This is perhaps the worst thing I've ever heard anyone say ever (given that he is in the position that he's in and has the power that he has). It's obviously a ridiculous position, and is a lame attempt at justifying an unreasonable way to do business. As if Schmidt doesn't do things he wants to keep private. Privacy is a right not a privilege."If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Conservatives have wrong argued that privacy is not a right. This was the crux of the Robert Bork confirmation battle: http://faculty.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl347_philosophy_of_law/bork... Now go read what the 'wingers had to say about Bork. Scalia, Thomas and Roberts all owe their 'originalist' philosophy to a guy who believed that the constitution was written in stone in 1786 and who are we to try and adapt it to fit Google.
So are you saying there doesn't exist a constitutional right to privacy? I find myself having to agree, especially after reading that article, because there is no constitutionally explicit "right to privacy" -- only "certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities" (Justice Black, referring to the specifically delineated rights provided by the Bill of Rights). And if you are saying there doesn't exist a constitutional right to privacy (only this very judicial-activism happy push for privacy), what should we do? We all agree we enjoy our privacy, but this staunch originalist is saying it doesn't exist in our Constitution. The only protections we have come from liberal Justices but they're not, strictly speaking, constitutional. Is the alternative an amendment? What would it look like? How would you define the privacy we should all be afforded?
I'm saying originalists believe there doesn't exist a constitutional right to privacy. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I know that "the right to privacy" is not spelled out in the Bill of Rights. I've long believed that a privacy amendment would solve a whole bunch of problems. The right to privacy is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, after all. However, the very people who would need to pass said amendment are likely to be steadfastly against it.
Yes, I think the privacy advocates use the 4th and 9th amendments as Constitutional justification for protecting privacy, the 9th being especially cryptic and non-specific (and the one amendment that nobody really knows or cares about): "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What the hell are "others retained by the people"? I suppose they're whatever we agree they are. I would argue that privacy is a valuable right that shouldn't be denied us if possible. To me, the 9th (and of course, I'm no scholar on this matter, either, just an interested citizen) basically says that we can't construct any law, or condone any behavior, that abridges any fundamental human right, even if that right isn't specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments.
It's always hard to find clear and concise literature on these sorts of things but my gut feeling (haha) is that the ninth amendment doesn't have an extensive jurisprudence or case history because it's so vague. No judge could cross through that thicket without being accused of making some shit up (even though that hasn't necessarily stopped Justices before).