The word "Privacy" leaves me cold.
The concept of "Privacy" makes my heart race. It seems so fundamental to democracy that I can't figure out why people could even argue it. The problem is that they do - or rather, they argue against Privacy as a proxy for something else. "Privacy," as the word is used in the legal sense, sounds like jargon. No matter how precise, jargon can always be painted as abstract and alien to those who are unfamiliar with its actual meaning. All it takes is a little verbal trickery to transfer confusion abut the term to confusion about the topic.
The word "Privacy" doesn't even appear in the Constitution. But the concept pervades it. The concept appears more explicitly in another document - a document of founding principles - in one of the most stunning sentences in political history.
The document, as you've probably guessed, is
The Declaration of Independence, where we find the right to privacy in the second sentence.
...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Emphasis mine, of course.
This is the sentence Americans know. It is the sentence they'd attempt to recite if you asked them what sentence America was founded on. It makes the heart skip a beat. (The next time you meet a strict constructionist, corner them into saying whether this sentence does or does not apply to interpreting the constitution.)
Why this sentence? Liberty cannot exist without Privacy.
Let's look at definitions for the terms as used in law. From Merrian-Webster's Dictionary of Law [1996]:
Main Entry: lib·er·ty
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
1 a : freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others b : enjoyment of the rights enjoyed by others in a society free of arbitrary or unreasonable limitation or interference
Also from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law [1996]
Main Entry: right of privacy
: the right of a person to be free from intrusion into or publicity concerning matters of a personal nature[;] called also right to privacy
Remove the right to be "free from intrusion into ... matters of a personal nature" (privacy) and you lose the right to freedom from "interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice" (liberty).
Since "Privacy"'s legal meaning and common usage don't align, I propose using "the right to personal freedom" or "the right to freedom from government intrusion". These reduced-jargon phrases describe the concept to those outside of the legal realm, and align well with the legal definition of "the Right to Privacy."
The clearest example I know of a country without the right to Privacy is China. Imagine what laws this Congress would enact if it had the power to enact "one child" legislation. It is that power that we fight against when we fight for Privacy. It is that power we fight against when we fight for Personal Freedom.
[Edit] Changed title to reflect core argument.