The US doesn’t either. Whatever federal privacy protections that exist in the US are the result of Supreme Court interpretation, the most famous of which (Roe v Wade) was just overturned (Dobbs).
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In addition to the 4th amendment, don't forget also the Privacy implications of the 1st amendment (free speech/establishment of religion are in part privacy concerns), 3rd amendment (it was a violation of privacy as much as home ownership), 5th amendment (avoidance of self-incrimination is a privacy issue), the 9th amendment (which tried to make sure that Congress and the Courts knew that the Bill of Rights wasn't the "Bill of All Rights", but the "Bill of Some Rights relevant to right this moment").
Half of the "Bill of Rights" amendments touch on Privacy in some way. Privacy can be construed as the main right defining the "Bill of Rights". I cannot understand the hypocrisy of the "originalists" (many of whom have been placed into Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, as a deliberate fraud against the voter majority under the "McConnell Plan") that believe the one single 2nd Amendment is a "right to unregulated gun ownership" when there's a "regulation clause" in the original language (!) but refuse to believe there is a "Right to Privacy" in the Bill of Rights when half of it seems so clearly about Privacy. It just doesn't use that word, perhaps because it seemed obvious at the time.
It’s true the 4th amendment protects against ‘unreasonable’ search from (only) state actors, and that this can be construed as a right to a specific, and, it turns out, a very conditional type of privacy. Other amendments, like the 1st and 5th, touch on other aspects of privacy as well.
However, specific acts not mentioned in the Constitution, like the use of contraceptives between married couples or same sex marriage, have also been ruled to be protected under rights to privacy inferred from the 14th amendment, and these rights are now in legal limbo after Dobbs.
It’s worth pointing out that the word ‘privacy’ never appears in the US Constitution, and there certainly is nothing resembling an explicit ‘Right to Privacy’ as I think was claimed by the original poster.
I'm not sure what your point here is, really. Do you interpret this to guarantee a right to privacy? Because if so, you should head to a law school and talk to the constitutional lawyers who have been arguing about this for ages.
Yeah, that paragraph isn't worth the paper its written on if congress and the courts conspire to ignore it. We de facto do not have privacy in the USA.
