From: cfrye@ciis.mitre.org (Curtis D. Frye)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 06:11:30 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Privacy != right?
Message-ID: <9311181414.AA04095@ciis.mitre.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


One element of the "right of privacy" debate I've seen is the distinction
between a "right _of_ privacy" and a "right _to_ privacy".  Linguistically,
"right _of_ privacy" == "privacy right", indicating that this particular
right would be enumerated somewhere.  In the case of a "right _to_
privacy", the concept is a bit more vague and allows the penumbral
(implied) construction given by Stanton.  

Since there is no specific mention of a "right _of_ privacy" in the
Consititution, one must fall back on the implied construction and interpret
Constitutional privacy as defined by other amendments.  What this
construction of the "right _to_ privacy" allows is for appellate courts to
weight enumerated rights as more important than implied rights.  Thus, in
the name of furthering the goals of another amendment (say #6,
speedy/public trial), the courts can limit the implied "right _to_
privacy".


Best regards,

Curtis D. Frye
cfrye@ciis.mitre.org
"If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they
 pay me and make you feel foolish."