[AmishDude]

To put it bluntly, the 13th amendment pretty much permits anything after due process of law unless it's cruel and/or unusual.

So an "invasion of privacy" doesn't hold. But this can only apply to newly-convicted offenders because it can't be ex post facto.

[spunkets]

"this can only apply to newly-convicted offenders because it can't be ex post facto."

Attainder, or loss of rights occurs at conviction. There is no such thing as ex-post facto for them. Ex-post facto only applies to criminal law that applies to non-felons

[old republic]

So an "invasion of privacy" doesn't hold. But this can only apply to newly-convicted offenders because it can't be ex post facto.

California has an explicit right of privacy written into its state constitution, which raises questions concerning this bill's legality.

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.