>If you, like Scalia, believe that the “unenumerated rights” were those that were understood to exist at the time of the founding, then privacy isn’t one of those rights.
Scalia believed strongly in the right to privacy and privacy was certainly considered a right at the time of the constitution. I'm not sure where your source got that idea, but it's easy to document otherwise.
"A machine that sees through walls, reasoned Scalia, in order to capture the heat emanating from lamps used to grow marijuana, infringes upon individuals’ reasonable expectation of privacy, even when law enforcement is positioned outside the house."
"In United States v. Jones, probably the most important Fourth Amendment case since the 1967 decision in Katz v. United States, Scalia, writing for the majority, required the police to obtain a warrant prior to attaching a GPS tracker to a suspect’s car. While basing his opinion on narrow property grounds, Scalia rejected the government’s claim that individuals had no expectation of privacy while driving in broad daylight on city streets."
"In Florida v. Jardines, Scalia, again writing a 5-4 decision supported by three liberal justices and Justice Thomas, held that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home was, indeed, a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The consequences of Jardines, as well as other dog sniffing cases, are far broader than for just narcotics searches. They implicate suspicion-less searches by other mechanized sniffers – for example, think about keyword searches of communications contents and metadata for cybersecurity or intelligence purposes."
As I said in my post, I'm talking about a notion of "privacy" broad enough to encompass both abortion and freedom from electronic surveillance.
Scalia believed in protection from government trespass on private property. That's a sort of "privacy" but its based on property rights, which was the original understanding of the fourth amendment.
Scalia believed strongly in the right to privacy and privacy was certainly considered a right at the time of the constitution. I'm not sure where your source got that idea, but it's easy to document otherwise.
https://iapp.org/news/a/scalias-privacy-impact-will-be-felt-...
"A machine that sees through walls, reasoned Scalia, in order to capture the heat emanating from lamps used to grow marijuana, infringes upon individuals’ reasonable expectation of privacy, even when law enforcement is positioned outside the house."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html
"In United States v. Jones, probably the most important Fourth Amendment case since the 1967 decision in Katz v. United States, Scalia, writing for the majority, required the police to obtain a warrant prior to attaching a GPS tracker to a suspect’s car. While basing his opinion on narrow property grounds, Scalia rejected the government’s claim that individuals had no expectation of privacy while driving in broad daylight on city streets."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/10-1259.html
"In Florida v. Jardines, Scalia, again writing a 5-4 decision supported by three liberal justices and Justice Thomas, held that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home was, indeed, a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The consequences of Jardines, as well as other dog sniffing cases, are far broader than for just narcotics searches. They implicate suspicion-less searches by other mechanized sniffers – for example, think about keyword searches of communications contents and metadata for cybersecurity or intelligence purposes."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/11-564.html