From: grendel@netaxs.com (Michael Handler)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 94 15:31:18 PDT
To: adwestro@ouray.Denver.Colorado.EDU (Alan Westrope)
Subject: Re: Keep Out--The Journal of Electronic Privacy
In-Reply-To: <cZZyjaa0iQnI065yn@ouray.denver.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <199406052231.SAA07719@access.netaxs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> Odd, but my copy of the Constitution (w/amendments) doesn't even contain
> the word "privacy," let alone any mention of a "right to privacy."  (*Damn*
> these variorum editions!)  There is the Fourth Amendment, of course, but
> the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is not
> synonymous with the right to privacy, IMO.
> 
> I believe it was in Katz v. U.S. (1967) that the Supreme Court first
> enunciated the doctrine of a "reasonable expectation of privacy."  It's
> interesting that it took the advent of telecommunications to bring this
> issue to the fore -- Katz was a wiretapping case.  Of course,

	I was told/taught/have read that _Griswold v. Connecticut_ 
(1965?) was a key case in defining the "Constitutional Right to Privacy." 
Briefly, Griswold was representing Planned Parenthood, and was 
challenging a CT law that made it illegal to give information about birth 
control to anyone except married couples. The Supremes said that this was 
an undue invasion of privacy, and that there *was* a Constitutional right 
to privacy. They neglected to specify exactly where it was, though. ;) 
However, they suggested that it was held somewhere under the Ninth Amendment.

Of course, 'assert (Mike == LAWYER);' fails during runtime. YMMV.

-- 
Michael Brandt Handler					 <grendel@netaxs.com>
Philadelphia, PA, USA	       PGP v2.6 public key via server / finger / mail
"I am iron, I am steel, nobody can touch me when I'm on the wheel"  --  Curve