Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!cyberoid
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Privacy of personal data (was Re: Personal Privacy Violations)
Message-ID: <14282@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 12 Jan 91 23:55:51 GMT
References: <1991Jan10.204101.29296@hoss.unl.edu> <5776@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> <1991Jan12.180934.1314@looking.on.ca>
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Lines: 16


In many states, like California, the right of privacy is included in
constitutional clauses in a position (usually in the preamble) that
gives them supremacy over press rights.  The right of privacy in
CA, for example, is stated as an inalienable human right; the freedom
of the press is included in a subordinate clause defining the 
relationship between the legislature and the press.  Although this
relation is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, the
factors that have gone into the U.S. Supreme Court's findings for a
"privacy" right are similarly in a preeminent position.

The situation is slightly different Canada, which may explain your
confusion, Brad.  Canadian jurisprudence is more directly evolved
from British common law, which is less explicit in this regard.

Bob Jacobson