Honestly, "privacy" is a horribly vague word to the point of being virtually useless as a safeguard against tyranny. If the House is looking to protect a right to privacy, I strongly suggest y'all take a look at the section of the Northern Bill of Rights I posted above.
Before I do anything, can you provide an example of someone taking advantage of the word "privacy"?
My concern isn't that people would abuse this right, but that the lack of a specific definition of what "privacy" means in a constitutional setting makes it easy for ill-intentioned politicians to "discover" loopholes whenever it suits their purposes. The current wording leaves everything open to interpretation - it's not clear what this right applies to, or what kinds of governmental actions it prohibits. Is electronic communication protected under this amendment? What about online forums like Atlas, where users are posting anonymously? Does privacy extend outside the four walls of your house? Are gatherings of multiple people private? Does your right to privacy extend to electronic devices, like your phone? Conceivably, the answer to all these questions could be yes, or no, or sometimes, and it's up to the relevant official to decide. That means that this "right" is highly malleable and subject to varying interpretations. That's why I think it's important to specify just what sorts of activities are private - that way, if these rights are infringed, we have a very clear case for why those actions violated the constitution, instead of vague arguments based on colloquial understandings of the word "privacy."
