The basic assumption of your article is that Privacy rights are unalienable. They are clearly not. Here the definitions found for the meaning of unalienable (or inalienable) rights.
UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being sold.
Privacy Rights can clearly be transferred, sold and surrendered.
Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer: as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable."
Unalienable... Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental.
-Black's Inalienable rights.
Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
For me, also with regards to Rusty's article, the question remains, what the real difference between unalienable rights, natural rights and socially constructed rights are.
Unalienable rights are the ones which are intertwined with our existence and therefore thought of to be given to us by the Creator in a way that they CAN'T be controlled by us.
Basically, because we are created without our own consent, the right to life is to me a true unalienable right (if we live without having given consent to it, the fact that we should live is not to be taken away in the intention of the creator). Of course we can control our existence and prematurely end our life, if we give consent to it. I see therefore a flaw in the definitions of unalienable rights.
I am getting into conflict believing that the right to liberty is unalienable in the above given definitions. Though we are created equal (and we are equal at the moment of birth), we are definitely not equal the minute after our birth and the fate of our existence with regards to our liberty is the consequence of our socially constructed and therefore alienable rights. All rights we construct are alienable. The only right I would see truly unalienable is the right to life.
The crux of the definitions given for unalienable is that people define it in dependency of the word "consent". If you say unalienable rights are those which can't be transferred, sold or surrendered without the *consent* of the person possessing those rights, than those rights are clearly transferrable and alienable, the moment I consent to it. (I can consent to give up my right to life and my right to liberty). If alienable rights are those you are given by your creator through your mere existence, then those rights shouldn't be dependent on our consent.
I have a major problem to understand the true meaning of natural or unalienable rights. To me these are those which are not socially constructed. Under this assumption only the right to life is unalienable, because we have no control of our births, we have no choice to say no to us being born. But that's a story in itself.
Clearly though Privacy rights don't belong there.