zlacker

>>walter+(OP)
Were we ever supposed to be anon on the internet?

>>2OEH8e+Bm
Yes. Implicitly.

Ex Wikipedia: Over 186 constitutions mention the right to privacy

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitutions?key=privacy

Oh, and sniper: because the right to privacy will be defended by a number of individuals with radical violence, as you should know if you ever visited the world, so evidently I should not even need to proceed from «Yes. Implicitly».

So contextually: if it were not anonymous, it would not be used (but by a specific class of entities).

>>mdp202+Kq
Possibly worth pointing out that a constitutional right to privacy no longer exists in the US after SCOTUS nullified Roe v. Wade. They were willing to throw the baby, the bathwater and the bathtub out for that one.

>>krapp+rr
The Constitution of the USA still contains the IV Amendment in the Bill of Rights, I suppose:

> 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

>>mdp202+Mr
This is not a right to privacy or anonymity; privacy is a predicate of the 4th Amendment, not a positive assertion; it governs when the government can conduct searches.

>>tptace+Is
It states that people have a right about their private records («papers») not being searched - unless necessary. So it states that the normal state is said privacy, and breach is the exception.

>>mdp202+Bu
You’re both correct— tptacek is correct in that the 4th amendment is constrained to government search and seizure and there is no positive assertion regarding privacy written into the constitution. But you’re also correct in principle, as the strongest positive assertion regarding privacy (in general) from the U.S. federal gov’t originates in the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut from 1965, and Justice William O. Douglas’ reference to privacy as a right inferred primarily as ‘penumbras’ extending from the more specific guarantees of the first 5 amendments.

Edited to Add: All bets are off now, as the court has explicitly reversed stance on this as it regards abortion, which leaves a big precedent for expanding future privacy “exceptions”.

>>ldayle+VD
I don't think the future is all that bright for the privacy penumbra theory of US Con Law. I'm not a lawyer or a Con Law scholar but my understanding is that modern courts have recast the outcome of Griswold into one involving procedural and not substantive rights; of liberty and due process, not of positive rights emanating broadly from the text.