entirely given up your argument about the legal right to privacy involving private businesses?

[tiahura]

no, i'm saying that in many contexts it is. If for example, someone hacked Safeway's store and downloaded your data, they'd be in trouble civilly and criminally. If you don't want safeway to sell your data, deal with that yourself.

[wvenable]

That actually reinforces my point: there is no affirmative right to privacy, only reactive liability structures. If someone hacks Safeway, they’re prosecuted not because you have a constitutional or general right to privacy, but because they violated a criminal statute (e.g. the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). That's not a privacy right -- it's a prohibition on unauthorized access.

As for Safeway selling your data: you're admitting that it's on the individual to opt out, negotiate, or avoid the transaction which just highlights the absence of a rights-based framework. The burden is entirely on the consumer to protect themselves, and companies can exploit that asymmetry unless narrowly constrained by statute (and even then, often with exceptions and opt-outs).

What you're describing isn't a right to privacy -- it's a lack of one, mitigated only by scattered laws and personal vigilance. That is precisely the problem.