While I can see how broader language can actually leave courts with even less guidance on privacy, I think any attempt at drafting the exact scope of privacy protection (either in statute or constitutional form) runs the risk of becoming quickly irrelevant in an age of rapid technological change. Creating a culture of privacy among politicians and the judiciary--along with flexible standards--may well be the best one can hope for. Even if it does mean we end up with a messy patchwork of conflicting and often irreconcilable statutes and decisions.

I'm not sure that giving privacy a constitutional monument really solves anything in the end, either. As Eben pointed out on several occasions, it's tough to have meaningful privacy protection without butting up against the first amendment. Putting privacy on the same level as free speech wouldn't make resolving that tension any easier--it's hard for a constitution or a country to simultaneously commit itself to multiple values equally when those values conflict. Perhaps some synthesis can be reached, but I'm not yet convinced.

-- AndreiVoinigescu - 11 May 2009