SCOTUS begs to differ, in Griswold v. Connecticut. So do various state laws.

It's a pretty big stretch to say that location and financial data is protected by a right to marital privacy.

It would be odd to think marital privacy the only right to privacy the Constitution establishes.

The constitution can't be used in this case to support a right to privacy. The argument for privacy here is that Maine's law doesn't infringe on the 1st amendment.

A case about access to contraception has nothing to do with free speech at all, nor is it even the same kind of "privacy." They're two different concepts, with the same word.

Griswold v. Connecticut established that the Constitution has some inherent rights to privacy. I cite it as you claim those rights don’t exist.

The 4th amendment established inherent rights to privacy!

The 4th amendment restricts the ability of the government to infringe on your privacy. It does not restrict telecom companies in any way whatsoever.

Then why are you saying:

> There isn't a similar existence of privacy rights.

upthread?!

It's actually the seizure clause. The government can't seize your duck without a warrant, and that means if somebody's speech about you weighs as much as a duck, they've seized a duck's weight in information about you (measuring as if it's written on constitution-grade parchment), which violates your right to privacy as implied by the 4th amendment.