[fooman]

Believe me, I am sympathetic to your points about privacy. But this case is about discovering illegal activity after a compliant of possible illegal activity.

The ruckus could have been about unconsensual S&M as far as a casual neighbor is concerned. Then we wonder why people are abused and others do nothing. Well we are taught that its none our business!

And to reciprocate your humility, I can’t accept that there is no right to privacy in the constitution. Seems like the 9th leaves it as an un-enumerated right to the people. But I bet we could get bipartisan support for privacy in an explicit amendment. Even the libertarians would cheer.

[rintense]

Oh, that's not what I meant. There IS a right to privacy. It's when people falsely misinterpret the law/Constitution to fit into their framework of what a right is- that's where I have a big problem. Does that make sense?