[anigbrowl]

Based on what? There's no constitutional right to privacy, while courts have consistently expanded the scope of government powers and immunities and consistently hollowed out the Bill of Rights. It's gonna require a new legal paradigm.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> There's no constitutional right to privacy,

Being secure in my person, house, papers, and effects is my privacy in action.

[anigbrowl]

How is that working out for you? It can't stop your data being sold or grant you any kind of privacy when you appear in public (eg being filmed continuously when you leave your home).

[WarOnPrivacy]

> How is that working out for you?

Same as everyone else, not great. We've very few politicians that support the 4th Amendment in a meaningful way. Which I suppose is a reflection of voters harboring a fierce disinterest in the 4th.

And, in my estimation, all of that flows from generations of news orgs who rarely notice the 4th Amendment, nevertheless treasure it on behalf of the public.

[WarOnPrivacy]

The curious part is that for every ideological group (and Americans adore their ideological groups) that has a theoretical boogie man, 4A violations are key and core to the rise of that nemesis.

Examples are

   - bulk warrantless surveillance is critical for any aspiring anti-christ
   - a surveillance state is the largest possible government 
   - omnipresent surveillance ensures gov revenge for having guns/abortions

Yet adherents from each of those groups are super comfortable with sweeping, pervasive surveillance - the continual monitoring that captures them and their descendants for perpetual subjugation to govs/corps/etc.