Why is California Privacy Law SOOO much stronger than Federal Law?
(c) 2026 David j Dilworth
1. Our Federal Rights are “Duck-taped” on as Amendments.
Our Federal Rights, like our Right to Free Speech and Prohibition on Search & Seizure, were not in the original US Constitution.
We can thank two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, for refusing to Sign on to the US Constitution until it included a Bill of Rights.
In sharp contrast, California Inalienable Privacy Rights are in the First Paragraph of California’s Constitution. Article 1 Section 1 along with Free Speech. When California voters adopted this in 1972 it was the first Privacy Right in any State Constitution.
Do you Prefer being on the side of Legal Defense or Offense ?
Shield or Sword – or Both
2. Our Federal Rights are only for Criminal Defense; a shield. You cannot use federal Rights as a Sword in a Civil Lawsuit, because they are Not Self-Executing.
Until Congress passes laws specific to each right, or (my favorite) a blanket enactment of all our federal Rights, we cannot sue anyone for violating our federal Rights. Our Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an example of Congress passing laws to let you sue someone for violating your Civil Rights. There’s also the Privacy Act of 1974. (https://lawparagraphs.com/privacy-act-of-1974-violations/)
Why ? Because
California Rights are Self-Executing !
Self-Executing Rights do not need any implementing laws. They can be used for Criminal Defense And used to sue anyone, including California governments, for violating any of our California Rights.
This means we do not need a specific law to sue someone or some agency for violating your right against Illegal Surveillance, Stalking, Personal Data theft by police or privately, or your Right to be Left Alone, etc.
But Federal police can conduct Illegal Surveillance, Stalking, Personal Data theft – and you can not sue to stop that harm – without a specific law forbidding each outrageous conduct.
3. California’s Supreme Court stood up to protect us from Surveillance writing “the accelerating encroachment on personal freedom and security caused by increased surveillance and data collection activity in contemporary society”
This Supreme Court recognition of increased surveillance was in 1975 ! ! !
White v. Davis, 533 P.2d 222, 233 (Cal. 1975)
4. Privacy Informational Rights vs Autonomy Privacy
Informational Privacy is exercising control over access to, and authority to delete, Your personal information: Think FacePlant profiles, Gaargle Searches and Your Health information.
Autonomy Privacy is making decisions about your life without public exposure; like a decision to use Birth Control, Abortion or same-sex marriage.
We have no legal Informational Privacy at the federal Level, without a specific Federal law like HIPPA protecting our Health information. And Congress is notorious for exempting the worst violators from laws they create.
But California’s Privacy Right gives you broad Informational Privacy and Autonomy Privacy.
Who wouldn’t want that for themselves and their family ?
5. One Vital Privacy Idea California’s Supreme Court got wrong.
There is no stronger law than Constitutional law. California Legislator-created and Governor-signed laws may not weaken or nullify California Constitutional provisions.
Which brings us to –
There is No Constitutional Right to Surveillance !
Federal or California: There is No Constitutional Right to Surveillance.
But it turns out a Bad California Supreme Court can, and has, overturned clear, plain language of our California Constitution.
My argument is that the clear, plain language of our California Constitution gives us Privacy Rights, but there is No Competing Constitutional Surveillance Right.
Until such a Constitutional Surveillance Right appears, Privacy must always beat Surveillance – hands down ! Period !
Nicole Ozer gives a good over view of what the California Supremes got wrong in her article “It’s Time to Revitalize California’s Constitutional Right to Privacy.”
In 1975 Four “Conservative” California Supreme Court Justices (Lucas, with Panelli, Arabian and Baxter) made a blatantly Wrong Decision in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. They outrageously and wrongly decided that your voter-approved Constitutional Privacy Right was outweighed by common law.
To violate your privacy they decided your claim must jump over two new hurdles created out of thin air: Violation of your Privacy must be “Serious” (absurdly vague) and you should have no expectation of privacy. Both hurdles trample all over California voter’s will in enacting our Right to Privacy.
Thankfully Justice Stanley Mosk fiercely dissented and laid out an authentic path of our Right to Privacy.
POPSIS intends to litigate this Supreme Court “error” and get our Privacy Rights back on track.
# # #
Now, You are better informed about your California Rights than almost all California Law School graduates – because most California Law Schools Do Not Teach California Constitutional Rights !
They only teach Federal Constitutional Rights.
Update: Stanford Law School and UC Berkeley may now have classes that touch on the legal principles illuminated by this article.