>Another way to look at it is that people have a right to privacy, but not secrecy.
You seemed like were balancing things, then you ruined it by speaking out both sides of your mouth with that.
What you've effectively endorsed is "You have the right to privacy/secrecy as long as I don't care to look."
Everyone already has that. The entire point of a right to privacy/secrecy is to strictly corral what can be looked at/for/and how even when the People come looking.
You just threw out the entire point of the 4th Amendment there. No need for warrants, or to strictly define what the public interest is. Just define anything you're looking at as the public interest and have a party. Hell, you even threw out a workable implementation avenue of specifying that this carve out from the 4th only applies to legal fictions, which wouldsolve half your issues right there. Anything illegal would have to be done by a particular person or cohort of people outside the confines of legal fictions, meaning evidence lines should very clearly lead to individual parties; or at least until people stopped using corporate entities to do sketchy things plausibly like they do now.
That's quite dramatic. I'm drawing a distinction between private matters (things where the involved parties are both fully in the know and are the only ones impacted) and secrecy (working definition: ones with information asymmetries that don't match the impact).
This is obviously a tricky and subtle distinction, so yes, one absolutely needs the sort of power-restricting and rights-balancing apparatus that getting a warrant is an example of.
You seemed like were balancing things, then you ruined it by speaking out both sides of your mouth with that.
What you've effectively endorsed is "You have the right to privacy/secrecy as long as I don't care to look."
Everyone already has that. The entire point of a right to privacy/secrecy is to strictly corral what can be looked at/for/and how even when the People come looking.
You just threw out the entire point of the 4th Amendment there. No need for warrants, or to strictly define what the public interest is. Just define anything you're looking at as the public interest and have a party. Hell, you even threw out a workable implementation avenue of specifying that this carve out from the 4th only applies to legal fictions, which wouldsolve half your issues right there. Anything illegal would have to be done by a particular person or cohort of people outside the confines of legal fictions, meaning evidence lines should very clearly lead to individual parties; or at least until people stopped using corporate entities to do sketchy things plausibly like they do now.