Comment: actually, no, if you understand that privacy

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It is misleading to say (see in situ)

actually, no, if you understand that privacy

is an extension of private property rights.

You only have right to YOUR native property (your body) or justly acquired property. So it doesn't "depend."

Suppose if Walter wants to be uberly nitpicky, he can, in absurdum, argue that if you were out walking in public normally whereby you merely exposing your face and others seeing, it would be a privacy violation, if it were a right. But I'd rebut that by not covering one's face and walking out in public, you're consenting and allowing others to see it. So there's no privacy violation when you're exposing yourself in public, by your own consenting volition.

But if privacy weren't a right, then anyone in public may physically invade your body, for the sake of exposing you, without your consent.

It comes down to do you own your own physical body and private property? That's all what privacy is.

If it weren't a right, then you should be open to being surveiled; if it's not a right, then where's the violation?

Privacy = Extension of private property.

It's what YOU choose to keep from others. If you cannot keep something from others, you never owned that you do not want exposed to others, to begin with, no?

Just like any other right: you cannot violate a right, if it isn't a right, no?

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul