> This gives unlimited ability for judges to violate the privacy rights of people while stating they are not law enforcement.
See my comment above in reply to aydyn: in general, "privacy rights" do not exist in American law, and as such the judge is violating nothing.
People are always surprised to learn this, but it's the truth. There's the Fourth Amendment, but courts have consistently interpreted that very narrowly to mean your personal effects in your possession are secure against seizure specifically by the government. It does not apply to data you give to third-parties, under the third-party doctrine. There are also various laws granting privacy rights in specific domains, but those only apply to the extent of the law in question; there is no constitutional right to privacy and no broad law granting it either.
Until that situation changes, you probably shouldn't use the term "privacy rights" in the context of American law: since those don't really exist, you'll just end up confusing yourself and others.
See my comment above in reply to aydyn: in general, "privacy rights" do not exist in American law, and as such the judge is violating nothing.
People are always surprised to learn this, but it's the truth. There's the Fourth Amendment, but courts have consistently interpreted that very narrowly to mean your personal effects in your possession are secure against seizure specifically by the government. It does not apply to data you give to third-parties, under the third-party doctrine. There are also various laws granting privacy rights in specific domains, but those only apply to the extent of the law in question; there is no constitutional right to privacy and no broad law granting it either.
Until that situation changes, you probably shouldn't use the term "privacy rights" in the context of American law: since those don't really exist, you'll just end up confusing yourself and others.